All the videos of the talks and sessions at State of the Net 2018, themed Consequences, are now available on Youtube, combined into a playlist.
Today I contributed to a session of the open data research groups at Delft University. They do this a few times per year to discuss ongoing research and explore emerging questions that can lead to new research. I’ve taken part a few times in the past, and this time they asked me to provide an overview of what I see as current developments.
Some of the things I touched upon are similar to the remarks I made in Serbia during Open Data Week in Belgrade. The new PSI Directive proposal also was on the menu. I ended with the questions I think deserve attention. They are either about how to make sure that abstract norms get translated to the very practical, and to the local level inside government, or how to ensure that critical elements get connected and visibly stay that way (such as links between regular policy goals / teams and information management)
The slides are embedded below.
Iryna Susha and Bastiaan van Loenen in the second part of our afternoon took us through their research into the data protection steps that are in play in data collaboratives. This I found very worthwile, as data governance issues of collaborative groups (e.g. public and private entities around energy transition) are regularly surfacing in my work. Both where it threatens data sovereignty for instance, or where collaboratively pooled data can hardly be shared because it has become impossible to navigate the contractual obligations connected to the data that was pooled.
Yesterday at State of the Net I showed some of the work I did with the great Frysklab team, letting a school class find power in creating their own solutions. We had a I think very nicely working triade of talks in our session, Hossein Derakshan first, me in the middle, and followed by Dave Snowden. In his talk, Dave referenced my preceding one, saying it needed scaling for the projects I showed to alter anything. Although I know Dave Snowden didn’t mean his call for scale that way, often when I hear it, it is rooted in the demand-for-ever-more-growth type of systems we know cannot be sustained in a closed world system like earth’s. The small world syndrom, as I named it at Shift 2010, will come biting.
It so often also assumes there needs to be one person or entity doing the scaling, a scaler. Distributed networks don’t need a scaler per se.
The internet was not created that way, nor was the Web. Who scaled RSS? Some people moved it forwards more than others, for certain, but unconnected people, just people recognising a possibility to fruitfully build on others for something they felt personally needed. Dave Winer spread it with Userland, made it more useful, and added the possibility of having the payload be something else than just text, have it be podcasts. We owe him a lot for the actual existence of this basic piece of web plumbing. Matt Mullenweg of WordPress and Ben and Mena Trott of Movable Type helped it forward by adding RSS to their blogging tools, so people like me could use it ‘out of the box’. But it actually scaled because bloggers like me wanted to connect. We recognised the value of making it easy for others to follow us, and for us to follow the writings of others. So I and others created our own templates, starting from copying something someone else already made and figuring out how to use RSS. It is still how I adopt most of my tools. Every node in a network is a scaler, by doing something because it is of value to themselves in the moment, changes them, and by extension adding themselves to the growing number of nodes doing it. Some nodes may take a stronger interest in spreading something, convincing others to adopt something, but that’s about it. You might say the source of scaling is the invisible hand of networks.
That’s why I fully agree with Chris Hardie that in the open web, all the tools you create need to have the potentiality of the network effect built in. Of course, when something is too difficult for most to copy or adapt, then there won’t be this network effect. Which is why most of the services we see currently dominating online experiences, the ones that shocked Hossein upon returning from his awful forced absence, are centralised services made very easy to use. Where someone was purposefully aiming for scale, because their business depended on it once they recognised their service had the potential to scale.
Dave Winer yesterday suggested the blogosphere is likely bigger now than when it was so dominantly visible in the ‘00s, when your blogpost of today could be Google’s top hit for a specific topic, when I could be found just on my first name. But it is so much less visible than before, precisely because it is not centralised, and the extravagant centralised silos stand out so much. The blogosphere diminished itself as well however, Dave Winer responded to Hossein Derakshan’s talk yesterday.
People still blog, more people blog than before, but we no longer build the same amount of connections across blogs. Connections we were so in awe of when our writing first proved to have the power to create them. Me and many others, bloggers all, suckered ourselves into feeling blog posts needed to be more like reporting, essays, and took our conversations to the comments on Facebook. Facebook, which, as Hossein Derakshan pointed out, make such a travesty of what web links are by allowing them only as separate from the text you write on Facebook. It treats all links as references to articles, not allowing embedding them in the text, or allowing more than one link to be presented meaningfully. That further reinforced the blog-posts-as-articles notions. That further killed the link as weaving a web of distributed conversations, a potential source of meaning. Turned the web, turned your timeline, into TV, as Hossein phrased it.
Hoder on ‘book-internet’ (blogs) and ‘tv-internet’ (FB et al) Tweet by Anna Masera
Adriana Lukas and I after the conference, as we sat there enjoying an Italian late Friday afternoon over drinks, talked about the Salons of old. How we both have created through the years settings like that, Quantified Self meetings, BlogWalks, Birthday Unconferences, and how we approached online sharing like that too. To just add some of my and your ramblings to the mix. Starting somewhere in the middle, following a few threads of thought and intuitions, adding a few links (as ambient humanity), and ending without conclusions. Open ended. Just leaving it here.
At State of the Net yesterday I used the concept of macroscopes. I talked about how many people don’t really feel where their place is in the face of global changes, like climate change, ageing, the pressures on rules and institutions, the apparent precarity of global financial systems. That many feel whatever their actions, they will not have influence on those changes. That many feel so much of the change around them is being done to them, merely happens to them, like the weather.
Macroscopes provide a perspective that may address such feelings of being powerless, and helps us in the search for meaning.
Macroscopes, being the opposite of microscopes, allow us to see how our personal situation fits in a wider global whole. The term comes from John Thackara in the context of social end ecological design. He says a macroscope “allows us to see what the aggregation of many small interactions looks like when added together”. It makes the processes and systems that surrounds us visible and knowable.
I first encountered the term macroscope at the 2009 Reboot conference in Copenhagen where Matt Webb in his opening keynote invoked Thackara.
Matt Webb also rephrased what a macroscope is, and said “a macroscope shows you where you are, and where within something much bigger, simultaneously. To understand something much bigger than you in a human way, at human scale, in your heart.” His way of phrasing it stayed with me in the past years. I like it very much because it adds human emotion to the concept of macroscopes. It provides us with a place we feel we have, a sense of meaning. As meaning is deeply emotional.
Later in his on stage conversation at State of the Net, Dave Winer remarked that for Donald Trump’s base MAGA is such a source of meaning, and I think he’s right. Even though it’s mostly an expression of hope that I typified in my talk as salvationism. (Someone will come along and make everything better, a populist, an authoritarian, a deity, or speakers pontificating on stage.) I’ve encountered macroscopes that worked for people in organisations. But sometimes they can appear very contrived viewed from the outside. The man who cleans the urinals at an airport and says he’s ensuring 40 million people per year have a pleasant and safe trip, clearly is using a macroscope effectively. It’s one I can empathise with as aiming for great hospitality, but it also feels a bit contrived as many other things at an airport, such as the cattle prodding at security and the leg room on your plane so clearly don’t chime with it. In the Netherlands I encountered two examples of working macroscopes. Everyone I encountered at the Court of Audit reflexively compares every idea and proposal to the way their institution’s role is described in the constitution. Not out of caution, but out of feeling a real sense of purpose as working on behalf of the people to check how government spends its money. The other one was the motto of the government engineering department responsible for water works and coastal defences, “Keeping our feet dry”. With so much of our country below sea level, and the catastrophic floods of 1953 seared in our collective memory, it’s a highly evocative macroscope that draws an immediate emotional response. They since watered it down, and now it’s back to something bloodless and bland, likely resulting from a dreary mission statement workshop.
In my talk I positioned networked agency as a macroscope. Globe spanning digital networks and our human networks in my mind are very similar in the way they behave, and hugely overlapping. So much so they can be treated as one, we should think in terms of human digital networks. There is meaning, the deeply felt kind of meaning, to be found in doing something together with a group. There’s also a tremendous sense of power to be felt from the ability to solve something for yourself as a group. Seeing your group as part, as a distinctive node or local manifestation, of the earth-wide human digital network allows you to act in your own way as part of global changes, and see the interdependencies. That also let’s you see how to build upon the opportunities that emerge from the global network, while being able to disconnect or shield yourself from negative things propagating over the network. Hence my call to build tools (technologies and methods) that are useful on their own within a group, as a singular instance, but more useful when federated with other instances across the global network. Tools shaped like that mean no-one but the group using it itself can switch their tools off, and the group can afford to disconnect from the wider whole on occasion.
Today I am enjoying the 2018 edition of the State of the Net conference, in Italy. Organised by Beniamino Pagliaro, Paolo Valdemarin and Sergio Maistrello.
This morning I provided a key note on Networked Agency, where I talked about rediscovering our ability to act. As networked groups, in real and meaningful contexts as the unit of agency. For that to be possible our tools, both technologies and methods, need to work for groups, be much easier to access. They also need to work both as a local instance as well as federated across contexts. From it striking power (classic agency) flows, agility to use and leverage the useful things coming at us over the networks, and resilience to mitigate the negative consequences that come at us over those same networks.
The slides are below.
The videos of State of the Net are online, including the video of my talk.
(Disclosure) Paolo is a long time friend and I had the privilege of contributing to previous editions in 2012 (Trieste) and 2015 (Milano). I’m also a member of the conference’s steering committee.
Earlier this month I asked Frank Meeuwsen a question, about his rss feeds, and he responded (in Dutch). He did so as a direct response (hey Ton!). He referenced a posting by James Shelley who suggests writing postings in the second person, as open correspondence really.
I definitely see blogs as distributed conversations. You write something, I may respond on my own blog, such as now. That response may either directly engage your post or may go off on a tangent, or weaves it into a broader conversation by pointing to other blog posts from other authors. It’s not the original use case why I started blogging, that was ‘thinking out loud’, but conversations definitely is the use case why I kept doing it for over 15 years now.
I also always treat blogs as the personal voices of their authors. Unless it’s an online magazine format, like Ars Technica for instance. In my feed reader I therefore always add the name of the author first. I’m not following publications or channels, I am reading what individual people write. Over time from that reading interaction and then connection may well flow. That’s also why I order my feeds roughly on social distance. Those closest to me I will check daily, those further away I may check less, depending on time or on having a specific question where I’m curious what others may write about that.
part of my reading lists: persons not publications
James’ suggestion I both like and feel slightly uncomfortable with. Like, because it is aimed at making blogs distributed conversations, which is a core purpose of my blog. Getting away from feeling like you’re writing a news article, striking a more informal tone, definitely helps. It likely is also a good way to blog more. A while ago when I asked my network what to write about more, one of the suggestions (by Georges Labreche) was to write an epistolary travel log novella. This, as my blog would actually provide all the material, with all the links to other blogs and authors in my postings. In James’ suggestion the blog itself would already be that epistolary travel log. My blog in that sense is too, just the form of address is different.
The discomfort is probably caused by also wanting to maintain a permanent open invitation to others to join in. To not exclusively address something to someone, and not discourage others lurking from contributing. Usually I am aware of others that are likely to have a perspective to add.
Another factor is supplying enough context. I agree that the first paragraph which allows you to follow the context of this posting as part of a conversation feels contrived and is ‘dry’ to read. Yet, I feel it is necessary to convey in some form. In a second person form this context would likely be left out completely as the counterpart already knows the context. That makes it harder to follow for those who have just one side of the conversations as their window on it.
Some links I thought worth reading the past few days
- Initial circumstances mostly trump intrinsic capabilities. Basically the evolutionary space available. Delayed gratification is based on affluence at the outset, not indicative of doing better in future: Why Rich Kids Are So Good at the Marshmallow Test
- Can’t afford it, society without social contract, techno-determinism, salvationism, denial. Five kinds of stooopid: Umair Haque on The Age of the Imbecility and how not to join it
- “Embrace and Extend” usually means “embrace and smother” in the context of organisations like Microsoft, and I expect lots of devs to head for the exit, though some see it in a positive light: Microsoft buying GitHub
- Allow proper citing of blogs, added to the ‘someday’ project list: Joi Ito adds a citation widget to his blog
- An analysis of the proliferation of Internet of Things Manifestos: A CHI 2018 paper, Calling for a Revolution
- This isn’t about open data, despite the original title, but controlled sharing in defined ecosystems: In Japan, Mitsubishi Estate and Fujitsu put blockchain in the service of shared data
- If you can answer this letter, you can likely handle anything GDPR related: So You Received the Nightmare GDPR Letter
- Why Doc Searls is probably right about GDPR popping the adtech industry, and why consent in the ePrivacy Directive is to be interpreted as GDPR style consent: Personal Data Processing for Behavioural Targeting needs unambiguous consent
- Networked agency is not about enabling individuals but people in their meaningful social context. So yes, open tools need to have the networked effect built in : To bring people to the open web it needs to be the best version of the web.
4 billion dollar ico yesterday.
Seen a generation and tech with big potential end up in ipo games, greed, speculation and short term thinking – “saw the beast of capitalism directly in it’s eyes” is my mental image of the dotcom bubble.
A natural consequence of any technology cycle I rationally know, but just sad to see generations repeating previous mistakes over and over.
In the comments Martin von Haller Grønbaek points to what happened after the dotcom bubble burst, a tremendous wave of innovation. So blockchain tech is set to blossom after the impending ICO crash.
To celebrate the launch of the GDPR last week Friday, Jaap-Henk Hoekman released his ‘little blue book’ (pdf)’ on Privacy Design Strategies (with a CC-BY-NC license). Hoekman is an associate professor with the Digital Security group of the ICS department at the Radboud University.
Data protection by design (together with a ‘state of the art’ requirement) forms the forward looking part of the GDPR where the minimum requirements are always evolving. The GDPR is designed to have a rising floor that way.
The little blue book has an easy to understand outline, which cuts up doing privacy by design into 8 strategies, each accompanied by a number of tactics, that can all be used in parallel.
Those 8 strategies (shown in the image above) are divided into 2 groups, data oriented strategies and process oriented strategies.
Data oriented strategies:
Minimise (tactics: Select, Exclude, Strip, Destroy)
Separate (tactics: Isolate, Distribute)
Abstract (tactics: Summarise, Group, Perturb)
Hide (tactics: Restrict, Obfuscate, Dissociate, Mix)
Process oriented strategies:
Inform (tactics: Supply, Explain, Notify)
Control (tactics: Consent, Choose, Update, Retract)
Enforce (tactics: Create, Maintain, Uphold)
Demonstrate (tactics: Record, Audit, Report)
All come with examples and the final chapters provide suggestions how to apply them in an organisation.
Some links I thought worth reading the past few days
- World Bank data on the status of the global sustainable development goals, by the WB data team (whom I know due to my work for the WB’s open data efforts): The 2018 Atlas of Sustainable Development Goals: an all-new visual guide to data and development
- It’s not a problem, it’s a challenge, to stick to enlightenment ideals in developing AI. Privacy and using big data aren’t opposites. Let’s not confuse purposes and outcomes, and explore hidden assumptions. EU style AI efforts are merely hard in a different way than the surveillance capitalism variety in the US and the data driven authoritarianism variety in China : AI Has a Big Privacy Problem And Europe’s New Data Protection Law Is About to Expose It
- Quick overview of how EU is positioning in the AI space. Ethics a key component, and various funding initiatives underway: Key points from the EU Artificial Intelligence strategy
- My Swiss colleague André Golliez talks sense in this radio interview on the meaning of GDPR also to Switzerland (in Swiss-German): GDPR a Paradigm Shift for Data Protection
- An oldie, 2016, from Doc Searls, but still relevant. Your browser is your castle: The Castle Doctrine
- Data and the machine learning it enables is of geopolitical importance: The Chinese 2018-2020 Action Plan for AI
- Doc Searls, who expects GDPR to kill microtargeting as a business model, celebrates May 25th as ‘Privmas’ and writes about the : Frequently Unasked Questions (FUQ) for the GDPR
- Another old article (from 2013), but still a relevant thought, how to connect things up while staying personally in control: The Internet of My Things