What have you already lost, within your memory, or within your hard drive, and what can that tell you about the temporary nature of our current media and memories?
Category Archives: Uncategorized
The United States of Uber: Data, Money, and Power
A consistent mistake we make in the era of the internet is to focus on the user experience and ignore the systemic effects. We love to gaze at the shiny object, but we don’t take enough time to step back and understand the big picture. The rise of Uber is a great example of this.
Uber is not a transportation or logistics company. For a long time I liked to argue that Uber was a media company that specialized in algorithms and data. However now I’m starting to see Uber as even larger than that, not just a conglomerate, but an actual sovereign entity.
The United States of Uber is an emerging federation of co-operating entities that uses data, to make money, and accumulate power.
At the heart of this rising state are the algorithms that sort data, and rank subjects. While we do not have a full picture of how these algorithms operate, we are getting glimpses of their purpose and effects via various initiatives and disputes.
For example, Judge Jed Rakoff of the United States (of America) District Court in Manhattan is currently hearing an antitrust case against Uber that argues the company conspires to fix prices (in the form of their surge pricing policy). In denying a motion to dismiss the case, Judge Rakoff acknowledges the power of the algorithm, citing its genius in his argument:
Judge Rakoff then proceeds to cite the case of the Silk Road and how the design of such systems, while facilitating automation, do not absolve the creator of agency or responsibility:
Meanwhile a federal court in San Francisco will be hearing a case in June that argues Uber drivers should receive all the benefits and protections of employees, rather than be merely designated as contractors who are “sharing” their vehicles.
There’s interesting research by Alex Rosenblat and Luke Stark that contributes to the argument that Uber drivers are not contractors or at least not in a position to negotiate a proper contractual relationship. Their argument focuses on the persuasive if not coercive role of the Uber algorithm:
Alex elaborates on this research in a recent post for the Harvard Business Review titled “The Truth About How Uber’s App Manages Drivers”, as well as her thoughts on the price-fixing trial.
The Guardian in January reported that Uber is using driver’s smartphones to monitor their driving habits, without their knowledge or explicit consent.
Research conducted on human subjects is something that raises significant ethical considerations, and yet this is a clear example of that, and suggests the company is probably conducting other research and analysis of their drives and passengers.
Which is why the issue of Uber’s power is so important. The data that the company is able to collect and correlate is substantive. On a surface level this includes data about traffic, about urban usage patterns, and about personal preferences, whether where you go (home, work, entertainment) or what you eat (UberEats). However it can also include much more valuable data, especially when it comes to facilitating or enabling marketplaces.
Take for example the company’s latest initiative, UberPITCH. Described as “a collaborative project that facilitates innovation within local startup communities” the service involves matching up a prospective investor with an entrepreneur who wants to pitch them an investment idea.
For several hours on a specific day in specific cities, Uber users are invited to try and catch a ride with a notable investor or venture capitalist who is open to hearing their pitch. You’re given 15 minutes, 7 to pitch, and 7 to discuss (1 minute to say hi I guess), before you’re dropped off and the next person gets in to make their pitch.
While UberPITCH is arguably a marketing stunt to get people signing up and using the service (not to mention talking about Uber as I am doing now) it also speaks to a potential diversification of Uber’s services based on data profiling. After all, Uber knows who uses the service, and they have rankings for all those users based both on driver/user reviews but also any other data they can get their digital hands on.
For example what if Uber got into the financial matchmaking service and was able to secure a small commission from any deal that they helped facilitate. What if Uber paid certain investors just to hear pitches, who after all are always looking for the next thing to invest in. What if they matched them up while they went about their usual commutes? What about dating in general? Too risky? Or can the algorithms adapt to that kind of sorting and ranking as well?
Given Uber’s growing knowledge of our urban environments and the people who move through them, there’s considerable potential for the company to facilitate all sorts of social structures, relationships, and transactions that potentially give them a sort of power that neither corporate conglomerates nor political parties or associations have traditionally possessed.
Let’s also not forget Uber’s track record of asking for forgiveness rather than asking for permission. Instead of working with public policy planners and elected representatives the company has consistently invaded a market, defied rules, and waited until their power and presence was unquestionable before sitting down to negotiate terms.
Philip Napoli, a Professor and Associate Dean for Research at the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University, argues that institutional theory can help us understand and appreciate the role and power that algorithms play in our society.
With that in mind, what if Uber, as a collection of algorithms, is itself a new kind of growing institution? An emerging state that challenges the power and ability of existing nation states? A new society growing within the shell of the old?
Something to consider as Uber continues to grow and the lawsuits against it offer insights into the company’s practices and impact. What is their end game? Why are they going? What services and markets can they expand into?
Advice for humans who wish to govern
I’d like to offer some advice if you want to get elected, or you’re in the fortunate position of wanting to stay elected. Maybe you’re a career politician, or you’d like to run for office for the first time. Perhaps you live in a democracy, able to vote for your government, or maybe you don’t, and you’re wondering why not. Either way, I offer some perspective, a different way of looking at the problem of government, that I encourage you to consider.
At the Academy of the Impossible I operated the Campaign School, which invited successful politicians, campaigners, strategists, and pollsters, to share their knowledge and wisdom about electoral politics. While the focus was primarily directed toward the needs of people running for office for the first time, there was valuable knowledge for anyone interested in democratic processes.
A Crisis of Legitimacy
Specifically one of the recurring themes we tried to address, was the crisis of legitimacy in contemporary democratic politics. Governments, political parties, and especially politicians are generally regarded with cynicism and disdain. People decreasingly trust their elected leaders, and the institutions they are associated with.
It is not so much an issue of apathy, but of relevance, contact, and broader issues of representation in an era of direct interaction. Even our notions of community have radically transformed, from geographically specific constructs, to fluid and flexible configurations based on interests, ethnography, demography, or whatever cool meme or trend is playing out.
Given that our configuration of community has changed, so too has our conception of what a representative is, and what that representative should be. A general consensus among Campaign School participants was that electoral reform was necessary and overdue. Our notions of representation have changed, and existing systems have not kept up at all.
However adjacent to the issue of electoral reform, an interesting insight around relevance emerges.
Specifically I’m observing that ideology is no longer relevant to contemporary electoral democracy. We are no longer electing humans to run a government, we are electing humans to operate a machine. A growing, and rather complex machine, driven by data, and connected to a global machine, whether global village, or global market.
Therefore if you’re a politician driven by ideas, organized with comrades around an ideology, I question whether you will find success. Circumstances may still provide opportunities to share your ideology on the stage, but will you be able to deploy and carry out your ideas? We can see this happening today in Greece, as a government elected on a specific ideological platform is compelled to bend to the needs of the larger regional and global machine.
Algorithms replace Ideology
This is why I argue that the era of ideology has been replaced by the era of algorithms. Where the twentieth century was all about ideas, the twenty first century is all about code, and in particular, the algorithm.
We don’t seem to have the time for ideas when living in the era of complex systems fuelled by massive databases and surveillance streams. Rather we just react to the flows. We respond to the trending topics and whatever flares up in front of us.
Ideology is about beliefs, whereas algorithms are about methods. Ideology requires a grand vision, whereas algorithms require applied practice.
Algorithms are how we process the firehose of information. How we process living in an era of information overload. Without exaggeration we depend upon algorithms to process and describe our reality. We’re relying less and less upon ideas and imagination, but instead upon digitally constructed realities that claim an authority we’re not (yet) able to argue with.
For an ideologue, the end justifies the means. For an algorithm, the process is the purpose, there is no end. The algorithm focuses on the process, whereas ideology focuses on that end. Perhaps there’s a warning here for democracy, as the algorithmic government, devoid of any constraints or controls, governs without an end.
In my lifetime this shift from ideology to algorithm has been simultaneously subtle, and pronounced. While we cling to the language and appearances of the old regime, the new regime has rapidly emerged and replaced the old.
The cold war became the cyber war. Nuclear Armageddon has been replaced by the singularity, skynet, and the robot apocalypse. Hackers are terrorists, terrorists are hackers, and we’re all freedom fighters in the battles for our mind.
What is your Algorithm?
Therefore, to the aspiring or successful politician, I ask you, what is your algorithm? What method do you bring to the table to manage the machines? Or at least to help us understand their commands?
The politics of the twentieth century were about grand ideas. Perhaps the politics of the twenty first century needs to be about small but effective solutions? Better methods instead of steadfast beliefs? Better practices instead of rigid visions?
As a politician, think about coming to the party with a practice, a method, and solutions for the problems that plague society. People don’t want to trust you, but they may give you the chance to help them to try and fix stuff.
To be clear I’m not suggesting algorithms are better than ideologies. I’m just observing a clear shift from one to the other.
For example I don’t see the Chinese Communist Party wanting to relinquish control of the Chinese Government anytime soon. Yet are they really communist or even ideological? Rather they act as an example of a regime that focuses on algorithms instead of ideology. They could expand their political process to allow greater elections and participation, not according to ideology, but based on algorithms. This would allow for good governance while also enabling the stability that is so coveted by centuries of Chinese politicians.
An Ideology for Algorithms?
What about embedding ideology into an algorithm? That’s certainly possible, though an example of new media using old media as its content.
Emit Snake-Beings argues something similar in their paper “From Ideology to Algorithm: the Opaque Politics of the Internet”. Specifically that algorithm has replaced ideology as a method of control, the former absorbing the latter, with a focus on the role of media. The power of the mainstream media being replaced by the power of search engines and social media.
Astrid Mager also argues that search engines have ideology. That capitalism has been baked into search engines, which certainly suggests algorithms could be programed with other ideologies? What would a communist, or anarchist search engine involve?
Manuel Schaeffer argues that ideology has ended in the face of big data:
“the interconnectedness of social, economic and political problems does not allow politicians to force their agenda upon reality anymore.”
Schaeffer and I both argue that this is tied to the erosion of trust and confidence in elected politicians, however he and I disagree on whether “the era of individual leaders with big visions is likely to be over.”
We Still Need Vision and Narrative
This is where you come in. I’m suggesting that you need to combine vision with your algorithm. You’ll need to develop some analytics that give you and your electorate an empirical view of reality and using that engine to offer vision and narrative. These are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are dependent upon each other.
Left to their own devices, the technocrats will do away with politicians, in the same manner that ideology is being discarded or made irrelevant. This is why the politician needs to evolve, needs to develop new skills, in particular combine algorithmic literacy with old school storytelling. The leaders we need are the ones who can make sense of our world, so together we might be in a position to do something about it.
We should not give up trying to make the world better, or to imagine a different world altogether. Rather you have to articulate the means and not the end. The plan and the policies rather than the vision and the promises.
It’s not where you’re going, it’s how you’re able to get us there.
As for myself, I require your help with the algorithms that govern attention. If my words have helped your understanding or provided any enjoyment please help me by sharing them with others. Amplify the article via your networks triggering certain algorithms to carry these words even further.
Advice for struggling media executives
I recently made waves while commenting on the new Apple News app that will be installed by default on the upcoming iOS9 release. In particular, I argued that the management of the Canadian news industry had dropped the ball, and as a result some of the most storied and respected brands in the Canadian media landscape would be done.
nice little evisceration of the entire Canadian media business under the guise of a @jessehirsh Apple commentary http://t.co/UkBJSvbG8l
— marc weisblott (@scroll)
Specifically I cited both the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star as being destined to the dustbin of history due to their expensive gamble and reliance on new tablet editions. I framed the problem as one of monopoly, given that Apple is in a privileged position as both the manufacturer of the software and of the hardware.
What do you do if you’re a city or national brand from a small market and the monopoly provider enters your marketplace and engages in anticompetitive behaviour? I’m not suggesting that these companies curl up and call it quits, however I do think that proceeding as if all is normal is equally foolish and will result in disaster.
Therefore I offer the mythical media executive some advice which I hope will assist in the framing and understanding of the problem at hand.
Chase the Future, Not the Past
“The future is already here. It’s just unevenly distributed.” – William Gibson
The first and perhaps largest mistake that modern media executives make is to chase the past. Marshall McLuhan offers a fantastic metaphor in the form of the rearview mirror effect. In an accelerating culture what we perceive as the future is really the present, and what we perceive as the present is really the past.
How often have you heard someone proclaim that “mobile or digital are the future!” A derivative of this sentiment might be, “tablets are the future!” The irony of course is that none of these are the future, instead they’re the present. We don’t know what the future media may manifest as (I suggest shared hallucinations as one option), but we should not make the mistake of assuming that what we have now will remain the same. If there’s anything we can predict, it is that things will change, maybe all things will change, and the dynamism of an internet society will continue.
While it is entirely unreasonable for a media or news organization to speculate on what future media might be, it is entirely reasonable for them to either make that media happen, or at least be in a position to harness and leverage whatever does happen.
Therefore a news or media organization should chase the future, rather than chase the past. They should employ the same investigatory methods that are used to create content, to enable their business plans and models to evolve.
If possible, even go further, and invest in the future, so that all others chase you. This is what the technology industry has done, look at the likes of Apple or Google, and why they are now in a position to seduce, threaten, and dominate other industries. How a media organization could invest in the future so as to lead others, is another post, but I believe far more accessible and affordable than almost all other industries.
Chase the future, or invest in the future so you’re the one who is chased.
“There were coherent predictions of the trouble the Internet would cause for the news industry going back to the late 1980s and despite frequent invocations of "Internet time” the pace of change has been glacial; dated from 1994 (the first year of the broadly commercial web) management has had 75 consecutive quarters to adapt.“
From Post Industrial Journalism: Adapting to the Present
Relationships not Platforms
One of the biggest mistakes made as a result of chasing the past, is to focus on platforms, rather than relationships. News and media organizations chase platforms at the expense of their relationships with advertisers, subscribers, and readers.
Platforms can be expensive, have specific constraints, and distract from the real reason news and media organizations exist: their relationships. Whether they be the relationships with subscribers, the relationships with advertisers, or the general relationship with the readership, these rarely comprise the focus, but instead fall second to the platform.
Platforms bring with them a kind of conformity, a sense that you’re keeping up with the times, and following the rest of the industry to the next era. Perhaps platforms are justified as being where the audience is, or where the advertisers want to be, however they reverse the required emphasis on the market, instead drawing attention to someone else’s market.
The web has been around for over 20 years, and yet how many news organizations have a strong web platform? Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter offer themselves as platforms for news and media, yet for whose benefit?
"Our social media platforms are embedded with values that shape our perspectives and our behaviors. If we live in the social media landscape without an awareness of what it really wants from us, no one is really being empowered at all.” – Douglas Rushkoff
An obvious symptom or consequence of focusing on the platform at the expense of relationships are the sad state of online comments on news sites. The disdain and disrespect shown towards readers and the ability to comment has allowed a toxic culture to fester and grow. The phrase “don’t read the comments” has become a cliche, that on the one hand, warns the reader or author not to tread in the deeper part of the news site, and on the other hand, indicates the dysfunction that exists in that relationship.
Relationships can and should transcend platforms. A healthy relationship with subscribers means they will follow you anywhere. A strong relationship with advertisers means they will help facilitate the relationship with subscribers. A generous relationship with readers gives them the incentive and means by which to share content across all platforms.
It seems incredibly ironic that the subscribers of many media organizations are the most affluent and educated among society, and yet the people participating on media organizations platforms tend to be the most annoying and obnoxious. If only more attention had been placed on fostering healthy relationships instead of pushing platforms that seem to accomplish the opposite.
Perhaps the misplaced focus arises from the failure to translate the intimate relationship many readers had with their daily newspaper(s). When looking at the affection, proximity, and portability that newspapers provided their readers, it would be understandable why some might see that paper as a platform, and miss the larger relationship that existed between the page and the reader, but more importantly between the newspaper as an entity and the subscriber as an integral part of the larger body.
Experiences and Events
In an era of information overload, there is a growing emphasis and value placed on experiences and events. Increasingly people are willing to pay for an experience rather than an artifact. They’ll pay money to escape a room with friends, but won’t bother paying for a movie or album they can download for free. The concert or music festival costs a lot of money, but it provides an experience that offers memories that can last a lifetime.
In the pursuit of platforms, news and media organizations missed the opportunity to create experiences and events for their audiences. Some dabbled with conferences and events led by speakers, however few actually explored the kind of unique experiences that they might offer their subscribers (and by extension advertisers). These are not just extensions of the brand, or extensions of content that has already been produced, rather the kind of experiences that bring together subscribers and advertisers. The kind of experiences that people will pay a premium for.
Jaymz Bee at Jazz FM in Toronto has done this with his Jazz Safaris. They demonstrate the real opportunity to create new experiences, that offer both new sources of revenue, as well as new reasons for people to subscribe and expand their relationship.
The rituals by which we consume, experience, and engage with media are also important to understand, translate, or create entirely new ones for our new modes of media interaction. Going back to the newspaper, think of the daily and weekly rituals people would enact with their papers. The weekend paper being a heightened ceremony of leisure, intellect, discussion, games (crossword puzzles), and comics.
These rituals reflect both the intimacy and repeatability of media. In particular the intimacy is a result of how we experience media, using our senses, in combination with our minds, imagination, and shared lives, to understand what message the media is offering. In focusing on the platform at the expense of the relationship we are disrespecting and discouraging this intimacy. Fostering a culture and practice of experiences and events helps reestablish and refocus the role of intimacy (and repeatability) in media.
We are of course developing entirely new rituals to replace many of the ones that have disappeared, but that is another post for another day. Specifically I’m suggesting that events and experiences are way to find out, develop, and apply what those are for your brand or network.
Advertising That Is Welcome And Wanted
Here’s a wild idea: what about advertising that is both welcome, and wanted by the readership? The business model of news and media is to attract and maintain an audience, that you can deliver to advertisers. However in an era of ad blocking, advertising needs to on the terms of the reader, and not the publisher, assuming that advertising is to be effective and profitable.
While the entertainment value of advertising has increased, the desire on the part of the audience to be exposed to advertising has not. An emphasis on relationship building, both with the subscriber, and the advertiser, could create a new kind of advertising product that serves the interests of all involved.
As advertising and editorial combine to form advertorial (and product placement) there needs to be greater transparency, as well as greater agency, when it comes to what kind of advertising that subscribers and readers desire. There’s no reason why the publisher cannot facilitate a closer and more responsive relationship between the readers and advertisers.
Mentorship and Education
News and media organizations are in the business of pedagogy, even if they are reluctant to embrace this role. There is an inherent educational capacity to publishing, news, and media. Informing readers about the world, and helping them understand their place in it is an ongoing educational process. There’s considerable value in providing this education, and there is a lost opportunity when news organizations fail to embrace this role and the pedagogic authority that comes with it.
While this absolutely applies to readers and the general public, it is even more applicable when it comes to young journalists and aspiring media makers. A generation of journalists are growing up in an industry that provides neither solid employment nor solid opportunities. It’s as if we’re asking young journalists and media makers to wait until their elders figure out a new business model, rather than creating an educational and exploratory process in which all work together to create this new business model.
Mentorship, and in particular, reverse mentorship, provides an excellent opportunity to nurture a new generation, while also helping the industry as a whole transform and evolve. Reverse mentorship is the acknowledgement that all involved, young and old, have valuable knowledge and insights to share.
Yet that mentorship does not have to be limited to the narrow interests of journalists, but can apply to the world at large. Social and digital media means that everyone is a publisher, and yet not everyone understands the responsibilities that come with publishing. Facilitating citizen journalism is a tremendous business opportunity neglected by news organizations if not regarded with disdain.
Traditional educational institutions have recognized the necessity and utility of continuing education, not to mention the revenue. Ironically many veterans of the news and media industry are enjoying their second career at various post-secondary institutions, when they could have been providing that service as part of their traditional organizations.
Accessible and Diverse
One of the ways in which mainstream media organizations have lost credibility over the past couple of decades is due to their inaccessibility and lack of diversity. This has been a huge contrast with a mediasphere that is increasingly diverse and almost universally accessible. Just about anyone can publish, and reach a potential global audience, and yet many news and media organizations still treat publishing as an elite endeavour available only to the few.
There’s little reason, other than a lack of courage, to not open up the mainstream media organizations to a much wider, and more diverse set of voices. The Huffington Post has pioneered this model, allowing pretty much anyone to publish on their site. While there is still a need or justification to curate and cultivate a relevant set of voices, there’s certainly no need to limit it to the elite group that currently comprise established journalism.
Every major media organization operating in a decently sized marketplace should be actively cultivating and mentoring new and diverse voices. This can be done by opening up publishing opportunities for young (and not so young), aspiring, and willing members of the community. Some news organizations have tried this, but most have not invested the resources or profile to actively cultivate this broader network of contributors.
Pay Attention and Reciprocate
“Nothing is inevitable provided we are prepared to pay attention.” – Marshall McLuhan
These are just some obvious ideas that I offer for any curious, courageous, or otherwise capable media executive who is interested in avoiding icebergs. If you have made it this far, whether you’re a media exec or not, do me a solid and share this post with your networks. I’ll notice, remember, and probably reciprocate sometime in the future.
Toronto is a Failed State
Toronto is a failed state. It has been this way for some time. It failed not through some significant catastrophe, but through the neglect and complacency of a population that wants to believe in a better city, rather than actually create one.
When Toronto had a buffoon as Mayor, it was easy to ignore our status as a failed state, and instead think the problem was with the fool, or the electorate (as fools), but not the city itself. Now that there is a Mayor who is competent and capable, there’s no excuse for the chaos that will befall the city this summer with the arrival of the 2015 Pan Am Games.
The Fund for Peace, which maintains a Failed State Index, uses a number of criteria to describe and measure a failed state:
The loss of control of its territory: the condo boom in Toronto has led to a massive cash grab and development frenzy that demonstrates how the city is not in control over its own territory. Whether it’s the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) or just the inability (or neglect) to properly plan, the current craze in construction will create substantially greater problems in the future due to the speed by which it has occurred and the failure of the city to integrate it into a larger vision.
Erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions: the city has not been able to make a proper transit decision in decades, or at least one that it can stick to. There are countless other decisions that are avoided, neglected, and simply ignored, whether they be affordable housing, urban infrastructure, or transportation in general.
Inability to provide public services: the city already fails to meet the needs of the most vulnerable, and it is often incapable of providing the kind of public transit service that residents require to go to school and work.
Inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community: substitute international community with national community and you see Toronto as a kind of pariah that while generating a ton of the wealth and culture, has little to no political influence in Ottawa. Queen’s Park may be starting to say nicer things to the city, yet that’s still lip service, and it was Queen’s Park that created Toronto the megacity which many point to as the exact moment that Toronto became a failed state.
Failed states are also marked by corruption and criminality, and in Toronto both of these are incredibly difficult to measure. An inability to provide public services, also includes police and prosecutorial resources that are inadequate for a city of this size. Enforcement is arbitrary, selective, and symbolic, nobody really knows the full extent of corruption and criminality, especially when manifest at low and pervasive levels. Economically speaking however, when there is a construction boom as there is with the condo development, that kind of revenue is often associated with the ability to corrupt. We won’t know the full extent to which that is true until well after the fact (as was the case in Quebec).
Update: Two responses on this point that I’ve received that are worth sharing: “There will never be a Charbonneau commission here. The corruption is far too entrenched.” and
Neil Andersen reminds us that Toronto’s G20 experience was a case study in the modern failed city state, due to both the criminal actions of the police, and the corruption exhibited by the federal government.
What will really illustrate Toronto’s status as a failed state will be hosting the 2015 Pan Am Games. Toronto’s transportation networks are overloaded on average days, and will be completely overwhelmed for the two months of the events. The non-strategy to deal with this has been the introduction of temporary car pool lanes, and an ad campaign encouraging people to use transit or work off hours. Yet all this communication campaign does is give residents a place to direct their anger and frustration when the city breaks down.
The city of course breaks down often. Usually not for longer than a day or a weekend. Subway closure. Highway construction. Marathon. What’s noteworthy when these incidents occur, is the extent to which there’s a cascading failure, both literally, and culturally. Gridlock spreads through the city, and the attitudes, culture, and behaviour of residents change. Drivers start breaking the law, acting aggressively, and setting the tone for the cyclists, pedestrians, and others moving through.
Usually those moments only last hours, or in the case of transit strikes a couple of days. What happens what those moments become a summer? What if people decide that the authority of the city doesn’t matter when it comes to their (self-centred) need to get to where they’re going?
As that anger, as that resentment, as that realization that we live in a failed state sinks in, how will people feel about all the other elements of this city that are not working? Will it encourage an open and honest conversation on what is wrong and what needs to be done? Or will we maintain our false belief in Toronto as a great city, rather than doing what is necessary to make our city great!
Canadians, and in particular Torontonians, like to imagine that we’ve got it better than anywhere else. That it would be wrong to compare us to elsewhere, that we could never be a failed state. However it is this arrogance and complacency that has led us here.
Toronto has a unique culture, and this is reflected in the tone and style by which our state has failed. There are no brigands, (visibly) armed warlords, or (regular) looting. Yet these are not the primary characteristics of a failed state. Nor are they part of Toronto’s culture and fabric. Just because we are not failing as others have, does not mean we have not already failed. How does a once prosperous and developed city fail? Perhaps Toronto is offering itself as a textbook example. Unless of course we choose to do otherwise.
@davefleet #TTC this #transit is absolutely #dysfunctional 4 the people of #Toronto. #TTCFAIL pic.twitter.com/Q2dmeY0mtB
— memeyer (@bea_best_jrt)
Quick Reads for Pedagogues
When I speak to educators and aspiring pedagogues I often offer the following influences for further reading/thinking:
Academy of the Impossible Visits Attawapiskat
From March 2nd until March 4th, 2015, the Academy of the Impossible was invited by the Western James Bay Telecom Network to visit the Attawapiskat First Nation, located on the then-frozen shores of James Bay, in Northern Ontario. The Western James Bay Telecom Network is a community owned and operated initiative to bring high speed fibre optic Internet to the coastal communities of James Bay. It is backed by the Mushkegowuk Council, which represents eight First Nations in North Eastern Ontario.
On March 3rd, we facilitated six sessions with students and community members around issues arising from using and engaging with the Internet.
These sessions all began with the question: What is the Internet? There are computers, smartphones, tablets, and laptops, but what exactly is the Internet?
One way of looking at the Internet is that it is our imagination. Connecting all these computers and devices has allowed our imagination to be shared, and thus allows us to share ideas, media, stories, and cultures.
Another way of regarding the Internet is as a great big learning curve. After all, the Internet has no finish line, it has no end, and there are always new concepts and services to discover. Thus the Internet is an expression of our ability to learn, and continue learning, whatever it is that interests us.
In meeting with members of the community, especially the younger members/students, it was clear that there is already a tremendous amount of knowledge in the community about the Internet, and the potential for the Internet to empower and enable the people of Attawapiskat in many ways.
The following five suggestions arise from several days of discussion, and focus on how the existing knowledge within the community can be further developed and shared.
1. Community Internet Circle
The Internet will continue to have an impact on society, and the best way for individuals and communities like Attawapiskat to benefit from that impact is to make an active effort to share the knowledge that they collect as individuals with the community as a whole.
The easiest and perhaps most effective way to accomplish this is by having a regular circle to discuss stories and issues that relate to using the Internet and its many applications, services, and games. This could be as simple as a regularly scheduled monthly meeting, where interested members of the community show up to talk about their experiences with the Internet. The purpose of the circle is not to judge, but to share and help each other understand how the Internet is changing our relationship with society (and maybe with each other).
Responsible and safe use of the Internet comes from sharing experience and knowledge about best practices, however it also comes from an open mind that not everyone uses the Internet in the same manner. If and when conflicts do arise (whether online, or offline due to online activity), the principles of restorative justice might be employed to ensure that learning and conflict resolution become the primary outcomes of any dispute.
We cannot blame technology for the changes that it inspires, but we do have to take responsibility for our own actions and communities, and the way in which we choose to use these tools that are becoming available to us.
2. A HackLab
Technology in our era changes very rapidly, as there are always new inventions and devices, like smartphones, tablets, flying robots (drones), and other gadgets.
Having a technology-focused community centre (a HackLab) is an efficient and effective way to ensure that as new technologies emerge, the knowledge of how to use and maintain them responsibly is shared as widely as possible.
A HackLab could exist inside of a school, athletic complex, or even as a distinct space. However the goal of such a lab is to give a home to both the technology and the curious individuals who wish to experiment, play, and wrestle with the ways in which it could have an impact on the community as a whole.
Hackers are hunters who seek knowledge. They head out onto the Internet seeking to learn all that they can about a particular technology. A HackLab is a community centre that provides a place for Hackers to share their knowledge, and for other members of the community to learn how to Hack in a safe and supportive environment.
3. Local Area Networks
Speed on the Internet is relative, and we forget that while we can cross the world in an instant, it will always be faster to access information and services that are closer to home.
Establishing and developing servers and content for local area networks ensures that fast speeds can be possible regardless of uplink connections or the rising popularity of sites like Netflix. These servers could be set up relatively inexpensively using free and open source software such as Linux and Drupal to facilitate capacity-building of community members, as well as encouraging people to interact with each other without having to travel far, and thus take advantage of speeds that are only available on local area networks.
For example, rather than Facebook, the community could have its own local social network, built on free software like Drupal to emulate all the features and capabilities of Facebook, without Facebook’s advertising or agenda.
An open media server could be used to share content and media files. All of which would be available at superfast speeds, and could keep the uplink open for other applications.
A free telephone server such as Asterisk could be used to enable voice mails, teleconferencing, and free local calls.
There are countless additional free applications that could be offered from a local server and local area network, which could themselves be co-ordinated by the local HackLab and Community Internet Circle.
4. Culture and Sovereignty
The Internet is having a profound impact on cultures around the world as it makes it increasingly easy to share culture and media. However, this means that if you’re not actively supporting and sharing your culture online, you may be impacted by the seeming immersion of other cultures. Therefore, it is important that communities make an active and ongoing effort to support and share their own cultures.
The Internet also has a dramatic impact on the notion of sovereignty.
On the one hand, the Internet is decentralized, and if communities take responsibility for their use of the Internet, then there’s no reason why they can’t use it, and govern their part of it, however they wish or deem fit.
On the other hand, the Internet is a force for centralization and automation, allowing for remote control, and thus the potential disempowerment, if not outright domination, of a community.
It is imperative that communities actively support their culture and exercise their sovereignty. Use it or lose it. Share it or forget about it.
5. Crowdfunding
Communities tend to rely upon crowdfunding in various forms to support numerous local initiatives, sport teams, and causes. Whether via Bingo, raffles, bake sales, or lotteries, crowdfunding is not a new phenomenon. But the way in which the Internet is enabling this kind of fundraising to evolve is worth further investigation.
In particular, crowdfunding on the Internet does not have to be limited to the physical community, but gives access to larger and broader networks both geographically and based on affinity and interest. What you ask for and who you ask has become a greater variable for communities seeking to find financial support.
Websites like KickStarter.com, Indiegogo.com, and Patreon.com have provided dynamic platforms for people to raise money for their projects, ideas, causes, and organizations.
More info:
http://www.pathoftheelders.com/index.php
Photos by Dave Wheesk
Is there a public policy response to the rise of Artificial Intelligence?
I believe that one of the big stories of 2015 will be the ongoing rise of Artificial Intelligence. Already in these first few weeks there have been a number of articles trying to make sense of the rapid rise of smart software and the rapid development of deep learning.
Privacy has been a pressing concern over the past few years, and in spite of repeated attempts to argue that it was dead, or undesirable, it remains a priority for pretty much everyone.
Our personal information has been seduced, coerced, and vacuumed from our devices in ways that we will only understand after the fact.
Therefore the big debate for 2015 is what is to be done with that information? Who controls it? Who has access to it? What insights, conclusions, and absurd connections will be made by smart software that sorts through it?
To answer these questions, we require algorithmic transparency. We need to understand how the black box of society works, we cannot cede governance of our society to the smart software and nerds behind its curtain.
The role for public policy in this situation is significant and arguably rather urgent. There’s a clear need to assess the environment, properly understand the context, and then formulate an appropriate and possible response.
The irony is that the people who do take the time to understand, the experts, the pioneers, the folks who’ve had a front row seat this entire time, they’re starting to raise some serious concerns about the survival of humanity!
In the face of this growing concern, which government, or elected leader, is going to lead the public policy discussion around artificial intelligence?
Rather than regard Facebook as a social network, it makes more sense to view the company as being in the business of artificial intelligence and machine learning.
