Categories
society

To Combat Fake News, Give People More Media Control

Whether it’s Sinclair’s five minutes of hate, Alex Jones’ rants, Russian Federation bots’ tweets, Assange’s leaks, or Fox News’ commentators’ lies, one of the biggest problems today is bad information, media pollution.

And there’s an open question of how to deal with it all. Well, to deal with some of it. Really, it depends whom you ask.

But the best solution is to empower people by giving them greater control over what they read and watch, how they read and watch it, and how they share content with others. That’s a heavy lift, as the same lack of control that empowers the bad actors helps the media conglomerates to exert influences that pad their own pockets.

Copyright law badly needs an update for the modern world, where it’s easy and useful to share content beyond what the strictures of existing law allow. Having greater control over hardware and software that enables media access would shake up the marketplace while letting users spend their finite time more wisely. There is much work needed here, and there is little impetus for the incumbents to roll up their sleeves.

This past week on at least one cable provider The View and The Late Show with Stephen Colbert had their listing data screwed up. That meant that at least some users’ DVRs failed to record James Comey’s book promotions. It’s almost certain to be a screw up in the listing distribution chain, but it is an example of media pollution that people who have paid for the privilege may have missed content they wanted to see. They could jump through hoops to see the interviews, but it’s not in their preferred format or at their preferred time.

The technology industry could have a hand in empowering viewers, but the FCC blocked a proposal to force cable companies to grant access to third party hardware. For whatever reason, the Apples and Googles of the world did not lobby hard enough to make it happen. Missed opportunity. These talking-listening hubs they sell for homes would be much more useful if they allowed for interaction with the real main home hub: the television.

On websites like Twitter and Facebook, the limited access they give their users to filter and augment the feed means that people are forced to dig, scrounge, or put up with so many bad behaviors. Every single time I search on Twitter, I’m bound to find at least one tweet with every hashtag under the sun trying to advertise some stupid thing (or porn).

Now, you say, back when newspapers were the thing, people didn’t have control. But newspapers, I say, weren’t endless streams of data. Paracelsus says the dose makes the poison, and high-volume media vehicles like Twitter increase the dose considerably.


The media companies that aren’t thrilled about the likes of Trump, Fascism, and the Anti-American Way should give more power to the viewer. Make it happen. It’ll make you more money in the long run, and it will help to thwart bad actors like Sinclair in the meantime.

Categories
society

More Tech Than They Know What to Do With

DARPA has taken a step toward wider availability of the open source software they sponsor: DARPA: Open Catalog. Most major technology companies (including Apple, Google, Intel, Microsoft, etc.) have open source software they use and maintain. And lots of other companies (e.g., automakers) have some level of involvement in open source, too.

Why? Where does this wide spread come from? Obviously the players keep and maintain other software on a proprietary basis (both licensed and in-house). They keep some software close and closed because of a competitive advantage. Other software stays closed because it would be no value to others.

And yet, some software remains closed purely because of the cost involved in opening it up. That typically involves having people (both engineers and lawyers, at least) look over the source, vet it, clean it up, package it for public consumption. Some of those efforts will fail, resulting in loss, due to coupling between unreleasable and releasable source.

How much technology is being lost? Is that not an economic concern and a harmful characteristic of monolithic firms in an economy? We lose benefits because of the inefficiency of large organizations that have more tech than they know what to do with.

It’s not as obviously bad as some high-profile failures where time and budget overruns of projects costing billions eventually led to them being scrapped and gods know what happened to the tech developed on the public dime.

But it still hurts, and may be far more costly in terms of our special development. It is akin to firms competing outside of their core competency: that large tech firms develop tech that could stand on its own as a business, but is at best used internally and at worst overlooked entirely because they have no strategy to deploy it widely.

Firms competing outside of their competency means that, e.g., two ice cream shops may not compete on product quality and other metrics, but on something as foreign to ice cream as their ability to exploit tax loopholes. That sort of competitiveness on general business acumen rather than on niche values leads to ugly distortions of information and inferior products with irregular pricing.

Technology’s most disruptive roles have come when new ideas were leveraged against existing problems in unexpected ways. The constituent technologies of the electronic nicotine vaporizer have existed for decades, but only recently were combined to tackle an existing problem.

But that sort of disruption requires that potential entrepreneurs know or at least can find out about viable technologies. With large technology firms, the pool of potential entrepreneurs is limited to employees, consultants, and partners that are aware of the technologies available. That is a far smaller pool than the general pool of potential entrepreneurs.

Moreover, the privileged information regarding costs and profits of existing industries may thwart analyses that would indicate entrance opportunities, even when the technologies are known. We need to open more than just a few projects here and there, if we are to unlock the true progress that economics offers us.

Categories
unAmerican

How to: Run for the US Presidency and Win

Should You Run?

Questions you should ask yourself before you decide to run include:

  1. Am I a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution?
  2. Have I attained the age of thirty five?
  3. Have I been fourteen years a resident within the United States?
  4. Did my relative (mother, grandfather, husband, etc.) run for president and win?

Run Unopposed

This is tricky. In fact, there’s not been a single campaign to pull it off.

Not even the [illeg.] Richard Nixon ran unopposed, and in 1972 he won in a landslide, only losing the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to George McGovern and a single Virginian electoral vote went to John Hospers thanks to a faithless elector. That was 40 years ago.

Ronald Reagan holds the world record for highest number of electoral votes; in 1984 (28 years ago) he won 525 electoral votes to Walter Mondale’s 13 (Minnesota narrowly went for Mondale). But Reagan was opposed.

The popular theory is that there are two political parties, so running unopposed cannot be done, but the unpopular fact is that no one has really tried.

So, consider running unopposed.

The Next Best Thing

Aerial Warfare

If running unopposed doesn’t pan out, do the next best thing. Don’t run against your opposition. In modern wars, the USA and allies have complete air dominance. They don’t have dogfights. Although the opposition shoots at the planes and helicopters, they mostly miss.

Fly above your opponents. That means inventing new media forms that your opponents can’t touch.

While your opponents are busy printing bumper stickers and running television advertisements, you should be building trebuchets to deliver buick-sized pleas to your potential voters. You should be building tiny robots that will crawl onto their shoes while they’re waiting for the bus and stitch “Vote for [Your Name]” onto their shoelaces.

No Partisanship

Your opponents will expect you to align yourself with canned views. Don’t fall into this trap. Instead, base your campaign around debating scientists and field experts on a variety of issues. They can be partisans or independents, but they should be experts. Don’t be afraid of being wrong. Give your best arguments, and if they convince you otherwise, admit it.

You should pick your running mate out of the pool of those you debate. Showing you’re willing to work with those you debate means you’ll be able to give opponents a fair shake in governing.

No “When I’m President”

Too often, candidates only propose legislative and regulatory changes that would be enacted if elected. Why they stop there is a mystery. If you have a truly good idea, it should be put to use as soon as possible. This applies not only to your platform, but your opponents’ platforms.

If an opponent has a good idea, call for it to be enacted without delay. The 26th Amendment (giving the vote to all over 18 years of age) was an idea that should have taken no thought or delay to enact, and an equally potent idea, wherever it arises, should be enacted.

True Economy

Don’t restrict your ideas to policy. Call for sane extra-political business activity. Call for open markets where they are closed. There are many, and they could be generating massive economic growth. There’s an overwhelming reluctance to be critical of business unless it means new regulation. That’s ridiculous.

We do need some regulations, including some new ones, repealing others. That doesn’t mean regulatory knobs can solve the problems. Calling for better management of private interests is perfectly acceptable.

As an aside, a recent interview with Valve Software’s Gabe Newell revealed that Valve is adding three meter support to its Steam client software so that others can include Steam support on their own platforms. This is a great, forward-thinking economic decision. It’s the kind of thing a presidential campaign can and should highlight.

Open Mics

Give average people a chance to speak, both for and against your candidacy. If a heckler has something they really want to say, let them say it. Schedule a nice block before and after any speech to give people open mic access.

If the heckler speaks out-of-turn, tell them to wait for the open mic. If they won’t relent and they have to be removed from the premises, give them the option to return to speak during that time.

Conclusion

The current methodology of presidential campaigning reflects the current methodology of business and government. That is, a somewhat broken semblance of the real deal. As I mentioned Valve Software, there’s a need to have government, business, and campaigns operate in more modern and enlightened ways, just as Valve does.

That’s not to say Valve is perfect, but they are entirely willing to depart from the norm if they believe it’s advantageous. Most companies, politicians, and governments are entirely unwilling. To their detriment. Most won’t even entertain the idea!

If you run for president, you should eschew the mainstream candidacy practices. You probably won’t win, but if you run an innovative, revelatory campaign, you may be defeated, but you will not lose.

Categories
biz

The Art of the Comeback

This is not a review of the Donald Trump book The Art of the Comeback.  Rather, it is a look at the ways to foster economic growth and prosperity.

There are three broad areas this post focuses on:

  1. Lowering/Removing Barriers to Entry
  2. Creating/Rearranging Markets
  3. Sitting Back and Watching [1] and [2] Kick Ass*

* This is actually part of the path, as you will see, and not merely a filler item to make this post longer.

Barriers to Entry

Let’s suppose you are pretty good at painting, maybe good enough to get some major commercial work, but you live in a city where all of the artists must attend a special art school prior to being licensed.  And the school costs ten times what you might make in a year.  And it’s booked solid for five years.

So much for plan B, because plan B was Blocked by a Barrier to entry.

Barriers to entry are impediments to participation.  They are obstacles to ingress.  Ahem.  They represent lost economic activity, when people that otherwise would have taken the risk find it either unnaturally high or are otherwise prevented (eg, the cost and intricacy-of-work needed for the average person to launch a satellite effectively bars their entry into the space-courier market).

Removing barriers often means simply lowering the built-in costs of hiring.  Those include things like taxes and healthcare.  The problem there comes in the form of imbalance and uncertainty.  If the system doesn’t know how much revenue it has, or if a large portion of the population are not participating in healthcare, you get other irregularities.  It is much like wanting your lawn to be free of snow, and shoveling it onto your roof.  Then the roof collapses, but at least your lawn looks nice.

Those barriers are much more effectively cleared not by simply shrugging them off, but treating them as universal.  That’s no different than is already done with things like drinking water.  Nobody supposes that a large number of businesses will opt-out of hydration.  Even on separated plumbing systems, some of the costs are shared, such as the R&D for the equipment used and the development of hygienic standards.

The alternative actually just shifts the barrier and harms certain business models (eg, endeavors that cannot support paying for workers’ healthcare directly could not be created).

Other barriers are created by poor choices by government, such as contracting for equipment that cannot be reused and which do not offer residual benefits to the citizens.  That is, if our government spends a billion dollars on accounting systems, but businesses and individuals still pay full price for that same software, that’s a barrier that could be reduced significantly.

Google, for example, was able to exist and grow in large part thanks to the existence of free software which they could modify and build on to suit their needs at only the cost of programming (ie, no license fees).  If the government were to procure with an eye on the citizen’s right to use the non-physical public resources, it could lower a lot of technological barriers while also improving the quality of the technology the government uses (via contributions back to the software).

But the single biggest barrier to entry is education.  Historically, lack of education was literally used to bar the masses from participation in religion, but it’s also been used to bar people from voting (poll tests), and it is a prerequisite for effective participation in business and commerce.

Information is the lifeblood of the economy, and all major businesses started with the revelation of a need that could be met in a new way.

Shifting Markets

There used to be horse and buggy.  Then there were streetcars and trains, then cars and planes, and now the Internet and web.  With each shift in technology, there are shifts in the market structures that compose the overall economic system.

Used to be, liquids like beer went to market in wooden kegs.  Then glass bottles.  Today we have aluminum bottles.

Point being that technology can and will drive market shifts and therefore consumption patterns.

Building for cars as the primary means of movement has the consequence that it’s less likely for people to have chance interactions as they travel (ahem, without those interactions proving expensive, if not fatal).  It also makes it less likely they will visit a given establishment.

Consider the term flyover states.  Coasters (folks that live on coasts in the USA) call the rest of the land the “flyover states” because they don’t visit them (except maybe to gamble, ski, or hock their wares).

With trains you get an entirely different category of interaction, as people filter on and off throughout the journey.  With trains you get more buildup along the route.  No one is building a hotel in the middle of the country to accommodate the people that pass over it, ten kilometers up and moving at 500 km/h.

Now, we don’t need people to build a sprawling mass.  Trains help there, too.  If we have a comprehensive system in place, population density will be roughly in inverse proportion to the distance from the train lines.

But, other important technological market shifts remain to be seen.  Real security and monetary abstraction are two big changes that will foster economic growth.  In short, they will make it simpler and safer to engage in transactions online, which has been shown to be a boon to revenue.

There is the famous case of the $300 million button (User Interface Engineering: The $300 Million Button), but that’s something in the control of the website.

Many larger impediments to commerce require industry collaboration with banks, the government, and citizens.

Another market shift is the inevitable (yet ever postponed) US Metrication, which would increase its competitiveness across borders and simplify many supply chains.

Copyright reform, allowing the public domain to flood with thousands of disused creative works from decades and decades ago, would serve both for content creation and for inspiring design and invention.  Literally untapped ideas of generations past.

But, again, education is the biggest market shifter.  The more people know, the better they function as instruments of the larger economic system.  Nobody buys lead paint anymore, because they know better, not merely because it is illegal.

It is essential that people be educated on the issues of the economy, because they will be able to avoid bubbles in favor of real investments.  They will choose economic activities that have compounded results, choosing to purchase better products and services that support long-term growth over short-term fulfillment.

Sit Back

Given low barriers to entry and a system that allows for resources to be readily shifted, the result is a self-maintaining system.  It lowers the costs for all, while maintaining incomes.  It precludes messy government intervention that gives corruption an inroad.  It precludes market bubbles that lead to sluggish corners of the economy that produce drag.

If you ride a bicycle with rust on the chain, low air pressure in the tires, and a wobbly seat, you wont’ go as far as a well-maintained bike would let you.  If the roads constantly jostle you, if they have puddles and speeding cars and blind spots and traffic, you’ll find the journey more difficult.

A smooth road, solid bike, you let the momentum carry you.  You just sit back and cruise for miles at a time.  You get to your destination with much less effort.

Hell, you even have the time to think about something or just enjoy the scenery.  And that gives even more opportunity for further improvement.

You arrive calm and rested, rather than jumpy, irritable.

And that’s the biggest change that’s needed, as we have a society that’s overcomplicated itself and forced itself into a masochistic pattern of herculean tears of effort followed by inadequate recuperation.  But changing that requires the elimination of barriers, it requires shifting the markets.  It’s the most important, but it can’t come without the other changes, just like you can’t grow the flowers until you’ve tilled and weeded the soil.