Return to

Supernova 2008

.

Presenters:

• Clay Shirky (NYU, author, "Here Comes Everybody")
• Bob Iannucci (Nokia)
• Esther Dyson (EDventure)

Case Study: Reconstructing Media

Axel Schmiegelow (sevenload), Jordan Hoffner (YouTube), Joel Hyatt (Current TV)

Notes:

* Clay Shirky (NYU, author, "Here Comes Everybody")

- How do we support collective action?  

- 2003: flashmob.  a way to coordinate real-world action.  gathering in squares where gathering is illegal.  no conspiracy?  it's very, very open but does not come together until the very last, and most public, moment. See Belarus example.   Other examples happening on MySpace, Facebook, etc. 

- Almost all the examples we have of real world collective actions are about protest.  They are trying to get someone to capitualate.  Why?  Maybe it's easier to stop than start things -- easier to get that into motion.  But is that true?  Not what we see really.  We see people coming together for a lot of very specific niche reasons of community and support.  

- And how about barn raising?  This happens when enough people start owing each other enough favors w/in a relatively dense network.  Must also be continuity.  So that you have confidence that people will be there next year, year after.  Collective action happens in small communities.

- If denisity and continuity are required, how do we invent them when they don't exist?  How do we support them? We have to do this by design.

- No answer but analogy:  1980 - Xerox delivered most famous printer in the world.  Famous because they shipped it w/o source code and shipped to Richard Stallman.  He knew that, w/o source code, the printer was a brick.  So he started the Free Software Foundation and did a little magic on copyright law etc.

- Another example, incorporation is how society acknowledges groups.  That requires a certain amount of structure.

- mix the Free Software Foundation with a need to recognize the desire of a group (as you do through the process of incorporation).  How do you apply this to ad hoc, internet organized groups?

- more examples: The Virtual Company Project; Community Interest Companies; Meetup Alliances

- Q. But how are people held accountable for their participation?  It's not like you lose your job because you leave a blowhard comment on TechCrunch? A. Shirky: Self-policing like the "quiet car" model -- mark out the terroritory clearly and then let the users do the policing.  Dyson: But that breaks down in other societies where people do get accountability visited upon them (whether it is just or not).

- Q. MySociety.org is trying to work out collective action.  A. Shirky: Still seems to be focused on stopping things. though making progress. Dyson: check out Social Innovation Camp as an example of people coming together to do interesting things.

* Bob Iannucci (Nokia)

- only at the beginning of the age of mobility. the standard platform has not emerged.  maybe the standard platform is about the networks. ability to connect people in real time -- rather than the hardware/software combo.

- phones amazing at ability to sense the environment and then communicate about that. Examples?  Traffic info.  Phones could be made to be probes that could predict the onset of traffic congestion.  Much more accurate prediction in an infrastructureless social way.  This could be used in a whole bunch of ways to push future prediction information out to users based on where they own. What if traffic info gets combined with personal calendar?  Your phone can tell you to leave now, by an alternate route, to get to you appointment.

- What are other possibilities in a "sensor-filled world":  track the outbreak of influenze and, importantly, the spread; real-time wether monitoring across 100s of M of users (what could this tell us about global warming and our own habits)

- There are challenges about the devices but how to people participate in this so that we can then aggregate it, make sense of it, filter it and then put it back into the hands of people to whom it is meaningful.  This can't be device/platform dependent but must be made based on standards.

- The #s: 3.3 B subscribers world-wide; 1 B Nokia devices; 80% of the world's population has coverage

- Mobile phones are transforming society because the ability to move information via phones changes people's local market realities.  Mobile airtime minutes are also a new currency -- by prepaid phone cards and then give the code to someone to whom one owes money. 

- Challenges (wrap up slide):  What value will emerge from multi-sensory connected devices?  How do we network 100s of millions of users?  What is needed to secure this environment?  What commercial ventures can be formed around these opportunties?  How can we enable th enext one billion people to take advantage of this world of mobility?

Esther Dyson (EDventure)

- How do we make a world in which users can make an informed choice about how they access/pay for content via the internet (is it by advertising, do I pay) etc.? (I think anyway -- courtesy of twitter I lost the thread a bit)

- Choice can often be about people vs. institutions.  Maybe make sure choice is informed by quizzing people about uses, risks, etc.  So that people can be sure that they know what they are signing up for.

- Can this be applied to behavioral targeting?

- Challenge of monetization?  How do you make money off all the people on Twitter etc.  Online advertising changed game of context advertising because people declare their intention through search.  But sometimes people's intention has nothing to do with purchasing something.  Behavioral targeting changes this.  Make suggestions based on even more of what people do. But advertisers are increasingly vying with users for attention (I twitter because I want attention not because I'm looking to apply it via buying a product). 

- How do you change this? 

- Take Dopplr for example.  If I share my travel plans, I might want to share that with an airline or hotel so that they can make relevant offers to me.  Changes the dynamic of trading content for attention. This isn't a trade. This is permission-based marketing where I say "You have permission to give me highly relevant, targeted info" within this rich consumer generated data.  Users are tracking themselves. Posting data for attention. And saying "give me attention" to friends and vendors.  (she disclaimed her financial interest in dopplr)

- Take LiveJournal.  For free account, what if you could show free ads that you can pick?  Rather than just showing ads for free account. (she disclaimed an interest in LiveJournal)

Broader Conversation:

- Iannucci:  privacy issues are also marketplace issues -- value of information and motivation of the users.

- Dyson: disagrees that privacy isn't only a financial issue.  People are not only on the internet to buy or sell. Often engaged in things that they don't perceive as a transaction. Misses an important point if you think of this as only a transaction. We can't quantify everything.

- Iannucci:  there is a model that is about creating a market.  privacy is an emotional issue and there are things that we've learned about markets that can be applied to privacy.  to the extent that we can do this can find willing buyers and willing sellers. Not just about greed. But we need a language to decide if the privacy exchange has value to both of us.

- Dyson: market quantifies and some things people prefer not to quantify.

- Shirky: anonymity isn't a characteristic of data but of the context in which that data is exchanged. The issue is that w/o know what else someone knows about an individual can make it hard to make a genuinely informed decision.

- Q. Reciprocal altruism.  When people donate, there is not necessarily a reciprocal altruism.  It implies a market.  Maybe when someone contributes or volunteers, they are more than themselves and a market. A. Shirky: There are non-market considerations. Where "non-market" = "financial incentives".  You might volunteer or donate, for example, to help to make a change. That exists. But what happens if you don't see the alternative you want to contribute to.  Dyson:  On the board of meetup.  A real question about the ways in which people make their contributions.  For example, if you show up, do you still need to vote or give in another way later. 

- Q. Hyperoptimizing on the web.  If you go to far down giving people different experiences, we start to lose social cohesion.  So need to do things slowly over time so that you do build a shared view.  A. Shirky:  Students always get feedback that people want fewer features.  Pulled this to the point that it's because people want solidarity of experience and percepton of a tool.  Gone from a box to a door.  Less about what's in the box and now about what's through the door.  But still don't want a door with 32 handles.

- Q. Is user experience really all about the transaction?  A. No real answer from the people on the stage. Just positions.