How To Actually Break Up Big Tech

from the protocols,-not-platforms dept

Last week, I wrote about Elizabeth Warren's big plan to break up big tech and why I thought her plan (a) would not work and (b) was based on a fairly shocking number of factual errors. Not everyone agreed (indeed, many people have disagreed). Many of those who disagreed, though, seemed to only do so because they hate the big internet companies, and thus they seemed happy about any attack on them, no matter how pointless. Others attacked me personally, insisting that my detailed explanation of why I found Warren's plan laughably naive was really just because I "love big tech." Finally, some demanded to know what my plan would be. And while I think it's somewhat silly to imply that you cannot critique a bad plan if you can't come up with another plan (sometimes, doing nothing is the best plan), I've been meaning to write some more about this anyway, and here's a good opportunity.

Contrary to the strawman beliefs some insist I have, I am quite worried about the market power of many large companies these days, and how that might be stifling competition. As I've argued for over twenty years on this site, the single biggest driver of innovation is competition. And I want to see more competition to get more innovation. My issue is that doing so through regulatory means is fraught with significant risks -- ones that could very much do the opposite. Highly regulated industries are not known for being competitive and innovative for the most part. They tend to enable only big entities -- who can deal with the regulations -- to exist and crowd out startups. On top of that, thanks to regulatory capture and the crony nature of our political system these days, you also end up with just a few big companies who now focus on what we've referred to in the past as political innovation rather than technological or entrepreneurial innovation. It's a recipe for stagnation, not innovation and competition.

My second big concern with the plans people have been floating is that they ignore the reality of why some of the tech companies have gotten so big and so successful. For the most part, they're in highly networked industries, where it's not just "winner takes all" but in many ways size and dominance of the network is fundamental to their operation. Network effects can lead to dominant positions, for the fairly obvious reason that the bigger they are, the better they are for everyone involved. For all of Warren's talk of breaking up companies, note that she was only talking about chipping off a few of their peripheral acquisitions: not taking an axe to their core business.

And that's because she recognizes that as much as people scream to "break up big tech," there's no reasonable way to do that without making the overall offerings a lot less useful for the public. How do you break up Facebook's social network? Do you say half the world can't use it and have to use the BookFace spinoff instead? You could, of course, cleave off Instagram and Whatsapp, but that doesn't really change Facebook's overall global dominance. The reason Facebook is so powerful is that it connects the entire globe. There is no place to make a reasonable cut to split that up. Google is powerful because of its search engine. How do you break that up? Do you say for searches on topic X you use Google, but for searches on topic Y you have to use Elgoog? You could cut off Doubleclick from Google, but then you still have a massive search engine and a massive internet ads company. And while I guess you could cut off Amazon's web services piece from it store, that doesn't change the main "competition" complaint most people have about Amazon, which is the size of its footprint in e-commerce. But again, it got there not through predatory practices, but because it's so convenient and easy for most people that they actually get tremendous benefit from it.

But, that presents a dilemma. And while lots of people seem to think there are easy answers to this (just like they think there are easy answers to "content moderation") there are not. This is a really complex issue, and like nearly all super complex issues, the easy solutions tend to look appealing, while actually making everything a hell of a lot worse.

So I will make a suggestion for how I'd like to "break up" big tech, while admitting that since this is a complex topic with no easy answer, I could be wrong. But so could everyone else. And I've been digging through the details on this stuff for many years now, and I do think my plan makes the most sense. Later this year, I have a big academic paper on this topic coming out with a lot more details, so in the meantime expect a bunch more posts on this topic leading up to that.

The idea goes back to one I raised back in 2015 in the context of content moderation: that we need to move to a world of protocols, not platforms. This is the world of the earlier internet, dominated by open protocols with a variety of competitive apps built on top. Instead of Twitter, there was IRC. Instead of Reddit, there was Usenet. And you had a choice of clients and servers and could move around if you didn't like the policies of one or the other.

In the world of protocols, you still get the global connectivity benefit, but without the lockdown control and silos (and, potentially, the questionable privacy practices). In a world of protocols, there may be a global network, but you get competition at every other level. You can have competitive servers, competitive apps and user interfaces, competitive filters, competitive business models, and competitive forms of data management. If you don't like how one app provider handles privacy, you move to another -- but because you're using the same protocol, you don't lose everything you're doing with it, you're just entering through a new door that you like better. If you don't like the way one provider handles content moderation, you change it or move to another.

And, yes, I noted competition at the business model level as well -- because that's important. We could see lots of interesting attempts at creating different services with different business models that go beyond the limited options (pay with your data, freemium, advertising, etc.) today. One option might be in the form of cryptocurrency or token tied to the protocol. While I can already hear half of you rolling your eyes, this is a model that is at least worth exploring. A cryptocurreny or token tied to a protocol takes away much of the incentive for the really terrible business models everyone complains about. You don't need to spy on everyone if just getting more usage in general increases the value of the currency. And encouraging business models that don't require collecting data on everyone is something we should celebrate, not mock. But, cryptocurrency isn't the only such solution either. I've been playing around with a few attempts at new protocol-based systems these days that purposely eschew the cryptocurrency/token model, and are exploring other models instead. The point is that there are other ways of making this work, and more options is better.

However, if we were in a world where the major services and functions we used online were protocols instead of platforms, it would move the power and control out to the ends of the network, rather than centralizing it on the servers of a few giant companies. We'd still get the benefits of the network effects of the systems, but without the centralized control. We'd still be able to get innovation at various levels, but without relying on a single entity to determine what's best. We'd still get the convenience of powerful services, but without the opaque decision making of a single entity. It's an approach that could actually work.

That still leaves the question of how do we get there from here. And there are a lot of challenges in that. But I don't think declaring large platforms as "platform utilities" gets us any closer to that vision -- and if anything seems to drive us away from it. I'll be writing some more posts on how we get towards a world of protocols instead of platforms, and the many hurdles in the way, in the coming weeks and months. However, there are two key approaches to making it happen: either bottom up or top down. And both could work -- but both could be difficult.

The bottom up approach is people designing new protocols from scratch and building a new userbase. That presents a huge number of challenges in terms of building up the userbase, but it's not impossible. New startups pop on the scene all the time, and some of them even succeed. And I already know of at least 6 or 7 attempts at building these kinds of protocols from scratch. And while they're all fairly small, some are building up at least some traction and are interesting to follow and experiment with. The benefit to this approach is you have no legacy to deal with, making things easier to design and the entire setup more nimble. The cons, obviously, are the lack of a userbase and the basic "empty room" problem: how do you get someone to use a social application when there's nothing to do there and no one to connect with?

The "top down" approach would be to convince an existing internet giant to move towards such a world. It's unlikely that any company today would agree to flip the switch entirely and open up their platform into an open protocol. But I would argue that it's not as far out and unrealistic an idea as many assume. In the last six months, I've had in-depth conversations with four large internet companies about this approach, and they were surprisingly more open to at least considering what it would mean than I initially expected. And while I may go into more detail in later posts, I'll give three quick reasons why the big tech firms may actually decide it makes sense to give up their silos in the long run:

1. It gets them away from proposals like Warren's to "break up" their business, which they know would create a giant mess. By opening up their core code for anyone to use and pushing the power out to the ends of the network, the companies are effectively "breaking themselves up.
2. It takes them off the hook for all of the platform liability that is getting dumped on them these days. There are all sorts of competing and impossible demands on these platforms concerning how they moderate content, with tons of people being upset no matter what decision is made, and various people and (especially) politicians now looking to dump massive liability on the platforms themselves. If they turn their system into a protocol, they actually get rid of much of that headache. There will still be questions about content moderation, but it becomes a very different problem -- one to where there can be many different approaches, with competition at the filter level. We didn't used to blame email providers for spam, but thanks to the open protocols of email, it allowed all sorts of innovative spam filtering services to spring up. Given how much of a headache content moderation and platform liability has become of late -- and the fact it's likely to become an even bigger headache over time -- at some point, companies are going to realize an open protocols approach is a solution to that problem.
3. The possibility of new business models. This is important. Lots of people insist that no giant platform would willingly give up so much control, because it's entirely antithetical to business models built off of collecting all the data. And that's true. But, that's why I'm eager to see how new business models shake out in this space, because it might lessen the "we collect all your data" business model reliance and open up new opportunities that could even be more lucrative (especially if they create opportunities where people start abandoning services that don't respect their privacy).

There still are plenty of reasons why the big platforms are unlikely to do this in the near future (and I'm pretty sure a clueless Wall St. would punish any company that tried), but as various trends continue to move along, it may become more and more appealing.

Notice that all of that could very well happen without a massive policy intervention from the government. However, there are certainly policy ideas that could help move this along a lot faster. Of course, moving these policy proposals forward would require a more detailed understanding of how technology and technology innovation really works, because the key isn't enforcing breakups or trying to codify "fairness" guidelines with new rules -- it's taking away some of the existing legal and regulatory tools that make it easy and appealing to build vertically-integrated walled gardens, which aren't always obvious to people who aren't immersed in the tech policy space since they are presented as having other purposes:

1. Get rid of most patents (if we're talking real antitrust, we'd start by getting rid of these government-granted monopolies). Perhaps you could start with "software" ones, though defining what is a "software" patent is hard enough. Patents hinder competition and would create huge problematic thickets in a world of protocols where we want widespread competition at every other level. Without patent thickets and patent trolls, we'd see a lot more competition, especially in taking different approaches to providing interfaces and filters for the same kinds of content.
2. Dump the ridiculous CAFC ruling on API copyrights and make it clear that there is not copyright on interfaces, meaning that you could actually have much more interoperability and people building new systems to connect to third party products.
3. Get rid of Section 1201 of the DMCA and its anti-circumvention rules. Again, this blocks competition and interoperability. Indeed, Section 1201 is a huge barrier to this kind of future, in that it would allow companies to effectively block out competitive third party services through "technological protection measures." Without 1201, it would make it much easier for almost anyone to create a new competitive interface for an existing protocol-based service.
4. Make sure that full encryption is supported as a fundamental right of end users. This becomes important, as a protocol-based system should also lead to a booming new market for databanks that will store your encrypted data, giving you total control over it and who it is shared with (and for what purposes). But if there are mandated backdoors or some other crap, you completely destroy such a market. Encryption makes this possible.
5. Get the SEC to stop thinking of cryptocurrency as just a financial tool and to recognize it's something entirely different. Sure, you need them to deal with the out-and-out scams, but as it stands right now, the SEC is talking about crazy ideas like how any crypto system should need to go through "clinical trials" like drugs. Ideas like that would simply snuff out any possibility of the above ever happening. People don't realize how much of this future may be held back by a myopic SEC who is viewing all of this through a single lens.

There's more, but those steps would open up a lot of opportunity for a protocols-based system to take hold. And when it really happens, no one's going to worry about "breaking up" big tech anymore, because it won't even be necessary.

Filed Under: big tech, competition, copyright, elizabeth warren, encryption, end users, filters, innovation, interoperability, patents, platforms, protocols
Companies: facebook, google

More Copyright Policy Should Be As Boring As This Supreme Court Decision

from the make-copyright-boring-again dept

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously last Monday in Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, a copyright case that hinged on whether the "registration" of a work—which, by statute, must precede most kinds of infringement lawsuits—happens when the author sends in their application, or whether it happens when the Copyright Office makes a determination and sends back a certificate. There was a circuit split on the issue, in which some courts had gone with the "application approach," and others had gone with the "registration approach," and legal experts were divided on the question.

As of last Monday it is resolved. The Supreme Court went with the "registration approach" and said that unless you're subject to one of the handful of statutory carve-outs you must wait until the Copyright Office does its thing before you can sue.

The Supreme Court decided correctly, for what it's worth -- as Mike wrote about earlier. But, as even a dedicated copyright nerd like your humble author must admit, it's a pretty boring question. Copyright law is a field where small changes can have profound effects on people's lives, where de facto speech policies can be shaped, and where new technologies and media can be formally blessed or condemned to utter oblivion. But it's also a field of industrial regulation, cobbled together in large part by technocrats with domain expertise figuring out what works for all the parties in the room. To its credit, Fourth Estate is a case that limits its impact largely to that latter area.

But the fact that one body of law must do both things is the source of a lot of headache and heartache. Writing effective policy is hard, even when you're not trying to write a single rule that governs both billion dollar studio contracts and comments on a blog. The consequences can be extreme, as Cory Doctorow once explained: "A funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century: copyright policy ceased to exist. Because every copyright policy that we make has a seismic effect on the Internet, and because you can’t regulate copying without regulating the Internet." And of course, "as we make the transition from a world where everything we do includes an online component to a world where everything we do requires an online component, it’s becoming the case that there’s no such thing as 'Internet policy' – there’s just policy."

But it's neither inevitable nor accidental that copyright touches every part of our lives. It's helpful to really break it down here: copyright is an enumerated bundle of restrictions that apply to things called "works."

Doctorow's argument is about the first half of that expression. He elaborated in another column: because everything we do with computers (and especially networked computers) involves observable acts of making copies, copyright touches nearly every use of a work. Uses that once went unregulated are now swept up in the bundle of rights because they involve a copy. There are big commercial examples of this, like how video rental used to be an act of moving a cartridge or a disc from place to place and now it's a licensed act of making copies. But there are also a million little examples of this we encounter every day, from checking out books at the library to sharing a funny picture with friends to listening to our favorite music.

So that's how the first half of the expression went awry; what was once a limited set of exclusive rights is now a mechanism to regulate all sorts of uses of things called "works." That would be bad enough. But the real problem lies in the second half, in terms of what gets called a "work."

That too used to be an enumerated list. The first U.S. copyright law covered maps, charts, and books. Over the years more and more categories were added, but the real shift was more fundamental. It happened, at least in the U.S., in 1976, when the overhauled law changed copyright from a system that was opt-in to one where participation was mandatory. Works were previously only subject to copyright restrictions if the author went through "formalities,"—namely, putting a copyright notice on the work and sending in a registration to the Copyright Office. The 1976 Act removed that hurdle. Overnight, that changed the character of copyright from a regulatory system that applied to a handful of professionals consciously participating in it, to one that controlled nearly every utterance and scribble that got fixed in a tangible medium.

That's the one-two punch. First, through law: applying copyright coverage to basically everything. Then, through technology: expanding the regulated uses to basically all of them.

It's a bad situation, and it's that part that motivates people like Doctorow to take pursue a life of activism. With few exceptions, most people passionate about copyright reform care most about the consequences of copyright as an everything policy, and less so about the nitty-gritty of copyright as industrial regulation.

Which is part of the reason why, to bring it back to Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, the Supreme Court decision is both correct and (mostly) boring. Correct, in part, because actual litigation is something that does not and should not apply to most human beings interacting with copyrighted works, and so it's good for that to be conditioned on opt-in registration. Boring, in part, because it is (mostly) not about the side of copyright that affects blog comments, but instead the side that underpins billion dollar contracts.

Copyright policy has, for decades now, labored under the fiction that there’s no distinction between the boring parts and the scary parts of the law. It’s a good thing to remember there’s a difference.

Filed Under: boring, copyright, impact, innovation, policy, registration, scotus, supreme court
Companies: fourth estate, wall-street.com

NZ Study Yet Again Concludes That Piracy Is A Function Of Price And Ease Of Access

from the no-kidding dept

With rates of copyright infringement fluctuating year by year, and country by country, the end result is a debate that goes on as how to best keep rates trending downward. One side of this argument urges a never ending ratcheting up of enforcement efforts, with penalties and repercussions for infringement becoming more and more severe. The other side of the argument suggests that when content is made available in a way that is both convenient and reasonably priced, piracy rates will drop. A decent number of studies have been done that show the latter is the actual answer in this argument, including a study done last summer, which showed innovative business models fare far better than enforcement efforts.

Yet it seems it's going to take a compounding series of these studies to get the point across, so it's worth highlighting yet another study that has come out of New Zealand that concludes that piracy rates are a function of pricing and ease of access to content.

According to a new study commissioned by New Zealand telecoms group Vocus Group NZ and conducted in December 2018, this enhanced availability is having a positive effect.

“Legitimate streaming content providers are achieving what was impossible for Hollywood to get right: they are stamping out piracy by making available the shows people want to enjoy at reasonable cost and with maximum convenience,” Vocus announced this morning.

The company believes that “piracy is dying a natural death” as more locals choose to access content legitimately, via legal services that are both accessible and easier to use than pirate options.

“In short, the reason people are moving away from piracy is that it’s simply more hassle than it’s worth,” says Taryn Hamilton, Consumer General Manager at Vocus Group. “The research confirms something many internet pundits have long instinctively believed to be true: piracy isn’t driven by law-breakers, it’s driven by people who can’t easily or affordably get the content they want.”

We internet pundits have also speculated in past discussions that piracy rates probably have some sort of natural floor to them. In other words, rates aren't going to be 0% and it would be unreasonable both to expect them to be, or to attempt to conjure such fantasy rates into existence through legislative efforts. Instead, content providers need to figure out the sweet spot in pricing and ease of access that reaches or approaches that natural floor. Once they have done so, the job is complete. And, rather than having to worry about which enforcement effort to attempt next, content makers can spend their time instead both creating more content and counting all of their money.

And, as Vocus points out, this is already beginning to occur organically.

“The big findings are that whilst about half of people have pirated some content in their lives, the vast majority no longer do so because of the amount of paid streaming sites that they have access to,” Hamilton added in a video interview with NZHerald.

Indeed, the company’s study shows that 11% of consumers now obtain copyrighted content via illegal streaming platforms, with around 10% downloading infringing content via torrent and similar services.

“Generally the survey has said that the vast minority of people are undertaking piracy – it’s just too hard. People prefer to pay for good quality, cheap, legal content, so we think that’s the best way forward,” Hamilton said.

That convenience is the "RtB" portion of the Cwf+RtB equation. Convenience is worth paying for, as demonstrated by thousands of people that are demonized as just wanting something for free, but who nevertheless subscribe to all kinds of content services and otherwise buy all kinds of content. It's a contradiction worth noticing, assuming that creators want payment above control.

Meanwhile, Hollywood's New Zealand representatives instead want to pretend that none of this data even exists.

In January 2018, the Motion Picture Distributors’ Association, which represents the major Hollywood studios in New Zealand, said that “nothing” can be done to tackle piracy in the country other than site-blocking. Vocus, however, is opposed to this type of action.

That's the kind of lazy attitude only government lobbying could allow. In the real world, there is a great deal that Hollywood could do to tackle piracy, if only they were willing to try.

Filed Under: access, convenience, copyright, innovation, licensed services, price, studies

Techdirt Podcast Episode 194: Ninja Future, With Gary Shapiro

from the moving-forward dept

Today, Mike is at the opening of the Consumer Technology Association's CES 2019 show — which means we'll have one of our CES post-mortem podcasts coming up soon! But before that, for this first episode of 2019, we've got a discussion with CTA CEO Gary Shapiro, whose new book Ninja Future takes a look at how people and businesses are dealing with innovation and rapid technological change.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

Filed Under: ces, gary shapiro, innovation, podcast
Companies: cta

It's Been 50 Years: Take Some Time This Weekend To Watch Doug Engelbart's Mother Of All Demos

from the history-in-the-making dept

Normally, on the weekend, we look back at what we wrote about on Techdirt five, ten and fifteen years ago, but I'm going to pre-empt at least a bit of that with this post. Ten years ago, we wrote about the 40th anniversary of the famous and iconic "Mother of All Demos" by Doug Engelbart on December 9th, 1968. A little over five years ago, we wrote about it again, unfortunately on the occasion of Engelbart's passing.

But, Sunday will now mark the 50th anniversary of the demo, and there's a very impressive looking Symposium about it happening at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California.

It's interesting, in Silicon Valley, how much disdain some have for the past. After all, it's here that we're always talking about inventing the future. Engelbart's demo, 50 years ago, was exactly that. Before even the idea of a graphical user interface for a computer, or the concept of a wider internet, was conceived of, Engelbart was literally demoing a ton of ideas, products, concepts and services that we all use regularly today. Even the demo itself (let alone what he was demoing) was somewhat historic, as the demo showed what was happening on his computer on-screen, but part of it was done via teleconferencing and video sharing (again before most people even had the foggiest idea what that could mean). It demonstrated, for the first time, ideas like the computer mouse, a word process, windows, a graphical user interface, computer graphics, hypertext linking, collaborative editing, version control, dynamic linking and more.

I watch the entire 90 minutes every few years, and it's amazing how inspiring it is. How miraculous it is. Every time we link to it, it ends up moving around or appearing in different chunks online, but the Doug Engelbart Institute now has it in three separate parts (each about 30 minutes) on YouTube, so I'll post that version here:

Or, if you really don't want to watch the entire thing, there's a nicely done "interactive version" that breaks it down into sections and sub-sections, so you can just watch the clips that are of most interest to you (though, I still recommend watching the entire thing for context).

Part of what's so inspiring about the demo, of course, is that we're watching it in retrospect. We now know what transpired over the next 50 years. If none of what Engelbart had presented became common, the demo would probably just be seen as quirky nonsense, a la predictions of flying cars and moon bases. But, that's not what happened at all. Instead, we know that watching Engelbart's demo is watching real history in action.

It's watching the impossible, the magical, become reality. It's the very thing that has made Silicon Valley so much fun for the past 50 years. Making the impossible not just possible, but everyday. Enabling people to do amazing things.

Of course, we're living now in an age where the narrative on technology has shifted. People are recognizing that innovation and advancement isn't always all good for everyone. People are recognizing that it has consequences and creates problems -- sometimes serious ones. And those conversations are vital.

But as that narrative has shifted, I worry tremendously about throwing out all of the good things that have come with innovation in our rush to prevent any possible downsides. I'm glad that there's some level of reckoning happening, and people are proactively trying to think through the impact (both good and bad) of what they're creating these days. But, I worry that the narrative has shifted so far that in order to prevent "bad" we're going to end up tossing out much of the good that is set to come as well.

I'm not quite 50 years old yet, but the amount of technological change and innovation in my lifetime has been amazing -- and I'd argue that the vast majority of it has been good. It has opened up new worlds. It has enabled new ways to communicate. It has brought knowledge and information to far flung corners of the globe. It has enabled people all over the world to have an impact. And it continues to change as well.

Watching the Mother of All Demos once again lets us wonder about what will happen in the next 50 years. And it gives us a chance to appreciate all that has happened (and has been allowed to happen) over the past 50 years. Engelbart didn't lock up his ideas. He didn't block others from using them. There aren't stories of nasty patent fights (even if he had a bunch of patents). He shared these ideas for the world to see, and the world took these ideas and ran with them, built on them, improved on them and created the amazing world we now live in. This should not be the end of the history of innovation, but a sign of what happens when people do allow for great innovation, and seek to make the impossible, possible.

Filed Under: demo, doug engelbart, future, innovation, technology, the demo, the mother of all demos

Tech Policy In Times Of Trouble

from the pep-talk dept

A colleague was lamenting recently that working on tech policy these days feels a lot like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. What does something as arcane as copyright law have to do with anything when governments are giving way to fascists, people are being killed because of their race or ethnicity, and children are being wrested from their parents and kept in cages?

Well, a lot. It has to do with why we got involved in these policy debates in the first place. If we want these bad things to stop we can't afford for there to be obstacles preventing us from exchanging the ideas and innovating the solutions needed to make them stop. The more trouble we find ourselves mired in the more we need to be able to think our way out.

Tech policy directly bears on that ability, which is why we work on it, even on aspects as seemingly irrelevant to the state of humanity as copyright. Because they aren't irrelevant. Copyright, for instance, has become a barrier to innovation as well as a vehicle for outright censorship. These are exactly the sorts of chilling effects we need to guard against if we are going to be able to overcome these challenges to our democracy. The worse things are, the more important it is to have the unfettered freedom to do something about it.

It is also why we spend so much energy arguing with others similarly trying to defend democracy when they attempt to do so by blaming technology for society's ills and call for it to be less freely available. While it is of course true that not all technology use yields positive results, there are incalculable benefits that it does bring – benefits that are all too easy to take for granted but would be dearly missed if they were gone. Technology helps give us the power to push back against the forces that would hurt us, enabling us to speak out and organize against them. Think, for instance, about all the marches that have been marched around the world, newly-elected officials who've used new media to reach out to their constituencies, and volunteer efforts organized online to push back against some of the worst the world faces. If we too readily dull these critical weapons against tyranny we will soon find ourselves defenseless against it.

Of course, none of this is to say that we should fiddle while Rome burns. When important pillars of our society are under attack we can't pretend everything is business as usual. We have to step up to face these challenges however is needed. But the challenges of today don't require us to abandon the areas where we've previously spent so much time working. First, dire though things may look right now, we have not yet forsaken our constitutional order and descended into the primordial ooze of lawlessness. True, the press is under constant attack, disenfranchisement is rife, and law enforcement is strained by unprecedented tensions, but civil institutions like courts and legislatures and the media continue to function, albeit sometimes imperfectly and under severe pressure. But we strengthen these institutions when we hew to the norms that have enabled them to support our society thus far. That some in power may have chosen to abandon and subordinate these norms is no reason that the rest of us should do the same. Rather, it's a reason why we should continue to hold fast to them, to insulate them and buttress them against further attack.

Second, we are all capable of playing multiple roles. And the role we've played as tech policy advocates is no less important now than it was before. Our expertise on these issues is still valuable and needed – perhaps now more than ever. In times of trouble, when fear and confusion reign, the causes we care about are particularly vulnerable to damage, even by the well-meaning. The principles we have fought to protect in better days are the same principles we need to light the way through the dark ones. It is no time to give up that fight.

Filed Under: copyright, innovation, tech policy, technology

We Interrupt All The Hating On Technology To Remind Everyone We Just Landed On Mars

from the inspiring dept

It was hardly more than 100 years ago that human beings figured out powered flight. Barely 80 since flight became jet-powered, 70 since it broke the sound barrier, and 60 since we mastered jet flight sufficiently for ordinary commercial use. It was also not even 60 years ago that we figured out how to send human beings into space, and not even 50 since we put them on the moon. These time periods hardly span geological epochs; they can be measured by a lifetime.

For those whose consciousness developed after these tectonic shifts in the development of human civilization, it can be easy to forget that mankind spent vastly more of its existence not being remotely able to succeed at any of these things than being able to do them all. It can be easy to lose sight of what a triumph each leap is when today they all seem so ordinary. We take it for granted that we can board a metal tube and just a few hours later end up a continent away. We become glib about putting people in space when we have them sitting up there 24/7. And the moon, that celestial body that from the dawn of man has been the object of every dream, has long faded into the rearview mirror. Been there, done that, we think, as the knowledge that it is within our grasp slowly extinguishes the wonder that used to fuel our drive to seek the impossible.

Fortunately space is full of other frontiers to tantalize us. And Mars is one of them. Orbiting our solar system between 35 and 250 million miles away from Earth (depending on our respective orbital positions), barely visible to the naked eye, and full of even more mystery than our much more proximate moon (which is less than 240,000 miles away), it passes through the heavens flashing its enticing red glow like a bullfighter to his charges. And so, like moth to flame, we go.

But it hasn't been easy. We didn't get close to Mars until the 1960s, or get any sort of good look until the 1970s. And it wasn't until the 1990s that we finally got to touch it with tools we created as stand-ins for ourselves. But even as some Mars exploration missions succeeded, most have ended prematurely, or failed altogether. Even though in the intervening twenty years since our first lander we've managed to send several more robotic extensions of ourselves, which in turn have sent us back enormous amounts of data teaching us about this place so difficult to know, every time we come up with some new apparatus to help move our still-limited knowledge of Mars forward, we still face the same nearly insurmountable problem: how do we manage to get this highly sophisticated piece of equipment to this incredibly far off place?

Yesterday, we got it right. Yesterday, we threaded this near-impossible needle and successfully landed the InSight Lander exactly where we wanted it. But this perfect arrival obscures what a tremendous accomplishment it represents. As The Oatmeal illustrated earlier this month, there were a zillion possible points of failure that we had to get perfectly right. We had to pick a spot to land. We had to pick a day to launch to hit that spot. We had to pick a place to launch from. We had to calculate where Mars would be by the time it got there. We had to fly it across 300,000,000 miles of space to get there. We had to get it to arrive at the correct 12 degree angle. We had to get it to survive the heat of atmospheric entry. We had to get it to successfully deploy a special "super-sonic parachute" at exactly the right time. We then had to get it to successfully detach from the heat shield, deploy some landing legs, and fall from its protective shell. And then, with the same impeccable timing, we had to get it to fire some retro-rockets to control its continued descent. And we had to perfectly anticipate every instruction for every task in programming baked into our robotic scout months and months before that program would ever be run. Programming error, mechanical error, or any other human error all could have doomed the mission. And yet none did. It has some more to do to prepare for all of its experiments (deploy instruments, etc.) but InSight now stands ready, on Mars, to continue teaching us about our mysterious planetary neighbor.

It is a moment worth celebrating. We spend so much time lamenting technology, often regarding human innovation as some sort of disease to be cured of, that we lose our ability to marvel over just what we've accomplished as a species. To see those first pictures beamed back to our home planet today from another elsewhere in the solar system because we figured out how to is like looking at something of unspeakable beauty. Not just in the view itself but in the momentous human achievement we are privileged to see unfold before our eyes.

Filed Under: advancement, innovation, insight, mars, nasa, technology

Dear Silicon Valley Tech Companies: Stop Treating Your Structural Challenges As Political Challenges

from the politics-and-business-are-not-the-same dept

A couple weeks back Karl wrote up an excellent analysis of the NY Times' big piece looking at how Facebook tried to deal with ongoing criticism of the company concerning the influence operations that it appears Russians used their site for. Karl's post focused on just how many companies make use of similar political smear campaigns, and everyone (including the press) should be much more tuned into this kind of thing. Indeed, a followup story from the NY Times last week showed that a bunch of other tech companies -- namely Lyft, Lime, Juul and Qualcomm -- all had hired the very same "Definers" firm that Facebook had hired to smear its opponents.

I wanted to write a follow up post, though, to make a slightly different point. This one is more directed at the people who work at all of the big tech companies: Stop thinking about running your companies as political campaigns, and focus most on what is best for end-users. It should be noted, of course, that all of these companies are a bit different, and they all do take different approaches to the market, but over the last few years, especially, one thing that has shined through with many of these companies is that they've dealt with the challenges suddenly being directed at them as political issues, rather than structural issues.

It's not difficult to see why this is happening. To some extent, it goes back to the popular saying: "We judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions." When these companies are getting attacked over their actions, they often feel wronged by the coverage, which they feel is unfair, because the press are often judging the decisions absent larger context that shows how they reached those results. And sometimes it is unfair. But there are still elements of truth in all of these complaints, and companies need to recognize even more, that these challenges are both structural and potentially existential, rather than one of people just being "unfair" in their coverage.

The second reason why this is happening is that the political world has spent years beating on Silicon Valley to be "more engaged" in politics, and so much is now being driven by how things look through a political lens that it's become controlling in many ways. All of these companies have hired tons of political operatives, who know how to do political campaigns. Not all of them care what the company is actually doing -- they just care about how it's perceived.

Years back, when I was studying "organizational behavior," in college, I remember the professor explaining office "politics" succinctly: raising your own profile while decreasing the profile of anyone else. And, indeed, there are many examples in the NY Times Facebook article of this kind of thinking in action. Rather than deal with the larger structural problems, Facebook decided to go after its critics and its competitors. After the NY Times piece came out, TechCrunch published a bunch of the pitches they received from Definers, noting how very political they were. Unlike most PR pitches, in which the sender identifies what company they're representing, and why they're emailing, Definers pitches were... different:

We checked our inboxes and none of the pitches Definers sent to TechCrunch made an explicit disclosure that the messages they contained had been paid for by Facebook to push a pro-Facebook agenda. They all required the recipient to join those dots themselves.

[....]

Here’s an example of Definers’ oppo mud-slinging we were sent targeting Apple and Google on Facebook’s behalf:

Just came across this – thought you might find it interesting: https://digitalcontentnext.org/blog/2018/08/21/google-data-collection-research/

“A major part of Google’s data collection occurs while a user is not directly engaged with any of its products. The magnitude of such collection is significant, especially on Android mobile devices, arguably the most popular personal accessory now carried 24/7 by more than 2 billion people.”

The study’s findings are rather shocking… It really highlights how other tech companies should be looked at critically – scrutiny shouldn’t just be on FB for data misuse. Apple & Google have been perpetrators of data abuse as well…

“Scrutiny shouldn’t just be on FB for data misuse” is the key line there, though it’s still hardly a plain English disclosure that Facebook paid for the message to be sent.

We received multiple Definers’ pitches on behalf of what looks to be three different tech companies — and only one of these is explicitly badged as a press release from the firm paying Definers to do PR. (In that case, e-scooter startup Lime.)

Not that they listen to me, but if there was a simple message I could get across to everyone working at these companies, it's that they need to stop treating actual structural issues and the actual impact of what they do as political fights, but as real, structural issues that need to be addressed. That's not to say admit that all of the criticism is valid -- because some of it is not. But, recognize that there is truth in many of the complaints, and to focus on actually doing right by your users, not simply attacking the messenger or denying the seriousness (and certainly not by merely pretending to take the issue seriously in public while privately admitting nothing will change). The fact that Facebook repeatedly denied "key aspects" of this story, only to post a blog post the night before Thanksgiving that more or less admitted everything they had previously denied, shows that the company is still treating this as a political campaign. Friday night news dumps are a classic political move to "bury" bad news, and the only time better than a random Friday night is the night before a major holiday.

For many years I've said that one of the reasons why I find the tech industry so important is that it has -- historically -- been a demonstration of what good happens when certain (not all) companies and their users have interests aligned. Rather than working at cross purposes, or trying to screw over users, many tech companies have shown that they can provide value in a way that everyone comes out of it better off. When they actually focus on doing the right thing -- even at the short term expense of the bottom line -- good long term strategies tend to result.

However, treating everything as a political campaign is the opposite of that strategy. It means attacking critics and competitors, rather than focusing on doing what's right. And, unfortunately, this political thinking is becoming pervasive across the tech industry. Some will argue that it has actually always been true, but that's not accurate at all. Much of Silicon Valley's success was premised on taking a very different approach -- one that really did focus on doing the right thing, rather than the most expedient or the most immediately profitable. But, that has changed for many, many companies. And even if it may be understandable as to why it is happening, that's still no excuse.

So, for everyone who works at these companies, please take a step back and think about what your actual vision is. Are you making decisions to actually do what's best for the users of your products. Or are you simply attacking your critics and competitors? If it's the latter, it seems like a clear sign that your company has lost its way.

Filed Under: consumers, doing the right thing, innovation, politics, users
Companies: apple, definers, facebook, google, lime, lyft, qualcomm

Why Europe Will Never Build Its Own Digital Giants

from the getting-it-all-wrong dept

A few years back, I was asked to create a presentation for a few visiting European executives, to explain "what makes Silicon Valley, Silicon Valley." It was a fun presentation, and one of the people who saw it later had me give it to an ever rotating crew of visiting European execs and policymakers (I even got to give the talk once over in the UK). I believe I did the presentation half a dozen times or so. The person who set up most of those talks later moved on to another job and it's been years since I last gave the presentation. It always led to an interesting discussion, though, because so much of what I talked about seemed to go against their core instincts about innovation (the presentation also debunks some of the common myths about the success of Silicon Valley). Maybe, one day, I'll get to give the talk again.

However, what fascinated me most was the general resistance to understanding the fundamentals of both innovation and the internet. But in the past few years, it's become increasingly clear that the EU's concept of the internet is almost entirely out of sync with how digital innovation works, especially with the ways in which the EU has gone about regulating the internet -- from the GDPR to the Copyright Directive, to the antitrust efforts, to the Terrorism regulation.

The Economist recently explored this issue, suggesting that Europe will never produce its own Google. While there are a few European tech success firms, they're still greatly limited and there are a lot fewer of them than elsewhere:

London, a global tech hub, is home to DeepMind, a leading artificial intelligence (AI) outfit; Stockholm is home to Spotify, a dominant music-sharing service; Cambridge-based Arm makes processor chips for almost all the world’s smartphones.

Yet still Europe lacks large firms in areas like social media, e-commerce and cloud computing comparable in scale to America’s Google and Microsoft, or China’s Alibaba and Baidu. Of the world’s 15 largest digital firms, all are American or Chinese. Of the top 200, eight are European. Such firms matter. They operate dominant online platforms and are writing the rules of the new economy in the way Cockerill’s innovations did in his day.

Unfortunately, rather than focusing on the constant regulatory attacks by EU policymakers on the key elements of innovation in the digital age, the Economist article falls back on the same old excuse we've heard from Europeans for years and years: the country has too many different languages and a complex set of different laws in each country:

Today, however, Europe’s patchwork is a disadvantage. New technologies require vast lakes of data, skilled labour and capital. Despite the EU’s single market, in Europe these often remain in national ponds. Language divides get in the way. Vast, speculative long-term capital investments that make firms like Uber possible are too rarely available on European national markets. True, there is progress. European universities are working more closely together, and in 2015 the EU adopted a new digital strategy that has simplified tax rules, ended roaming charges and removed barriers to cross-border online content sales. But about half of its measures—like smoother flows of data—remain mere proposals.

And while I'm sure there's some truth to that stifling some aspect of European success, it doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. After all, most of the giant American internet firms have figured out how to work in those vastly different European markets, despite not even being headquartered there. So clearly it can be done.

The larger problem, it seems has much more to do with the general distrust for disruptive innovations. The European approach, consistently, appears to favor slowing (or stopping) innovation unless all possible "harms" are minimized, even if this comes at the expense of the benefits. There are arguments to be made for this approach -- preventing harm is a laudable goal. But it leaves out the other side of the equation: it kills off massive amounts of benefits. This is not to say that the general approach should be a free for all, or that potential harms should be ignored. Nor is it to say that we should be purely utilitarian and weigh the two sides. But, an innovative approach that enables experimentation and learning, and a focus on providing much more benefits for the public seems to be much more effective at creating incredibly valuable services.

There is, of course, much more involved in building out a successful innovation ecosystem that builds hugely powerful services, but the EU seems to have little to no interest in actually figuring out how it can work.

Filed Under: eu copyright directive, europe, gdpr, innovation, silicon valley