Archive for March, 2008
by Isabel Hilborn
March 28, 2008 at 4:55 am · Filed under
Law and Policy, Social Platforms, Society and Culture, Supernova08
In the one-girl’s-trash-is-another-girl’s-treasure category, Microsoft announced a deal to allow LinkedIn, Facebook and some other lesser-known social networks to scrape Hotmail address books to look for friends.
Some for-profit industry commentators went along with Microsoft’s PR hype, like OnlineMedia Daily. Others, like ZDNet’s Steve O’Hear, were more skeptical.
In other news, Google is bringing the issue of protecting human rights at the cost of the company’s market share to a shareholder vote - adequately reported by Joseph Hunkins at WebGuild. The two proposals up for a vote are that Google would strictly control censorship and data sharing to protect human rights, and that Google would establish a Human Rights Committee to monitor these issues. Google recommends no to both proposals, and they’ll be able to point to the fact that their shareholders voted these proposals down as an excuse for not doing them.
The approach is an attempt to justify Google’s capitulation to anti-democratic policy from countries like China - behavior that they’ve been called to task for engaging in because of their “do no evil” mantra. The sad thing, to me, is that giving a question like this to shareholders: “Should we do the right thing even though it means making less money?” is giving it to the wrong party to decide. Shareholders don’t say no to profits.
It’s the users who should be asked, and the users who can decide to abandon the Google ship if they see objectionable, hypocritical behavior. Insofar as a choice to deny human rights may alienate Google users, the stock prices could fall on a “no” vote — but most of the time issues like human rights in far-away countries can’t compete with great technology and brand. An effective boycott is unlikely, a yes vote is unlikely. Perhaps “do no evil” and “make money in China” are fundamentally incompatible. Perhaps a mantra change to “do no evil except in countries led by repressive dictators” is in order?
by Christopher Carfi
March 27, 2008 at 11:45 pm · Filed under
Supernova08
This week is Net Neutrality week on the SuperNova ConversationHub. What is “Net Neutrality?” Here are a few resources and links that can provide the basics.
A Definition of Network Neutrality
“Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this neutrality that has allowed many companies, including Google, to launch, grow, and innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress’s permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet.”
Source: Students for Net Neutrality
Net Neutrality - An Overview Video from Public Knowledge
(Permanent link to the Publc Knowledge Net Neutrality video)
Now, that said, there are cogent counter-arguments as well, mostly from a “let’s keep the government out of as many things as possible” view. One point of view, from Will Richmond in the comments here. Richmond:
“I’d remind everyone of three critical things.
First, there is no substantive evidence of broadband ISP bias today, so while it’s tempting to reach for net neutrality as a preventive medicine, suspicion of nefarious intentions is not a sufficient basis for government intervention. Start down this preemptive road and you’re quickly on the slippery slope of unchecked government intrusion into our daily lives.
Second, for those who don’t think it’s appropriate to give big broadband ISPs the benefit of the doubt, let’s not forget that they privately financed the multi-billion dollar investments required to bring broadband Internet access to virtually all American homes. There’s been no government funding of this massive infrastructure build-out. It’s all a result of the free market system at work. And the record speaks for itself, there’s no evidence that ISPs have bias against anyone to improve their economic return.
Third, let’s not lose sight of the fact that multi-billion dollar content and technology companies are behind this net neutrality push. How ironic is it that this community of ardent free marketers should now be looking to the government to preemptively impose regulation? Would they want to be pre-judged as bad actors, requiring preemptive government intervention in their industries? No chance. They want the government as far away from their operations as possible.
I’m far from an apologist for big cable operators and telcos. I know their warts as well as anyone. And I’m not against regulation when it’s appropriate. But I am opposed to it when there’s no evidence to warrant it. Such is the current situation with net neutrality.”
(N.B. And, for a more humorous view, here’s an Ask A Ninja video on Net Neutrality. And, for the record, I too would like some backup singers.)
by Howard Greenstein
March 26, 2008 at 2:37 am · Filed under
Infrastructure and Communications, Society and Culture, Supernova08
I had been taking it for granted that programs to get computers to the developing world, such as One Laptop Per Child, were a great thing. And, certainly they are. I’ve also been taking for granted that people who want to learn about what I’m writing could read this blog, or my personal one. However, there are millions of people in the world that are illiterate, or visually impaired, but could benefit from more and easier access to information.
This morning at a panel at the “UN meets Web 2.0” event, I’m learning more about the challenges of connecting people all over the world. More blog posts on that to follow, I hope, but this morning I wanted to call out one item I heard from Mr. Emdad Khan, CEO, of InternetSpeech.com. I heard him discuss “Net Echo,” a system that allows browsing of the net, accessing email and even getting news via a voice interface over the phone.
Mr. Kahn said “Information is “money”, and the largest source of information is Internet, but a lack of computer or computer skills can be a barrier to people obtaining the information they need.” He says that PDAs an computers can’t bridge the digital divide in some cases, because those devices don’t reach the very bottom of the pyramid. Here’s a statistic - only 15% of global phone users have Internet access, and there are 500MM computers vs 3 billion phones.
Net Echo, which I only saw as a demo, allows audio-based browsing of major portals such as Yahoo and MSN, reading (and dictation of) email, and news alerts, all via a voice interface.
In addition to the developing world, the elderly, the visually impaired, and others could benefit from this system. I’m even thinking that this might be a way to get information when you’re on the go (though not when driving, that could be really dangerous!)
I’m looking forward to learning more about this system, and where in the world it’s being used to help distribute information via voice when text and words aren’t enough.
by Kevin Werbach
March 23, 2008 at 9:16 pm · Filed under
Supernova08
Jerry Michalski led a stimulating and wide-ranging discussion at our Supernova mixer earlier this month in San Francisco, looking at the business implications of a networked world.
March 2008 Mixer Discussion -- Business in the Network Age:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download (218)
by Kevin Werbach
March 23, 2008 at 9:16 pm · Filed under
Supernova08
At our Supernova mixer in San Francisco earlier this month, Jeremiah Owyang of Forrester Research led a thought-provoking discussion about the significance and future of social networks.
March 2008 Mixer Discussion -- Leveraging the Social Graph:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download (216)
by Kevin Werbach
March 21, 2008 at 8:40 am · Filed under
Supernova08
The theme of this year’s Supernova is “Challenges for the Network Age,” because I believe we’ve reached the threshold of a dramatically new environment for business and society. We’ve moving from the Information Age to the Network Age. In the Information Age, computers and communications networks produced a global village and astounding gains in economic productivity. The Network Age incorporates those advances into an environment where anything connects to anything, anyone to anyone, anywhere, anytime. We’re not all the way there yet, but we’re far enough along to start seeing the effects. And that means we must confront both the inevitable conflicts of the great shift, as well as the inherent contradictions of a networked world. Only by doing so will we see the paths to durable innovation and business opportunities.
The Network Age poses ten basic challenges for all of us interested in the future of technology, media, and communications:
- Scarcity and Abundance
(Both are sources of value, yet they cannot coexist.)
- Choice and Coordination
(Users are in control, but don’t they need guides to avoid being overwhelmed?)
- Aggregation and Fragmentation
(Network effects mean that the big players get bigger, but at the same time, markets increasingly specialize and personalize.)
- Stability and Disruption
(True innovation requires disruption, but disruption can be painful and costly, especially where investment and trust are significant.)
- Behavior and Rationality
(People don’t always act according to models of rationality, especially when connected to one another, but our economic frameworks assume they do.)
- Complexity and Simplicity
(Complex adaptive systems produce emergent behavior and growth, but simplicity is a virtue… in both life and information technology.)
- Openness
(Everyone agrees it’s good, even essential in a networked environment, but no one can say what exactly it means, or how much openness is beneficial.)
- Governance
(How much do networks and their users need to be managed or protected, and where do those controls come from?)
- Scale
(The local is different from the global, whether the subject is enterprise collaboration or usage patterns or cloud computing infrastructure.)
- Sustainability
(How to build organizations and systems that endure, especially in a world whose delicate ecology is itself a form of scarcity.)
These issues manifest themselves in a series of choices about platforms, services, standards, business models, and investments. We’ll drill down on many of them at Supernova. If you are a large enterprise, these are the strategic questions you must address to thrive or even survive in a changing environment. If you are an entrepreneur, these are the parameters for your business model. If you are a technologist, these are the optimization constraints for your architectures and system designs. And if, like me, you’re simply curious about the future, these are tensions that will define the world we live in.
Supernova 2008 is built around these ten challenges. I’ll be posting about each of them at greater length in the weeks to come. The choices involved are especially difficult because the environment is evolving. The infrastructure is moving from PCs and the telephone network to mobile devices and broadband, while the software stack is moving from client-server Web browsers to cloud computing grids delivering dynamic objects, and the user base is increasingly comprised of Millennials who never knew a pre-network world. The good news is that times of great transformation are also massive opportunities.
So… are these the right challenges to pick? Are the questions really this difficult? And is the Network Age really as big a deal as I think it is? Supernova is an ongoing conversation among thought leaders from several communities: entrepreneurs, business practitioners, executives, investors, technologists, academics, and policy advocates. It’s a conversation that doesn’t start or finish with the physical conference, and isn’t limited to our speakers or attendees. Your reactions and responses to the ideas driving Supernova 2008 will help us all gain greater insights. I welcome your comments.
by Howard Greenstein
March 21, 2008 at 2:55 am · Filed under
Infrastructure and Communications, Society and Culture, Supernova08
Greetings, I’m Howard Greenstein, and I’m glad to be back here posting on the Conversation Hub, as I did last year before Supernova. I’m a social media and social network consultant, and have been in the internet and online world from the late 80s. Today’s post from me is a literal response to the theme of Supernova being “Challenges to the Network Age.”
I was recently thinking that in the 20 years I’ve been in business I’ve been hearing promises made about technologies that are just around the corner to connect everyone with everything. With Wi-Fi in every laptop, cell phones on almost every hip, and the promise of smarter smart phones and everywhere-you-need-it network access in every cell phone commercial, I was starting to believe the hype about connectedness. It’s going to be a Jetson’s type world, very soon!
Then reality hit me in the face. Today I’m working in a “business center” that blocks access to my outgoing mail server, instant messaging, and Voice over IP. They also block virtual private networking software that would allow me to get around their restrictions. (I used to have a phone that allowed me to use it as a modem to get around this kind of stuff, but since I went iPhone Apple and AT+T let you do that.) Also, the business center didn’t have an AT+T cell signal. No VOIP on my computer. No Cell Phone. So I’m in a business center where I…can’t do business.
This is not a rant about how I can’t get online. I hope you’ll see that, even for me, a “road warrior” who is “always connected” and “constantly on the network” it isn’t even close to easy some days to do what you want to do.
The current networking promises on the horizon include 700Mhz Cell networks where we can bring our own devices, WiMAX networks in our cities to replace or supplement wired broadband, and even more.
Some of the things I’m hoping to learn at Supernova are
- What’s working for others to help them do business in the networked world?
-
- How close are we to some of these promised innovations? and
- What’s not on my radar yet that I can wonder about for the next few years?
Like, for example, “where’s my flying car?”
by Christopher Carfi
March 19, 2008 at 1:29 am · Filed under
Supernova08
Just finished reading a thought-provoking piece by Anders Albrechtslund entitled Online Social Networking as Participatory Surveillance.
The abstract, by Albrechtslund:
“In this article, I argue that online social networking is anchored in surveillance practices. This gives us an opportunity to challenge conventional understandings of surveillance that often focus on control and disempowerment. In the context of online social networking, surveillance is something potentially empowering, subjectivity building and even playful — what I call participatory surveillance.”
This is a powerful piece, and worth a read.
Historically, I think many of us think of “surveillance” as something that is done by a more powerful authority to an individual who is comparatively less powerful. One of the classic examples of this is the concept of the Panopticon, a prison where a single watcher could observe the actions and activities of a great number of individuals.
However, Albrechtslund argues that (perhaps not unlike a subjugated group taking back derogatory words) online social networking has the possibility to enable a new type of peer-to-peer “surveillance” that is actually empowering to individuals. He writes:
“As mentioned earlier, a hierarchical conception of surveillance represents a power relation which is in favor of the person doing the surveillance. The person under surveillance is reduced to a powerless, passive subject under the control of the “gaze.”
[Koskela] introduces the concept of ‘empowering exhibitionism’ to describe the practice of revealing your (very) personal life. By exhibiting their lives, people claim ‘copyright’ to their own lives, as they engage in the self-construction of identity. This reverts the vertical power relation, as visibility becomes a tool of power that can be used to rebel against the shame associated with not being private about certain things. Thus, exhibitionism is liberating, because it represents a refusal to be humble.
Online social networking can also be empowering for the user, as the monitoring and registration facilitates new ways of constructing identity, meeting friends and colleagues as well as socializing with strangers. This changes the role of the user from passive to active, since surveillance in this context offers opportunities to take action, seek information and communicate.”
So what does this mean? This means that, as our offline and online lives become increasingly intertwined and networked, the more open we are, the more individual power we have.
What I’m now wrestling with is how this plays at the place where organizations, employees, and customers meet.
Remember, in a networked world, we all play different roles at different times — employee, customer, company representative, parent, friend, person. And everyone with whom we interact does the same thing. We are all creators, and all watchers. Perhaps the more we create, and the more we connect, the more say we have in our own futures.
Related: ArtTartare
photos: 3blindmice and wikipedia
cross-posted at the social customer manifesto
by Christopher Carfi
March 12, 2008 at 7:53 am · Filed under
Supernova08
Had a great time at the Supernova mixer that was held at Wharton West on Thursday. Why? The people. It looks like Kevin Werbach and Jeanne Logozzo and Isabel Wolcott Hilborn and crew are rolling forward and setting up another great event for this year. I’m really looking forward to it.
The mixer was split into two sections: facilitated conversation and open-bar / snack food conversation. For the first portion of the program, I attended a session that was deftly facilitated by Jerry Michalski, one of my favorite thinkers. Although the core topic was “Business in a Networked World,” the conversation flowed freely and afield, into areas such as the changing media consumption habits of the group. (Data point: When asked how many of the 30+ folks in the session still regularly watched “scheduled” TV, only about three hands went up.) I’ve also heard nothing but positive reviews of Jeremiah Owyang’s session, which was happening concurrently with Jerry’s.
Moving into the social part of the extravaganza, had a blast connecting not only with Jerry and Brad Templeton, but also Charlene Li and Renee Blodgett and Debs and a host of others.
Last year (2007) was my personal “breakthrough” year with respect to Supernova. I admit, I had incorrectly lumped it into the “same 25 white guys doing the talking head thing” conference category, when it’s really not. I think Kevin has done a very good job of finding folks who do peek over the tech event horizon, and are looking a bit beyond tomorrow and next year, and into that most-difficult area of, say, three to five years out. That, and the increasing diversity of the conference are making it stand out in my book.
Will keep y’all posted as it evolves between now and June.
(And, Brad … let us know when our Robot Overlords will be arriving, will you please? I’ll want to tidy up the place a bit before they arrive.)
by Isabel Hilborn
March 11, 2008 at 9:20 am · Filed under
Marketing and Relationships, Monetization, Social Platforms, Society and Culture, Supernova08
An article in today’s New York Times ends by saying that 85% of California adults think sites should not track around-the-web behavior for the purpose of ad targeting. The rest of the article describes how many of the major commercial web companies do just that.
There’s a comScore graphic that shows how many times a month companies collect user data: Yahoo collects twice as often as Fox, which collects twice as often as AOL. Google (not including DoubleClick) comes up 4th.
This data, however, doesn’t include information entered on MySpace’s social network pages, and the article doesn’t cover Facebook. Even if web companies aren’t putting two and two together yet, they will be soon.
If we’re not already, we’ll be seeing ads that come to us thanks to a delectable combination of which causes we join on Facebook, which people we befriend on MySpace, which keywords we use on search sites, and what products we buy online… combined of course with our offline data: which magazines we subscribe to, what we buy at the grocery store, and what we put on our credit cards. Is this OK?
Many a social network user’s holy grail is to see social networks aggregated - to quote Jeremiah Owyang,
A movement has been started to allow these relationships to be transplanted from one social network to another. The goal? reduce inefficient adding of relationships, improving the accuracy of the network, and providing users with control and management of their relationship data.
I spent some time several years ago working at Sxip pursuing one aspect of this dream. Kaliya Hamlin of Open ID, the folks who started FOAF, and many others (feel free to help me out by listing in comments) have continued the crusade.
Here’s my question: Is the fight to look at this problem from the user’s perspective a losing battle? When it happens, perhaps it will be the provider’s profit motive that drives it, and the advertisers that benefit. Jeremiah suggests that the benefit to the social network is “increase their number of users”. But isn’t the real benefit “finally make real money by selling user data to the highest bidder to make more targeted ads”?
Can users really retain control of their data, or has the horse already left the barn? Maybe we want to keep our social networks separate after all.
Interested to hear your thoughts.
Older entries »
