One of my favorite advocates for “open innovation” is Ed Felten. Today, Ed has a post up that looks at some of the positive recent developments in the “freedom to tinker” movement — from advances in cell phone unlocking, to the response to Aaron Swartz’ passing, to the Kiartsaeng case (which affirms our right to do what we wish with the stuff we buy) — and calls on us to see this as part of something bigger. Reading through Ed’s bio is like taking a walking tour through the last 20 years of the fight between freedom and control in the tech sector. He has coined this struggle as preserving the “freedom to tinker” — that is, to disassemble, inspect, and explore the devices in our lives. On the surface it sounds like a somewhat silly or trivial idea, but it is in fact profound, and political:
The biggest enemy of the freedom to tinker is the “permission culture” in which anything we want to do requires permission from some powerful entity. Permission culture punishes us not for crossing boundaries or causing damage, but for acting “without authorization”—and it cranks up the penalties to make sure we get the message. Permission culture tells us that we don’t own the things we buy, that we are bound by contracts we have never seen, and that breaching those contracts is a felony punishable by years in prison.
What’s Ed articulates well, and which is such a difficult message to communicate, is that our default response when bad things happen is to clamp down on punishment and enforcement. In many cases (especially regarding technology) this may make us feel better, but it’s actually not effective, and in fact just makes things worse (emphasis mine):
Of course, there are people doing genuinely bad things with technology. There are real problems to be addressed, and real criminals who deserve punishment. But too often the response is not to focus prevention and enforcement on the bad acts and actors, but instead to expand the permission culture even more. We’re worried about elite foreign cyberwarriors; but the response is to impose years of prison time for accessing an unprotected website. We’re worried about massive copyright infringement; but the response is to tell people they can’t unlock their phones.
This is such a hard thing to explain (and to back up with examples). But it’s a super important part of effectively advocating for the kind of change we need. Frankly, I’m not sure the notion of “permissionless innovation” is something that resonates outside of the “open” tech sector. But I do think the idea of being free to tinker|do-whatever-we-want with the stuff we “own” is a notion that is profoundly intuitive. I like Ed’s closing call for us to rally behind the freedom to tinker:
those who support different aspects of the freedom to tinker need to recognize themselves as allies. If you’re motivated by phone unlocking, or if you’re passionate about preserving white-hat research, or if you’re trying to protect the legality of a legitimate but disruptive product, what you’re really fighting for is the freedom to tinker. Even if you disagree about other political issues, you can be allies on this issue. Let’s use this moment as an opportunity to restore balance to the law.
This week saw the publication of two very thoughtful articles on the impact that networks are having on society, and what that means for the future of governance. The first was Catherine Bracy and Jim Pugh’s What’s Progressive About ‘Peer Progressives’? and the second was Om Malik’s Uber, Data Darwinism and the future of work. Both get at essentially the same question: as more of our daily activities happen in a connected and networked fashion, what does that mean for how we govern ourselves? Om asks if we’re ready for the hyper-accountable “data darwinism” that comes from living in a quantified society. Take, for instance, the Uber driver with a consistent record of poor customer satisfaction, who is unceremoniously dropped from the platform (and possibly,from the broader on-demand labor pool). Perhaps fair, but with a degree of abruptness that we’re not yet accustomed to. Bracy and Pugh build squarely on Steven Johnson’s idea of
The past three weeks have been really busy. First a trip to SF with the USV team, then to Austin for SXSW to put on We Heart Wifi, and finally to Iceland where we have been helping establish a new institute for internet policy at Reykjavik University. So as is typically the case, I have fallen behind on everything — email, blogging, seeing my kids… But I am psyched to be back home and to have a few weeks free and clear to recenter and get organized. The busier my life gets, the more I’m impressed with folks who are able to keep their heads above water despite ridiculous schedules and fractured time. It’s not something I’ve mastered yet, but I’m working on it. For the past two months Frannie and I have been taking yoga, and it’s been incredible. Totally changes my outlook on everything. We are lucky to have a really great studio and instructor very close to our house. Perhaps the thing that has stuck with me the most is the idea that the practice of yoga doesn’t end when the session is over. That, with practice, you can bring the yoga with you wherever you are, to whatever you’re doing. Sounds hokey, I know, but it’s pretty profound. Anyway, the point is: I think there is something in there — about how to keep calm and carry on and
One of my favorite advocates for “open innovation” is Ed Felten. Today, Ed has a post up that looks at some of the positive recent developments in the “freedom to tinker” movement — from advances in cell phone unlocking, to the response to Aaron Swartz’ passing, to the Kiartsaeng case (which affirms our right to do what we wish with the stuff we buy) — and calls on us to see this as part of something bigger. Reading through Ed’s bio is like taking a walking tour through the last 20 years of the fight between freedom and control in the tech sector. He has coined this struggle as preserving the “freedom to tinker” — that is, to disassemble, inspect, and explore the devices in our lives. On the surface it sounds like a somewhat silly or trivial idea, but it is in fact profound, and political:
The biggest enemy of the freedom to tinker is the “permission culture” in which anything we want to do requires permission from some powerful entity. Permission culture punishes us not for crossing boundaries or causing damage, but for acting “without authorization”—and it cranks up the penalties to make sure we get the message. Permission culture tells us that we don’t own the things we buy, that we are bound by contracts we have never seen, and that breaching those contracts is a felony punishable by years in prison.
What’s Ed articulates well, and which is such a difficult message to communicate, is that our default response when bad things happen is to clamp down on punishment and enforcement. In many cases (especially regarding technology) this may make us feel better, but it’s actually not effective, and in fact just makes things worse (emphasis mine):
Of course, there are people doing genuinely bad things with technology. There are real problems to be addressed, and real criminals who deserve punishment. But too often the response is not to focus prevention and enforcement on the bad acts and actors, but instead to expand the permission culture even more. We’re worried about elite foreign cyberwarriors; but the response is to impose years of prison time for accessing an unprotected website. We’re worried about massive copyright infringement; but the response is to tell people they can’t unlock their phones.
This is such a hard thing to explain (and to back up with examples). But it’s a super important part of effectively advocating for the kind of change we need. Frankly, I’m not sure the notion of “permissionless innovation” is something that resonates outside of the “open” tech sector. But I do think the idea of being free to tinker|do-whatever-we-want with the stuff we “own” is a notion that is profoundly intuitive. I like Ed’s closing call for us to rally behind the freedom to tinker:
those who support different aspects of the freedom to tinker need to recognize themselves as allies. If you’re motivated by phone unlocking, or if you’re passionate about preserving white-hat research, or if you’re trying to protect the legality of a legitimate but disruptive product, what you’re really fighting for is the freedom to tinker. Even if you disagree about other political issues, you can be allies on this issue. Let’s use this moment as an opportunity to restore balance to the law.
This week saw the publication of two very thoughtful articles on the impact that networks are having on society, and what that means for the future of governance. The first was Catherine Bracy and Jim Pugh’s What’s Progressive About ‘Peer Progressives’? and the second was Om Malik’s Uber, Data Darwinism and the future of work. Both get at essentially the same question: as more of our daily activities happen in a connected and networked fashion, what does that mean for how we govern ourselves? Om asks if we’re ready for the hyper-accountable “data darwinism” that comes from living in a quantified society. Take, for instance, the Uber driver with a consistent record of poor customer satisfaction, who is unceremoniously dropped from the platform (and possibly,from the broader on-demand labor pool). Perhaps fair, but with a degree of abruptness that we’re not yet accustomed to. Bracy and Pugh build squarely on Steven Johnson’s idea of
The past three weeks have been really busy. First a trip to SF with the USV team, then to Austin for SXSW to put on We Heart Wifi, and finally to Iceland where we have been helping establish a new institute for internet policy at Reykjavik University. So as is typically the case, I have fallen behind on everything — email, blogging, seeing my kids… But I am psyched to be back home and to have a few weeks free and clear to recenter and get organized. The busier my life gets, the more I’m impressed with folks who are able to keep their heads above water despite ridiculous schedules and fractured time. It’s not something I’ve mastered yet, but I’m working on it. For the past two months Frannie and I have been taking yoga, and it’s been incredible. Totally changes my outlook on everything. We are lucky to have a really great studio and instructor very close to our house. Perhaps the thing that has stuck with me the most is the idea that the practice of yoga doesn’t end when the session is over. That, with practice, you can bring the yoga with you wherever you are, to whatever you’re doing. Sounds hokey, I know, but it’s pretty profound. Anyway, the point is: I think there is something in there — about how to keep calm and carry on and
The Slow Hunch by Nick Grossman
Investing @ USV. Student of cities and the internet.
The Slow Hunch by Nick Grossman
Investing @ USV. Student of cities and the internet.
Peer Progressivism
and ask what government can do to help peer networks grow and thrive while still ensuring that basic rights are not passed over by market activity. Similar question as Om raises, but more focused on ensuring equal access and opportunity. Both are getting at the same big idea: that
). And in many ways, these platforms are ahead of the game (relative to some of our public institutions) in figuring out “Governance 2.0”. Every one of these peer-driven, connected systems (from eBay, to Airbnb, to Uber and Lyft, etc.) has built — out of necessity for the creation of a functioning marketplace — internal trust, safety and dispute resolution systems. These systems, which are usually some form of reciprocal rating, make it possible for people to trust one another and do business together, and in general, these systems are super effective at achieving that goal. Almost by definition, they serve the interests of users of the platform (both on the producer and consumer side of a marketplace). And by and large, they are adaptive rather than prescriptive — meaning that by default I “have a shot” at proving myself in the marketplace, and then my reputation evolves as I do stuff. But as Bracy and Pugh point out, this is not same thing as a publicly-run government. Each of these networks is a purpose-built community (either for-profit like the ones above, or nonprofit like Wikipedia or Mozilla), whose interest is in maximizing the productive or economic activity within the platform, not necessarily advancing or protecting other public interests. And, by and large, these systems are internally-focused and don’t take into account externalities (e.g., noise and foot traffic that neighbors of an Airbnb apartment might not like). And as Om points out, there is a lot of responsibility, and there are new forms of risk, in this hyper-accountable reputation-driven environment. This raises all kinds of interesting questions for governments. How can they take advantage of the creative and economic opportunity that these networks present? How might they adapt these “2.0” models of governance? How can they create adequate space for new new models of doing business to emerge and prove themselves? And most importantly, how can they ensure that the public’s interests are being met in this new environment (hint: it’s going to be different than how it’s been done in the past)?
when things get hectic. Easier said than done - but a worthy goal.
Peer Progressivism
and ask what government can do to help peer networks grow and thrive while still ensuring that basic rights are not passed over by market activity. Similar question as Om raises, but more focused on ensuring equal access and opportunity. Both are getting at the same big idea: that
). And in many ways, these platforms are ahead of the game (relative to some of our public institutions) in figuring out “Governance 2.0”. Every one of these peer-driven, connected systems (from eBay, to Airbnb, to Uber and Lyft, etc.) has built — out of necessity for the creation of a functioning marketplace — internal trust, safety and dispute resolution systems. These systems, which are usually some form of reciprocal rating, make it possible for people to trust one another and do business together, and in general, these systems are super effective at achieving that goal. Almost by definition, they serve the interests of users of the platform (both on the producer and consumer side of a marketplace). And by and large, they are adaptive rather than prescriptive — meaning that by default I “have a shot” at proving myself in the marketplace, and then my reputation evolves as I do stuff. But as Bracy and Pugh point out, this is not same thing as a publicly-run government. Each of these networks is a purpose-built community (either for-profit like the ones above, or nonprofit like Wikipedia or Mozilla), whose interest is in maximizing the productive or economic activity within the platform, not necessarily advancing or protecting other public interests. And, by and large, these systems are internally-focused and don’t take into account externalities (e.g., noise and foot traffic that neighbors of an Airbnb apartment might not like). And as Om points out, there is a lot of responsibility, and there are new forms of risk, in this hyper-accountable reputation-driven environment. This raises all kinds of interesting questions for governments. How can they take advantage of the creative and economic opportunity that these networks present? How might they adapt these “2.0” models of governance? How can they create adequate space for new new models of doing business to emerge and prove themselves? And most importantly, how can they ensure that the public’s interests are being met in this new environment (hint: it’s going to be different than how it’s been done in the past)?
