Saw this article on ecological intelligence, which brought my attention to GoodGuide.com
Which is very exciting to me because it focuses on information that it is immediately relevant to an action one is about to make. Everything on the site is actionable information.
In every usage scenario, one of these (information or action) is very quick -- almost immediate. Either the information is brief and the decision is complex, or the information is involved but the action is immediate and quick.
For example, one can act on the information in an article immediately -- (click here to contact the manufacturer). I also foresee a mobile app to scan products on the go, like in the store. Right now at least, every product is ranked according to its aggregate health, environmental, and societal impact.
In all cases, I have noticed, either the information (ranking) or action (clicking) is quick. If both are laborious, or complex a user will never catch on ...
Needless to say, I'm a fan.
Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
The torture debate
I'm tired of hearing about torture every day. My morning's bad enough as it is! But I will say, it's a good conversation for *the country* to have.
What bothers me about this, is that for so long these people were saying, well, what we're doing (waterboarding) is not torture. Or, maybe it's a little bit like torture (some people may say it's torture) but legally it's not *really* torture. It's bad but it's not that bad.
Here's the way I see it:
If it isn't really torture, if this isn't the kind of torture that one would do *anything* to get out of, then how is it effective????
If it is torture, if it's really torture, then isn't it wrong????
Sphere: Related Content
What bothers me about this, is that for so long these people were saying, well, what we're doing (waterboarding) is not torture. Or, maybe it's a little bit like torture (some people may say it's torture) but legally it's not *really* torture. It's bad but it's not that bad.
Here's the way I see it:
If it isn't really torture, if this isn't the kind of torture that one would do *anything* to get out of, then how is it effective????
If it is torture, if it's really torture, then isn't it wrong????
Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Challenge to Google: Don't be evil (really)
With so many features like GoogleVoice (coming soon), GoogleHealth, Gmail, Google Docs and the like, it seems that Google is creeping into every aspect of our lives.
If Google were to ever acquire Facebook, LinkedIn or MySpace the game would be up. Google would officially own my life -- or, at least, that which occurs with the aid of technology. Which is most of it.
Privacy advocates are growing increasingly concerned. Question is, what will Google do with all this information?? We already know the answer to this: advertising. And, market research to target those ads.
So how can Google (continue to) not be evil?
I propose that Google collaborate with privacy advocates to draft and display disclosure statements approved by privacy advocates.
Particularly, the risk associated with using a number of services, since the aggregation of services seems to worry advocates more than each service in singleton.
Privacy advocates can give such statements a stamp of approval, ensuring that users are well informed, that the language is clear and that the risks of using each service are well enumerated. Inviting a third-party organization (or several) to give their stamp of approval would demonstrate that Google is dedicated to their goal: don't be evil.
While the act of inviting such input could gain the trust of users worldwide, and may even increase Google's user base, it could backlash if an agreeable disclosure policy could not be agreed upon. In this case, it would cause me to wonder: what is Google (really) up to?
Links:
Sphere: Related Content
If Google were to ever acquire Facebook, LinkedIn or MySpace the game would be up. Google would officially own my life -- or, at least, that which occurs with the aid of technology. Which is most of it.
Privacy advocates are growing increasingly concerned. Question is, what will Google do with all this information?? We already know the answer to this: advertising. And, market research to target those ads.
So how can Google (continue to) not be evil?
I propose that Google collaborate with privacy advocates to draft and display disclosure statements approved by privacy advocates.
Particularly, the risk associated with using a number of services, since the aggregation of services seems to worry advocates more than each service in singleton.
Privacy advocates can give such statements a stamp of approval, ensuring that users are well informed, that the language is clear and that the risks of using each service are well enumerated. Inviting a third-party organization (or several) to give their stamp of approval would demonstrate that Google is dedicated to their goal: don't be evil.
While the act of inviting such input could gain the trust of users worldwide, and may even increase Google's user base, it could backlash if an agreeable disclosure policy could not be agreed upon. In this case, it would cause me to wonder: what is Google (really) up to?
Links:
- Google Voice: Press "1" to invade your privacy
- Google as Big Brother
- Google's new behavioral ads already raising privacy worries
- Google: "Complete Privacy Does Not Exist"
- Google balances privacy, reach
- Google To Begin Behavioral Targeting, Give Users Access To Profiles
- Googlization of Everything
Sphere: Related Content
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The future of the political net
There is a recent explosion in online websites promoting political transparency and increased participation. At the heart of this movement, there seems to be the supposition that the barriers to political organization are twofold: (1) lack of information and (2) lack of communication / empowerment.
In other words, taken together, these sites seem to argue that people don't get involved because it's too difficult to keep track of what's going on, or because they don't see a way to get involved that has a reasonable chance of effecting change.
Personally, I want to believe that there is a better way to 'get involved' than either writing a letter to a congressman (unlikely to effect change) or causing a disruptive protest. I would love to see websites focusing on political action with a more dedicated function than Facebook groups currently provide.
So, below I have made a list of the most interesting political action sites I have come across so far. Most aim to tackle one or both of these goals simultaneously, leaving open the question of whether each goal would be better attacked separately. The fact that there are so many means that there will be a competition between them to shape the future of the political internet.
The list is organized into 3 broad categories -- sites focusing on participation, those focusing on transparency, and a group of sites aiming to set up a parallel (online-only) governance structure and thus promoting both transparency & participation.
Note that the list is hardly comprehensive. Many, many more projects exist; a more complete list is available here.
Sites focusing on participation
Sites focusing on transparency
Sphere: Related Content
In other words, taken together, these sites seem to argue that people don't get involved because it's too difficult to keep track of what's going on, or because they don't see a way to get involved that has a reasonable chance of effecting change.
Personally, I want to believe that there is a better way to 'get involved' than either writing a letter to a congressman (unlikely to effect change) or causing a disruptive protest. I would love to see websites focusing on political action with a more dedicated function than Facebook groups currently provide.
So, below I have made a list of the most interesting political action sites I have come across so far. Most aim to tackle one or both of these goals simultaneously, leaving open the question of whether each goal would be better attacked separately. The fact that there are so many means that there will be a competition between them to shape the future of the political internet.
The list is organized into 3 broad categories -- sites focusing on participation, those focusing on transparency, and a group of sites aiming to set up a parallel (online-only) governance structure and thus promoting both transparency & participation.
Note that the list is hardly comprehensive. Many, many more projects exist; a more complete list is available here.
Sites focusing on participation
- change.org
- participation : users submit & vote on broad policy goals. Top ranked ideas are presented to Obama administration for consideration. Voting done within a deadline.
- transparency : proposals provide links to information resources. - whitehouse2.org
- participation : users submit & vote on both broad and specific policy ideas. Voter support displayed graphically over time.
- transparency : policy ideas contain links to resources, and whether or not the Obama administration endorses the idea.
Sites focusing on transparency
- USAVotes
- participation : none
- transparency : find out how your representatives voted on various legislative measures - lowercase d
- participation : forum for New York State community members to endorse/oppose legislation, comment on legislation, and propose alternatives
- transparency : advocate for open access to legislative measures pending in NY
- metagovernment.org
- participation : anyone with internet access can propose legislation, submit alternatives to pending legislation, endorse or oppose pending legislation
- transparency : all proposals submitted within the system can be reviewed by users, though no interaction with proposals made in existing parliament or legislative bodies. The legislative history of any proposal within the system is viewable by users. - Open Direct Democracy
- participation : citizens of Iceland can vote on, discuss or propose alternatives to any legislative measure under consideration in Iceland's parliament
- transparency : all legislative measures under consideration in Iceland's parliament are posted for citizen review / comment. - Govit.org
- participation : internet users can vote on, discuss or propose alternatives to existing legislative proposals. Registered users can click on a link to very quickly contact their representative regarding a particular policy proposal.
- transparency : policy proposals are updated as they are posted online. Provides a usable, searchable resource for policy information relevant to a particular user.
Sphere: Related Content
should we let bad banks fail?
Yesterday on ABC news, Rep. Shelby argued that the US should let the bad banks fail. (Shelby: 'Dead' Banks Should Close; Citigroup a 'Problem Child')
Arguments for:
Arguments against:
Sphere: Related Content
Arguments for:
- cheaper in the long run
- quicker recovery
- "The new banks will be more credible once they no longer have these liabilities on their back." create a market for the so-called 'toxic assets', and thus they can be realistically evaluated
- existing banks would be more competitive than they would be under a nationalization scheme, since existing banks will not have to compete with state-run entities
- confidence is already so low in the banking system, and stockholders have already been wiped out, that allowing the struggling banks to fail won't cause much more damage
Arguments against:
- widespread bank failures would wipe out shareholders and deposits in the short-term, thus reducing liquidity in the marketplace and further damaging the chances of economic recovery
- widespread bank failures would damage confidence across the board, like we saw after the failure of lehman brothers but on a larger scale.
- no solution should be one size fits all -- need to address each struggling bank with a unique solution. Maybe let some banks fail, but there may be others that really should be rescued.
Sphere: Related Content
Friday, February 20, 2009
Out with the old, in with the new
A great conversation today on Charlie Rose -- with Marc Andreessen, the cofounder of Ning and Netscape. So many interesting points I had to watch it twice. Wanted to get some of it down.
1) If you can get a company to scale, you can figure out a way to make a business out of it.
A corollary to this is that all these sites -- Facebook, YouTube, etc are massively undermonetized assets. These are just huge distribution channels; Viacom should have worked with YouTube rather than fight them. Music industry should have embraced Napster rather than killing it.
2) Newspapers should just face the future and stop printing on paper. Go entirely on the internet.
Thinking about this, I agree -- put all their resources into the net now, while they still have brand value.
3) Innovation on the net accelerates -- every layer of new technology makes another layer of innovation possible.
This suggests that the reason why innovation isn't being monetized on a large scale is that it doesn't need to be. Innovation is *cheaper*.
4) We [Silicon Valley] will be a tragic beneficiary to financial crisis because TV/radio/print will run out of money where the internet will benefit.
5) We don't need to separate good banks from bad banks. We just need new banks. He talks about this PayPal notion of 'bill me later' which allows one to get instant credit per-purchase, rather than have a credit card and/or credit limit.
6) Good things often occur when ideas are stolen and IP rights are ignored. There's a lot of turnover, ideas are constantly being reinvented and usually the tech guys end up working for the new company, on new ideas.
7) most internet companies have a quick turnaround, they're bought up within 1-3 years. Starting a long-term company, with a long-term vision and a long-term strategy, is a different enterprise entirely.
Sphere: Related Content
1) If you can get a company to scale, you can figure out a way to make a business out of it.
A corollary to this is that all these sites -- Facebook, YouTube, etc are massively undermonetized assets. These are just huge distribution channels; Viacom should have worked with YouTube rather than fight them. Music industry should have embraced Napster rather than killing it.
2) Newspapers should just face the future and stop printing on paper. Go entirely on the internet.
Thinking about this, I agree -- put all their resources into the net now, while they still have brand value.
3) Innovation on the net accelerates -- every layer of new technology makes another layer of innovation possible.
This suggests that the reason why innovation isn't being monetized on a large scale is that it doesn't need to be. Innovation is *cheaper*.
4) We [Silicon Valley] will be a tragic beneficiary to financial crisis because TV/radio/print will run out of money where the internet will benefit.
5) We don't need to separate good banks from bad banks. We just need new banks. He talks about this PayPal notion of 'bill me later' which allows one to get instant credit per-purchase, rather than have a credit card and/or credit limit.
6) Good things often occur when ideas are stolen and IP rights are ignored. There's a lot of turnover, ideas are constantly being reinvented and usually the tech guys end up working for the new company, on new ideas.
7) most internet companies have a quick turnaround, they're bought up within 1-3 years. Starting a long-term company, with a long-term vision and a long-term strategy, is a different enterprise entirely.
Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
