Dana Blankenhorn

Netiquette: The Issue for 2020

I covered the biggest issue of 2020 back in 1988.

I covered it in two ways.

On the one hand I covered the Electronic Networking Association for Newsbytes.

The ENA featured such cutting-edge minds as Mike Godwin and Joichi Ito. They met online, using software called PARTIcipate. They were communicating across nations and time zones. It was exciting.

They didn’t want to spoil it. They developed rules known as Netiquette to define proper behavior.

Netiquette can be summarized thusly: be nice. Assume goodwill. Be polite. Accept disagreement as legitimate. Don’t lie to make a point. Remain inquisitive and friendly. Understand that the person reading what you “say” can’t read your body language. Account for that.

Copyright Wars 2020

My #1 life goal is to be plagiarized. THERE IS NO GREATER ACHIEVEMENT OR HONOR.

                                                                                ---Tom Peters 

                I first wrote about the Copyright Wars in 1997, when the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was being debated.

                I predicted, in my first version of Moore’s Lore, which came out in the year 2001, that “East Coast” laws like this would fall to the “West Coast Law” of code.

                This is not the way things are working out in 2019. The Internet’s ability to serve mankind is threatened as a result.

                As Tom Peters notes, there is no real value in an idea. An idea is only worthwhile if spreads, or if it’s acted upon. For this to happen it must be communicated, disseminated, and digested by many other people.

                The Internet, specifically the World Wide Web, is the means by which this now happens. The Internet lets any idea, from anyone, reach an audience and change people. Or not.

                But two things are happening. First, bad ideas are getting the same power to change people as good ideas, because no one can credibly tell everyone the difference. Second, the copyright industries have moved to stop the distribution of ideas, under the mistaken belief that there is value in them, and that anyone repeating them should pay.

                Trump illustrates the first point well, although anti-vaxxers and other idiocies would exist even without him. It’s in the nature of the Internet to eliminate gatekeepers, and those companies that have risen to that position, like Facebook, Google and Twitter, eschew the role, fearing it will let government prevent protest (which it can).

World War III, The Internet War

World War III is an Internet war. It has been ongoing for over a decade.

When the conflict was between countries like Pakistan and Ireland, or Ukraine and Russia, we could afford to ignore it.

Then it came to our own shores. November 8, 2016 was this war’s Pearl Harbor.

Yet we still haven’t reacted, because once the enemy is in the tent the media thinks going after them is friendly fire.

There’s nothing friendly about it.

Sure, there are efforts underway at Google and Facebook to boost “real news” and dissuade “fake news.” Yes, there are efforts underway in Congress to control online political spending. Yes, there is the Mueller probe.

But these are nothing. We still see the Internet War as something we can stop with higher firewalls, or bigger budgets.

We can’t.

Common Carriers

A key to understanding 2019 will be the issue of common carriers.

In just one decade the “Cloud Czars” – Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Facebook – have replaced the telecommunications and broadcast industries with a new system, using their infrastructure.

We don’t make overseas calls anymore. We Skype. We don’t watch TV. We stream.

The cloud was built without government subsidy or interference, in a competitive free for all in which the winners invested while the losers did not. The industries replaced by this infrastructure were built as monopolies, under systems of regulation controlled by the Federal Communications Commission and, when necessary, courts.

This made sense, in terms of both capital preservation and technology, at the time.

Re-evaluating J.P. Morgan

The Greatest Progressive of American history was J.P. Morgan. But he wouldn’t be one today.

Let me explain.

Businesses have always talked up the idea of progress, of change. It’s at the heart of the progressive idea, a constant, incremental improvement. Progressives believe in things getting better, and the way they usually get better is by something better coming along. Better products, better services, and better ways of doing things. Today these are all byproducts of competition.

They weren’t always.

Morgan was active from the Civil War through the first decade of the 20^th century. He is usually portrayed as either a colossus or an octopus. He was the man behind the “trusts.” Trusts were evil. He was Teddy Roosevelt’s great nemesis.

But was he? We know the men were close. Morgan and Roosevelt were both Republicans.

What is undeniably true is that, during Morgan’s time, America and the world were short on capital and on basic infrastructure. We couldn’t afford to have several rail lines serving the same point, or several telegraph wires serving the same office. That would mean other points and other offices got no service.

On Net Neutrality

If you have been reading this blog for any length of time, you no doubt believe that I’m a radical. A liberal. A fanatical criminal. 

In some ways this is true. On foreign policy I’m an internationalist who believes in peace. On social policy I believe people should be free to love who and what they want, and to kill themselves in any way that suits them.

This is not true in economic policy. I still consider myself a liberal here, but business was always a liberal force before the Nixon era. Progress is a business word, still often used in advertisements to denote the aims of oil companies and manufacturers, as well as tech outfits.

My economic beliefs are based on those of Adam Smith, who saw wealth inclining the wealthy toward the common good. I consider Trump and his acolytes to be Nietzscheites. (Ayn Rand is just Nietzsche in a skirt.)

More to the point, I consider them Fascists, and resent that I can’t use the word in public without being condemned.

So, when it comes to the subject of net neutrality, I’m sure you’re thinking, Dana is going to tell us that the FCC is wrong, that Democrats are right.

I’m not.

Taking Responsibility for the Internet

Apple CEO Tim Cook angered me recently, complaining loudly about “fake news” on the Internet but failing to say he would do anything about it. Or so it was reported by many news outlets.

The truth is more nuanced. Cook is seeking a technological solution, something that scales, against what he sees as a human problem. Passing along lies may be “your prerogative” but it is the medium’s responsibility to slow the spread of lies and take action against persistent liars.

This is a hard truth the Internet industry is just waking up to, in the Age of Trump.

CrossCheck, a system for flagging fake news in France, which holds a Presidential election this spring, is Version 1 of the emerging solution. It’s important to note, however, that it’s just Version 1. Leading companies must undertake an open source process before a real solution can be implemented.

The big difference between our era in American history and those that came before is that the industry which dominates our economy also created the dominant medium. Most Americans now get their news through social media, through Web sites that deny categorically they are even media companies. 

The result is a media landscape that can easily be gamed. Russia gamed it. Donald Trump is the result.

The Battle of Google

Over the last decade attitudes about Google have evolved from “don’t be evil” to “Google is evil” to “let’s kill Google.”

Google has already destroyed more business models than the Great Depression, and it is poised to destroy many more. This latest move on Google was thus inevitable. Google has helped destroy the newspaper business model and it’s going after television. Google has helped destroy millions of middlemen, of all types, around the world.

It is more accurate to say that the Internet, and not Google, has enabled this. But Google remains the target because it’s the dominant player in that business.

Now Google autonomous cars are prepared to destroy millions more jobs.  Jobs driving cars, and jobs selling car insurance. Jobs selling cars, jobs selling car parts, and jobs parking cars.

Google is not prepared for the political pushback it is generating.

The Information Wars

Back when the Web was being spun, in 1994 (right), we all had high hopes. We all assumed that information wanted to be free, and that freedom was binary. In this brave new world tyranny would be banished.

But all big ideas must be tested. Information has become the central battlefield of our time.

Tyrants believe that, by controlling the flow of information, they can control people. Talent will still do its work if those who have talent can be isolated within their areas of interest, and convinced that politics is none of their business.

In this way, freedom becomes a continuum, a knob that can be turned this way and that. Information autocrats must allow some communication, so their talent can breathe and perform. Information libertarians must have some limits on information, lest the autocrats use it against them.

The Core and the Edge

Think of this as Volume 18, Number 12 of the newsletter I have written weekly since March, 1997. Enjoy.

---

The IN in the word Internet stands for interactive. (Right, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, whose 1989 paper set the terms for today's World Wide Web.)

The assumption of its designers was that the Internet would be a two-way network, that as many bits would flow in one direction as the other. Peering, the original financial agreement underlying today's Internet, is based on this assumption.

The Internet, in other words, was not designed to be TV. It was not designed to be a passive medium, as something you watch, or read, or listen to. We already had such media. The Internet was designed to be something you interacted with.

That's not how things are working out in our time. The Internet is becoming TV, is becoming something you watch, or read, or listen to. The bits are mostly flowing in one direction, from the core to the edge of the network. Most of the technical standards underlying consumer Internet traffic, like DSL and DOCSIS, are designed to let bits flow faster downstream than upstream, on the assumption that more bits would do that.