Results tagged “harvard”
April 5, 2013
When I wrote about the web we lost a few months ago, I thought the idea that we'd strayed from some of the philosophical and cultural underpinnings of the social web's early days would be of note to a few old-timers like me, and that most folks would sort of shrug their shoulders at this obscure concern. Instead, that piece and the conversation that have followed have gotten more of a response than almost anything else I've written. As a result, I found myself, astonishingly, asked to speak at Harvard's Berkman Center earlier this week about the topic.
If you have an hour to spend on the topic and don't mind the sound of my voice for that long, you can actually watch the entire talk, complete with my slides shown inline, here:
Even better, David Weinberger acted not only as an incredibly gracious host, but a shockingly complete transcriptionist, and created a detailed record of the talk, which actually includes a few improvements on my own phrasing of some of these ideas. Doc Searls also ably captured the talk in the form of an outline, and kindly took a few photos during the talk, including this moment where I went to Harvard and was throwing up the finger guns. Betsy O'Donovan also took the time to Storify many of the tweets about the talk, offering a nice window into how people were documenting the conversation at the time. Finally, the YouTube video also offers a crude transcription if you click through to the site and want to follow along in text.
Overall, I'm quite pleased with the response to this conversation about the web we lost because one of my central points is that the arrogance and insularity of the old-guard, conventional wisdom creators of social media, including myself, was one of the primary reasons we lost some important values of the early social web. Seeing this resonate with those of us responsible gives me hope that perhaps we can work to remedy our errors.
Some key links if you'd like to further explore the themes in the talk:
- The Web We Lost, offering an overview of the problem and opportunity we're discussing.
- How to Rebuild the Web We Lost, trying to offer some hope after the initial critique.
- Captive Atria and Living in Public, exploring the idea of privately-owned public spaces which begins the talk and underpins many of its arguments.
- The History and Future of Web Protest, which examined how we can effectively politically organize to support the social web in the wake of the SOPA/PIPA battle.
- Stop Publishing Web Pages, making the case that mainstream users' behavior on the web has shifted from traditional web pages to app-based streams, without media noticing.
- Google and Theory of Mind, showing how Google's social shortcomings led to its corruption of links, turning hyperlinks from an editorial or artistic statement to an economic one.
- Facebook is Gaslighting the Web demonstrated how Facebook was beginning to disempower and devalue web content that wasn't hosted within its walls.
- Facebook Makes It Official: You Have No Say, documenting Facebook's decision to no longer accept user input to changes in its terms of service.
- My Wired column on Microsoft's Surface tablet mentions the impact that good policy and regulation can have, where the DOJ consent decree did restore competition to the browser market.
- When the TOS become POS, my Wired column calling for organized protests by users to marshal their PR power against abusive terms of service.
- YouTube and the Million Mixer March, which contextualizes the disconnect of common YouTube behaviors from intellectual property law as a massive act of civil disobedience.
July 6, 2007
I’ve followed the history of Bill Gates and his career and work since I was a kid. Though he’s not nearly charismatic enough to inspire an army of fawning fanboys, the complexity and eccentricity of a lot of his choices makes his character endlessly fascinating to me. And of course, it is an extra bonus that most people confuse such an interest for uncritical adoration, which ain’t the case.
I’m not a Bill Gates fanboy, I just think he’s more ambitious and more likely to permanently change the world for the better than anybody else in the history of the technology industry.
Part of understanding why is having the proper perspective. I remember Microsoft’s mission from when I was a young kid — a computer on every desk and in every home. That mission, of course, had an implicit suffix of “…running Microsoft software”. About 25 years into that mission, before Bill Gates had even turned fifty years old, Microsoft had achieved that goal. Think about that — you set a goal as ambitious as you can imagine, and before your kids are even in high school, it’s happened. What do you do when you’ve accomplished your biggest goal?
It’s not a problem most of us ever have to deal with. Honestly, most of us that would even take the time to set such a goal would make it so big or so fuzzy it would be impossible to ever achieve. But by being just slightly specific, Microsoft under Bill Gates’ direction achieved a seemingly-extraordinarily ambitious goal.
So, what next? You have to go for an even bigger goal. What’s bigger than computers everywhere? How about curing malaria? And AIDS? That seems big enough. And the true innovation seems to be approaching those problems in an entrepreneurial way, with a big focus on accountability.
And after years of seeing his awkwardness in articulating the benefits of technology, it’s startling to see just how good Gates is at telling this far more important story. You might have seen a link to Bill Gates’ Harvard commencement address and probably thought “eh, I’ll read it later”. Go read it now: it’s the kind of leadership and accountability that’s been sorely missing from those in a position of power in the technology industry. Hell, it’s the kind of message that’s been curiously absent from the lips of nearly all of our leaders.
Just one highlight:
I remember going to Davos some years back and sitting on a global health panel that was discussing ways to save millions of lives. Millions! Think of the thrill of saving just one person’s life - then multiply that by millions. … Yet this was the most boring panel I’ve ever been on - ever. So boring even I couldn’t bear it.
What made that experience especially striking was that I had just come from an event where we were introducing version 13 of some piece of software, and we had people jumping and shouting with excitement. I love getting people excited about software - but why can’t we generate even more excitement for saving lives?
You can’t get people excited unless you can help them see and feel the impact. And how you do that - is a complex question.
Still, I’m optimistic. Yes, inequity has been with us forever, but the new tools we have to cut through complexity have not been with us forever. They are new - they can help us make the most of our caring - and that’s why the future can be different from the past.
The defining and ongoing innovations of this age - biotechnology, the computer, the Internet - give us a chance we’ve never had before to end extreme poverty and end death from preventable disease.
I’m sure those who make their decisions based on fashion and popularity contests won’t want to give Gates the benefit of the doubt. But I’m okay with someone uncool doing the right thing on an unimaginably ambitious scale.