Skip to main content
 

Building the user-centered web: an update #indieweb

Back in 2009, I wrote:

Right now, we have to register with each application we want to use. What if we required each application we used to register with us, in digital identities under our own control?

What if, using these identities, anyone could connect to anyone else, and anyone could store their data anywhere as long as the storage provider followed the same broad standards?

The web itself would become a social networking tool.

By establishing a general standard for social application interactions, the services and technologies used to make connections become less relevant; the Internet is people, one big social network, and users no longer have to worry about how they connect. We can all get on with communicating and collaborating rather than worrying about where we connect.

The full piece was based on a talk I gave at Harvard University's Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations. It declares a number of problems to solve:

  • User control: users should have ultimate control over their data.
  • Ownership: granularity of ownership, and the rights implied by ownership, is complex in certain contexts. Sometimes a single-user model of ownership is appropriate - but sometimes not.
  • Privacy & Transparency: the ability to control who has access to your data footprint across the web, but also a clear knowledge of what happens to that data.
  • Platform: software that actually embodies these properties.

In the interim, there have been many articles about the continuing silo-ization of the web - notably The Web We Lost by Anil Dash. In other words, the problem has become worse, not better. Generally speaking, users have less control, less ownership, less privacy and fewer platforms to choose from in 2013 than they did in 2009.

A glimmer of hope has been the indieweb, which I've written about at length. This is a movement that champions ownership, but through it, principles like user control, privacy, transparency and a healthy ecosystem of platforms are also promoted. Idno, the open source platform that powers this site, adheres to many indieweb principles.

There's more work to be done. I believe that contextual display advertising is the single biggest obstacle to a web that is under the control of users. In our advertising economy, users are tracked throughout the web in order to determine which ads will be performant for them. Mozilla Lightbeam is an extraordinary project that highlights the pervasiveness of the problem. Wherever we leave a data footprint, we are tracked.

The irony is that contextual advertising isn't even very effective! Fraud is rife in online advertising, and the price of online ads has dropped for eight straight quarters. As a result, publishers need to drive higher and higher visitor numbers, leading to less subtle growth strategies, often bordering on the unethical. Platforms seek vastly increased engagement, leading to an inability to remove your content, what amounts to spamming you to bring you back to the app, and a reduction in integration hooks that might make the software more useful within the context of a user's entire suite of applications.

On the content side, meanwhile, viral sites like Upworthy and Buzzfeed are king, which is great if you're writing about the top 15 things you might not know about Miley Cyrus - but death if you're a niche publisher, community or information source trying to make ends meet.

What if we rethink advertising in the same way that we're rethinking personal sites with the indieweb? "Niche" - in other words, highly specialized - communities are in many ways the lifeblood of the web. They're one of the things that makes it special; the fact that there can be a place to meet for any interest group. Finding platforms that will adequately financially support these groups, as well as by giving them responsible software that gives them control, privacy, transparency and ownership, will be hugely empowering.

Building the open web we want isn't just about software. It's about the mechanisms involved that will make it sustainable for people to create the right kinds of businesses that use it as a platform.

· Posts · Share this post

 

The case for Doctor Who as the greatest TV show of all time #savetheday #doctorwho

When a TV show has been there your entire life, not just entertaining you but informing the way you think, it becomes something different.

At its heart, Doctor Who is a show about an eccentric who saves the world, over and over again, using the power of his wit and empathy. It perhaps doesn't sound like much, but that's as radical an idea now as then: a show where the hero refuses to carry a weapon, refuses to conform to any kind of status quo notion about what a person should be, and where anyone who is shown to value physical strength and force above intelligence and cunning is defeated. It's not a show about death or action, although the body count is sometimes very high. It's a show about curiosity and intelligence. Perhaps most importantly, it's a celebration of humanity - which, we're constantly told, must be protected in all its forms.

When the producers adapted to the ailing health of the show's star, William Hartnell, by introducing the concept of regeneration and casting not just a new actor but a whole new character, they baked in the concept of progress and change as being good and replenishing. Evolution and shifting barriers are seen as not just positive things, but necessary for life to go on. More than even Star Trek, Who is knowingly progressive.

It's crucial that the Doctor is someone who thinks and lives outside the box (while, ironically, living inside one). The show flat-out rejects the fascism of everyday life by creating a character obviously un-peer-pressurable, so obviously marching to his own beat.

It's hopefully not too much of a spoiler that the 50th anniversary show - which airs today, in just a few hours - introduces a version of the Doctor who chooses to be a soldier. That this is a shameful part of his history that he must come to terms with is a beautiful example of the subversion inherent to the show. Yes, sometimes it is unfortunately necessary to be a soldier. No, it should never be celebrated. That's so counter to our world right now, and it was in the beginning of the sixties, too, still in the shadow of the second world war, while another battle in Vietnam was being fought in the background. We're all being told to be consumers, to fit into predefined demographics, and yet here is a show telling us that everyone is important, that we should define our own sense of self.

But those are my values, almost exactly. Intelligence over strength; independence over conformity; adventure and curiosity over the status quo. Above all else, think for yourself. It was liberating, as an 8 year old from multiple cultures who lived in another, to have a hero to look up to who was at least as strange as I was, and who valued the same things - and it's liberating now.

Oh, and it's pretty bloody exciting, and obviously made with love. That helps, too.

· Posts · Share this post

 

What the heck are the references at the end of my posts? #indieweb

If you're following me on sites like Twitter or Facebook, you may start seeing references at the end of my posts. They look something like:

(werd.io s/3Nb4L)

Or they'll just be a link to the post, with the URI scheme (the "http://" bit) removed.

I'm adding those to make it clearer that I'm not actually posting on those sites; if you're following me on Twitter, Facebook or elsewhere, those are echoes of my content, using a mechanism called POSSE (Publish [on your] Own Site, Syndicate Everywhere). I began exclusively using POSSE to post to other sites on June 1st.

If you search for the citations on the web, you should find the original post. Or, you can add a slash between the two clauses, and they work as a link on their own. (I don't just post a link to my site if there isn't more content to read, and I don't bother posting a citation if there's already a link to my site in the post.)

This is all part of the indieweb movement, which is about owning your own site on the web to represent yourself and communicate rather than primarily saving it in a third party silo that you don't control. I use my own software, idno, to host all this, but many other projects are available. (Nonetheless, if you'd like to get started with idno, I'm very happy to help you out.)

· Posts · Share this post

 

Some speculation about the barges, by @hondanhon.

· Posts · Share this post

 

A tech startup model that doesn't *ever* work

Split your early-stage startup into three teams:

Strategy

Development

Administration

The strategy team sets out the vision and owns the product. The idea is theirs. Then, they hand off to the development team, which is functionally subservient, and is simply responsible for building out the strategy team's vision. It's possible they're outsourced to a development firm. Meanwhile, the administration team takes care of the bills and payroll.

It doesn't work. Why not?

At first glance you'd be semi-forgiven for thinking that it should, because it more closely mirrors the structure found in larger organizations. But there are a couple of reasons why this kind of setup is almost always going to fail.

The product is the most important part of a startup.

By which I mean, the whole product: design, implementation, use and feedback, in its full context. Unless you're the mythical version of Steve Jobs, which nobody is or ever has been, and unless the sole customer of the product is you and just you, you're not going to come up with a fully-formed, perfect product idea with your own brain alone. If you're smart, you're going to know what you don't know, and seek feedback from your users and potential users.

How does that feedback loop work? It's part of the product itself. Which means that the people building the product need to be in on it. And conversely, you need to be part of the team building the product, in a very deep, real way. Maybe, as a business-orientated founder, you don't know how to code, but you'd better be prepared to get very technical, very quickly. Not having technical chops is a disadvantage, and it's not something you can outsource. If you can't script, you can probably help with wireframing and workflows, and if you can't do that ... you might want to consider a job working for a management services firm. Accenture is waiting.

The technical members of the team need to be equal stakeholders in the strategy, and the "strategy" members of your team need to be stakeholders in product development. (After all, you hired the smartest, most creative people you could find, right?) No, this isn't going to work when you've got 5,000 employees, but when there are five of you, it's the only efficient way to build a product.

So what about those administrative employees?

A startup is a scrappier kind of business, but it is a business. Everyone needs to be tied to the numbers, and just as everyone needs to be prepared to get involved in product, they need to be able to understand exactly how much money is left, where it's going to, and how their actions and technical decisions affect the bottom line. Of course, that buck ultimately stops with you - but if it's your startup, every buck ultimately stops with you. There's nothing to be gained from hiding details, or trying to protect your employees. And extra administrative staff will simply add to the burn rate. You should be doing the payroll yourself, until you get big enough to justify something else.

In other words: keep it small, keep it simple, and make your organization as flat as you possibly can. You'll need to add more structure later on, but for now, your only goals are to survive and grow. Abstraction will not help you do that.

· Posts · Share this post

 

Being male (following up on @quinnnorton's excellent piece)

Quinn Norton posted an insightful first part of her series on women on the Internet today. For me, the money quote is this:

Men have to open their mouths and talk about constructing an idea of manhood that makes sense in the 21st century. The whole world needs a manhood that doesn’t rely on attacking or demeaning women.

There were two notable reactions from the audience of men at large: demands that her comments about men were qualified with the word "some", and complaints that men alone don't define what a man is.

Who cares? Neither one of these responses is constructive. There is an undeniable gender equality problem that pervades society. Quinn points out unsettling domestic violence figures; there are also less overtly violent, but still unsettling, gender career inequality figures to consider, not to mention the countless stories about sexual assault right here in the tech industry. Qualifying these problems with "some"s and "it's not just us" doesn't help solve them.

Instead, men, let's own it.

I think Quinn has put her finger on the issue. There is still a traditional, prevailing view of manhood that is at odds with the rest of the 21st century. Here on the web, we're all about disrupting gatekeepers and restructuring systems to be more transparent. Why can't we turn that lens on gender inequality? I agree with Quinn that technology can't solve this. We need to have an ongoing conversation about what manhood is - something that projects like the Good Men Project have already begun.

Although this problem goes far beyond tech, and is far older than our industry, there are a few things I, perhaps naïvely, think startups should think about to help correct the problem:

  • Equalize maternity and paternity leave. Where this happens, women's pay is also equalizing. I've unfortunately been in conversations, in prior companies, where colleagues were wary of hiring women because they might get pregnant. This mitigates that, but also more generally sends a very strong message about the role of a father in a family. I would strongly support legislation to make this happen more widely.
  • Enact a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment. Publish your policy publicly, and ensure that any kind of harassment is dealt with swiftly and fairly when it occurs.
  • Publish salaries on job vacancy advertisements. Don't adapt the salary based on the employee and how willing they are to negotiate; simply decide what you're willing to pay for the right person, and stick it right on the vacancy ad. Then, as much as possible, clear out names, gender pronouns and company names from resumes as you consider them.

Those are all simple, administrative changes that could make a difference. More than that, though, public participation in this conversation will make a change in itself: understanding that traditional social values are oppressive, and that we can all engineer something better together.

This requires a certain amount of "yes and" thinking: defensive retorts about how not all men are participating in the oppression aren't helpful. We are all participating, whether we like it or not, not least every time we sidetrack the conversation. Being male comes with inherent privilege. Whether we use that to oppress, or use it to help society evolve, is our choice.

· Posts · Share this post

 

How I'm writing #nanowrimo this year (using @GitHub)

I'm participating in National Novel Writing Month again, mostly because last year was so much fun.

Last year I wrote a simple database-backed CMS to help me write. My brain was so addled by blogging for a decade that I found I could only be creative in a big text box in the middle of a web browser. It was kind of sobering, but I powered through, and I'm proud of the end result.

This year, I'm writing in public again - you can follow my story, such as it is, as I write it. But I've abandoned my database-driven CMS approach and am going another way.

Each of my chapters is a simple text file, named in chronological order: 01.txt, 02.txt and so on. I've been using TextWrangler, my favorite Mac text editor, but of course it doesn't matter at all.

My changes are synced to a a GitHub repository, where anyone can download the original source text files. (I've decided to license the whole thing under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) Creative Commons license.

I also plan on using Poetica to work with editors to refine my text as I go on (it's by far the best online service that does this). Right now, though, I'm in shitty first draft mode.

My web server also regularly syncs with the GitHub repository, so I know that if I commit a text change, it'll be reflected publicly online. For the public version, I decided it would be nice to include an HTML snippet at the top of each chapter. Mostly, for now, this includes embeddable music from around the web, but I also plan to include animated GIFs, Javascript-enhanced illustrations and a bunch of other stuff. I built a very simple reader script that takes the text files, formats them appropriately, and then injects the equivalent chapter-number.html file at the top. Keeping the HTML and the text separate will make it easier for me to keep track of word count as the project grows.

It's working well - at the time of writing, I'm ahead! You can follow along at benwerd.com/openbrace.

· Posts · Share this post

 

A letter from Edward Snowden to the leaders of the world

Edward Snowden released this letter to the world in PDF format. The following is a searchable text version of same. Any errors or inconsistencies are unintentional and my own. I am unconnected to Edward Snowden and he has not authorized this reshare or transcription.

To whom it may concern,

I have been invited to write to you regarding your investigation of mass surveillance. I am Edward Joseph Snowden, formerly employed through contracts or direct hire as a technical expert for the United States National Security Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, and Defense Intelligence Agency.

In the course of my service to these organizations, I believe I witnessed systemic violations of law by my government that created a moral duty to act. As a result of reporting these concerns, I have faced a severe and sustained campaign of persecution that forced me from my family and home. I am currently living in exile under a grant of temporary asylum in the Russian Federation in accordance with international law.

I am heartened by the response to my act of political expression, in both the United States and beyond. Citizens around the world as well as high officials - including in the United States - have judged the revelation of an unaccountable system of pervasive surveillance to be a public service. These spying revelations have resulted in the proposal of many new laws and policies to address formerly concealed abuses of the public trust. The benefits to society of this growing knowledge are becoming increasingly clear at the same time claimed risks are being shown to have been mitigated.

Though the outcome of my efforts has been demonstrably positive, my government continues to treat dissent as defection, and seeks to criminalize political speech with felony charges that provide no defense. However, speaking the truth is not a crime. I am confident that with the support of the international community, the government of the United States will abandon this harmful behavior. I hope that when the difficulties of this humanitarian situation have been resolved, I will be able to cooperate in the responsible finding of fact regarding reports in the media, particularly in regard to the truth and authenticity of documents, as appropriate and in accordance with the law.

I look forward to speaking with you in your country when the situation is resolved, and thank you for your efforts in upholding the international laws that protect us all.

With my best regards,

Edward Snowden
31 October 2013

· Posts · Share this post

 

... But here's what's awesome about San Francisco

If you can get shit done, you can get shit done.

If you're in technology, there is nowhere else in the world to be. Period. The critical mass of talent, investment and employment opportunity mean that - if you're the kind of person who already has the skills and circumstance to be able to make something out of nothing - you can thrive here like nowhere else in the world.

For years, working on Elgg, potential investors would tell us, "move to San Francisco". Our advisors told us that. Some of our customers told us that. And we didn't listen, because we believed that we should be able to create the same kind of opportunity elsewhere.

You can create opportunity elsewhere, but San Francisco is a special kind of place. Need to talk to the person who created product or technology X and get their advice? You can have a coffee with them, almost guaranteed. Need to learn about a product, or get investment feedback, or find top-tier developers? This is the place to be. In other words, if you're here to make money, be surrounded in technology and other smart people, and create something quickly, you're golden.

It's not for everyone, and probably not forever, but it has its place, and I'm not unaware that being here is a privilege all on its own.

The fact that it's beautiful, the weather is pretty good, you're less than an hour away from incredible national parks and world-beating wine country, and it's highly connected with the rest of the world doesn't hurt either.

But more: there's a buzz in the streets, the restaurants all serve amazing food, there's music from every bar doorway and little snippets of culture and history around every corner. I work on the edge of Chinatown, and walk to get coffee past Francis Ford Coppola's restaurant on the edge of North Beach. The echoes of beat poets still hang in the air. Every house is an individual, and the stores are idiosyncratic and independent.

These things are what made San Francisco appealing in the first place, and it's these things that I'm worried will be lost.

· Posts · Share this post

 

San Francisco: the shine has come right off for me

I guess I must be missing something obvious about the land of opportunity.

Here's how health insurance works, in a nutshell: I pay hundreds of dollars a month, either directly or through my employer. Then, when I go to the doctor, I may still need to still pay some money. If I get hit by a bus or have to have cancer treatment, I may still need to pay thousands of dollars. If I need an ongoing prescription, I may still need to pay. Etc, etc, etc. And this is considered normal. (If I am on a very low income, or elderly, or a few other special circumstances, these costs may be subsidized for me.)

Toast in San Francisco famously costs $4. A loaf of bread, if I don't want it pumped full of corn syrup, is somewhere between $4-6. A friend spent $8 on two heads of broccoli the other day.

Want to live in San Francisco? A one-bedroom apartment rents for somewhere between $2500-$4000 a month, depending on the area, excluding bills. To own, a one bedroom apartment costs around $600k; a 2-bedroom house in the Inner Richmond district is almost a million dollars; a 3-bedroom house is closer to $1.5m.

People talk about becoming going out on your own and starting your own business, but there's no meritocracy here. This is a market that's only open to the already-wealthy; people who come from affluent backgrounds or have significant cushions saved up. For everyone else, the only real viable solution is to work for a megacorp, which will pay you the six-figure salary you need to get by here. I believe that, for many people, Silicon Valley is a closed shop.

The culture of entitlement that comes with this is immense. People talk about having made it on their own, and the power of individual achievement. More and more, I hear anti-union, anti-working-class, sexist, racist bigotry in casual conversation. Even the prevalence of something as archaic as traditional gender roles is jarring to me; I've seen more cat-calling and casual misogyny since I've lived here than anywhere else I've ever been. And they talk about the efficiency of private business. Private business is efficient, but in part because it's also sociopathic. Talk about business efficiency to people who lose everything when they get sick; who are evicted from their homes because their landlords want higher rents; who are allowed to slip through the cracks because of poor luck.

I'm single with no children, but one day I would like a family. These are not the values I want to bring children up around. I believe that there is no such thing as individual accomplishment without society, and that we're all richer when we take care of each other. I also believe that San Francisco was once an oasis of this kind of thought, and it's deeply sad that such a progressive place has become so inhospitable.

There are many things to love here: the boundless ambition, the critical mass of talent, the historical culture of the city itself. I've met wonderful people, and have wonderful friends. But I do have to wonder what kind of place this is becoming.

· Posts · Share this post

 

We'll never be Google (Royals)

I've never seen a Blade rack in the flesh
I cut my teeth on a VPS and Ruby
And I'm not proud of my address
IP v4, no traceroute envy

But every post's like:
Node scripts
Varnish
GitHub integration
Mongo
Redis
Graceful degradation

We don't care; we're running Facebook in our dreams

But every blog's like:
Seed round
B round
Term sheets and some leeway
YC
Creamery
Tesla down the freeway

We don't know; we don't need to IPO

And we'll never be Google (Google)
It don't run in our blood
That kind of game just ain't for us
Writing a different kind of Buzz
Let me quote Paul Graham (Graham)
Pretty much endlessly
And baby I'll ship, I'll ship, I'll ship, I'll ship
Integrate continuously

My friends and I we've cracked on code
We hit our user goals using growth hacks
And everyone who sees us knows
That we're fine with this; spam's just hustling

And every post's like ...

And we'll never be Google ...

Big-O (ohhh)
Got more traction than we ever dreamed
And our site is being creamed

Big-O (ohhh)
We're eating our ramen bowls
Hitting all our metric goals

· Posts · Share this post

 

Getting a Linksys AE3000 Wireless-N USB dongle to work on a Macbook Pro

A while back, my out-of-warranty Macbook Pro's wireless antenna died. I had the card replaced; no dice. And unfortunately the antenna is in the screen, so to get working wireless back I would have had to get that replaced at a very high cost.

I went another way.

If you walk down the Networking aisle at Best Buy or Staples, which is what happens when you need a new wireless adapter in a hurry, you'll see that all the USB wireless dongles say they're for Windows only. Not a single one ships with a Mac driver, because I guess the Mac hardware is considered to be infallible or something. Maybe the cost-benefit analyses didn't show it to be worthwhile. Who knows.

Luckily, most USB wireless dongles are repackaged chipsets from other manufacturers. In particular, the Linksys AE3000 and a few other wireless-N models by manufacturers like Belkin are based on the Ralink (now Mediatek) RT3573 chip. I bought the Linksys AE3000 because of the build quality and speed capabilities.

Years ago, Ralink released some official drivers for Hackintoshes, which they've kept up-to-date. So after buying my Windows-only Linksys dongle, all I had to do was go grab the appropriate driver from their download page.

Or so I thought. You see, it turns out that the AE3000 didn't exist when the driver was written, so the installer doesn't know anything about it. You plug in your dongle, and nothing happens. What you actually have to do is install the driver and, before the final reboot after installation, go find the Info.plist file in /System/Library/Extensions/RT2870USBWirelessDriver.kext/ and add some information about the manufacturer. (After some adventures with text editors, I found that it was best to do this using sudo nano in a terminal window.)

And this kind of ridiculousness is why open source operating systems are a good idea. Nonetheless, despite the convoluted technical steps, it works: I have a working wireless-N connection via my Windows-only wireless dongle (even after an upgrade to Mavericks). I hope this helps someone else - and that manufacturers start properly supporting Mac OS X.

· Posts · Share this post

 

Is your startup on the user's side?

Some questions to ask yourself about your startup:

  • Does your business aim to "lock" users into your product?
  • Do you take ownership of content and/or data that your users create?
  • Do you create artificial barriers for billing purposes?
  • Do you sell your user data behind their backs? (Burying it in your terms & conditions counts as "behind their backs".)
  • Do you refuse to allow your users to export, post or manipulate data via anything but your own end-user interfaces?
  • Do you charge extra, and/or require an NDA to be signed, to access your APIs?
  • Do you sell products whose primary features are to restrict user freedoms? (Example: Digital Rights Management.)
  • Do you enact policies that may lead to an increased risk for vulnerable users? (For example, a "real names" policy.)
  • Are your marketing materials or business practices demeaning or offensive? (eg, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, etc.)

If the answer to any of the above is "yes", you may be an oppressive service: one that makes its money by aligning itself against its users. A progressive service is one where the interests of the business, as well as the features of your service, is in line with the user's goals and best interests, and the service actively aims to empower the user in any of these areas.

Can you think of any other criteria?

· Posts · Share this post

 

Why I support unions and the #BARTstrike

The BART strike is over: at the time of writing, they're expecting Bay Area Rapid Transit trains to start rolling at 4am, with a full service up and running by sometime in the afternoon. That's great news: the roads have been gridlocked here, and it's felt like the Bay Area has been brought to a standstill.

Nonetheless, I fully supported it.

The base salary for a train operator is $56,000 - a lot in most areas, but when a one-bedroom apartment runs for almost $2,000 a month, it's a salary that doesn't stretch very far. Particularly not if you have a family. And given that BART was running on a budget surplus, and worker wages were frozen for five years, it seems very reasonable to ask for more.

A second issue was safety: workers were asking for better lighting, and better protection against attacks. This request is all the more poignant given that two workers were killed on Friday.

I'm pleased that the union and BART management have reached a deal, not least because it was inconvenient to me: BART is by far the best way to travel around the area. What I'm less pleased about is the amount of anti-union propaganda I've seen from all over Silicon Valley. From tasteless jokes to threatening to replace them all with robots, it's not been pretty.

The purpose of unions is to allow workers to collectively organize and deal in a way that they could not as individuals. A company must negotiate for its best interests, by attempting to get the best value out of workers. It makes sense that the workers should have their own ability to negotiate with similar weight. Without this ability, wages, benefits and working conditions will tend to favor the companies rather than individuals. Here in the US, the labor movement was responsible for establishing the 40-hour workweek and the concept of having the weekend off, which were only ratified in 1940.

Unions have also been responsible for establishing the minimum wage, the concept of sick days, holiday pay, maternal leave, child labor laws and laws eradicating sweatshops in the United States. None of these are at all bad things, and while unions are not always a positive thing - just as company management is not always a positive thing - I'd argue that they're an important part of the fabric of working life. I have been proud to be a member of unions in the past, and if there was an appropriate tech industry union, I'd be proud to be a member of one now.

As Politico points out, a Harvard / University of Washington study showed that between a fifth and a third of the dramatic increase in income inequality in the united states (40%!) is related to the decline in union membership. While it's not the single cause, it's certainly hard to ignore, and points to a larger issue related to the evolution of workers' rights (and the perception of workers) in American society.

In January, Time noted that:

First, the fact is that when unions are stronger the economy as a whole does better. Unions restore demand to an economy by raising wages for their members and putting more purchasing power to work, enabling more hiring. [...] Second, unions lift wages for non-union members too by creating a higher prevailing wage. Even if you aren’t a member your pay is influenced by the strength or weakness of organized labor. The presence of unions sets off a wage race to the top. Their absence sets off a race to the bottom.

A victory for unionized workers, then, is a victory for all of us. Why on earth should a progressive industry like technology be against better conditions and pay for workers? I agree with Michel Hiltzik in the LA Times:

Blaming the workers for the impasse is a peculiarly one-sided interpretation of what's happening. Sure, you could say that 2,400 non-automated, human employees stand in the way of Silicon Valley's determination to "build something." But it's equally true to say that BART's nine board members and its general manager are the real obstacles to a settlement. Maybe Silicon Valley should figure out a way to automate them.

We're supposed to be making things better. As an industry, we may need to rethink what that means.

· Posts · Share this post

 

Why "engineers first" matters

Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak has a great line on his Twitter bio: "engineers first!"

Note: not sales first; not biz dev first; engineers first.

In most traditional organizations, unfortunately, engineers are not anywhere near first. Often, once you've cut through the extensive political hierarchies, layers of management, "ideas" people, and various other stakeholders, engineers come out pretty much dead last.

Of course, in technology, if your engineers are at the bottom of the heap, you will always lose.

There are a few different prongs to this problem as it arises in more traditional organizations. Not least of these is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a software engineer actually is: they're not IT support technicians, nor paint-by-numbers factory workers. They're creative knowledge workers; people whose skills allow them to create something from nothing, and who need an environment that allows those skills to be nurtured.

Related is the problem of "ideas" people, who want to claim ownership of the genesis of the product, without actually being able to do anything to create it. There are, of course, lots of different skillsets that go into making a software product, not all of which are engineering-related. However, it's undeniable that there are people in many traditional organizations who wish to claim credit for the creation of these products, to the expense of the people who actually do make them.

Finally, there are often business structures that exist solely for tradition's sake - they're there because that's how they've always be done. Because the engineering mindset is to analyze a structure and try and make something better, engineers may be less willing to play along with the politics within an organization. While I think this is an admirable quality, depending on the organization, it may be to the engineer's detriment.

Because engineers are academically-minded, smart people, they're less willing to navigate these hierarchies. It's also true that many of them may be, unfortunately, less able to navigate attempts to subjugate them, should anyone wish to. The result is terrible working environments for them, and as a direct result, sub-optimal products. Think of it this way: would you make a better product if you're constantly insecure about what you should be doing, or if you have the ability to make it your own?

The nice thing about Silicon Valley style companies is that they're often run by engineers, or people deeply understand the needs of engineers. They put the people who create the products first, and understand that the people who are actively making are the people who truly matter in the product process. Okay, so I'm biased, but this is something I really believe: fundamentally, a company boils down to its products; the products boil down to the people who make them, and the people who use them.

That's one of the reasons why engineers flock to Silicon Valley. It's not just about the gold rush, although there is the small chance you'll strike it lucky. But for everyone else, there are adequate salaries, comfortable working environments, and new kinds of companies that are reinventing the internal structures of work, and respecting the people who are building products.

There are still questions about aspects of Silicon Valley culture; I'm certainly uncomfortable with the bigotry and some of the libertarianism. Nonetheless, it's a safe space for geeks to use their creativity, intelligence and skills to create amazing things - and create incredibly high-value companies in the process. That's something you won't find as often in traditional organizations today - something they will doubtless be scrabbling to catch up with over time.

· Posts · Share this post

 

Outsider leaders are the agents of change

One often-seen trope in tech industry commentary is: "the geeks will inherit the earth".

It's a nice idea, which appeals to a lot of people in this ecosystem; there's even a lovely symmetry to the idea that the people who were probably bullied and ostracized in school, at least to some extent, are the same people who go on to change the world in meaningful ways. And in a lot of ways, it's true.

It's not because geeks are in any way better, or more intelligent, people. Instead, my theory is that it relates to being an outsider. People who don't change themselves to fit in are, almost by definition, more likely to think independently. If an effective leader is one who creates stand-out strategies and is able to creatively and intelligently react to circumstances, it makes sense that independent thinkers would fit the role more readily. The popular kids at school are much more suited to be followers - they've essentially taught themselves how to follow fashions rather than create them.

MBAs are not traditionally good at startups for similar reasons. They've been taught cookie cutter business methods, which make much more sense as management tactics in larger businesses than in the do-what-you-have-to context of getting something off the ground. Here in San Francisco, arguably tech startup central, besuited MBAs are often thought of as not bringing much to the table.

But geeks have their own popular kids now. Startup culture has created its own norms; brogrammers swarm San Francisco and cities like it, following the fashions dictated by outlets like TechCrunch and PandoDaily. Not a single one is likely to change the marketplace, let alone the world - and with them comes a pervasive culture of entitlement and even bigotry that isn't a million miles away from the cool kids.

Outliers are always going to be the people who bring about real change: people who can't easily be described, and whose actions can't easily be pattern-matched to an archetype. Often, these are people who don't take direction well. They might come across as weird, or antisocial. But their ideas are like nothing you've ever heard, and given the tools, they will create things you've never thought of.

Someone once said to me, in reference to someone who they thought was weird, "one way of looking at it is that they don't think mainstream culture is good enough for them." Damn straight. Being mainstream shouldn't be good enough for any of us. There's nothing to be gained by trying to be like everybody else, or by fitting yourself into a pre-defined pigeonhole.

Me? I like weird people, and I like working with them. I wish I was weirder myself: it's a sign of creativity, independence, and intelligence. San Francisco has a name for people who follow; they're called "normals" - or, sometimes, "consumers". It's not a label to aspire to.

In fact, none of us need to be normals or consumers. Once upon a time, we were needfully forced into demographic categories, so that products and media could be created that would broadly appeal to us. The Internet has created a world where anyone can connect to anyone else, whether it's to talk, to inform, or to sell. Fashions of all kinds are meaningless in a world where products can be viably created for an audience of one. They're an artifact of the age of broadcasting; one that's long since gone. We're in a post-demographic age, and if you're still trying to follow the crowd, you're a decade behind.

· Posts · Share this post

 

Phones aren't relevant in 2013 - so why am I forced to pay for one?

I've had a Samsung Galaxy S2 for two years, and I'm trying to decide which device to move to next.

When I moved to California a few years ago, I decided to go with T-Mobile, which has proven to be an excellent decision. Between dropping phone contacts and removing international data roaming fees, I've been very happy with their evolution, and (despite some poor coverage in various parts of the US) their service. In particular, I don't really grok why anyone would use AT&T.

But now, I find myself wondering if I need a personal phone at all. 99% of my phone use is over the Internet; I heavily use Google Hangouts, my voicemail and text messages are through Google Voice, and I've got credit on my Skype account. Particularly considering the data roaming changes, I think I could probably get away without the phone component of my device at all. After all, a telephone is a legacy device for voice communications over proprietary networks - something that is much more easily and flexibly done over the Internet. In many ways, an Internet phone number is better: it's not tethered to a single device, so I can call from whatever I have to hand, and change providers, even across countries, whenever I want to.

A MiFi, in other words, would be a smarter buy.

T-Mobile seems to be aware of this, because the only viable mobile broadband plan runs at $70 a month - which, coincidentally, is exactly what I pay for phone service with unlimited data. There's no financial incentive for me to change. And this carries on across the board: Verizon's is also $70, while AT&T is actually ten dollars cheaper for 10GB. Sprint is $80 for 12GB.

So despite not needing a phone plan, I'm forced into a position where I might as well get phone service. Because the data that comes with my $70 plan is unlimited, it's actually a better deal. That's disappointing: I was hoping to save some money by cutting out services that I don't need. But it also suggests that there's room for a data-only provider to cut through the incumbent networks and provide a service for data-only customers.

Android devices work well as mobile wifi hotspots, and T-Mobile doesn't charge extra for this these days, so it's not like I'm losing anything by buying another phone instead of a MiFi: I can still connect my iPads, laptops and other devices to my 4G service when I need to. Nonetheless, it feels odd to be be forced to buy into an old-fashioned way of doing things. I await the first consumer-oriented data-only cellphone networks eagerly.

· Posts · Share this post

 

How #xoxofest and #indiewebcamp saved me, in a way.

For me, one of the most interesting aspects of was the humility on show from people like Evan Williams, Maciej Cheglowski and Cabel Sasser - people who, in my mind at least, have "made it", and should be happy, successful and singing on hillsides with butterflies. Instead, each of their presentations was introspective and personal in different ways.

Frank Chimero captures one facet of it well in this amazing post:

After several talks, an unstated theme began to emerge, providing fuel for many of the stories and ideas expressed throughout the two days. It was often hinted upon, but only directly stated in Christina Xu’s talk. It came out as bright and searing as magnified daylight: “Independence is lonely.”

Independence is lonely.

When I moved to the San Francisco Bay Area, I did so for personal reasons. My mother has (had?) idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, an incurable disease of the lungs that causes progressive scarring until you can't breathe anymore. I wanted to be close to both my parents to support them, and to spend more time with them. It was a good decision: I was there when she had to be bumped up to two refrigerator-sized oxygen concentrators in parallel in order to be able to breathe, I was there when she had her double lung transplant, and she's lying on my sofabed right now, in readiness for yet another session at the hospital.

So I have no regrets, even with everything else aside. However, you've probably noted that the San Francisco Bay is not the worst place in the world to be if you're making software. Legends have been made here. The people here have have made the world change over and over again - even before the computer revolution - and will do so many more times. I want to be in that mix. Call it egotism, but I believe I can help the world change, too.

But I was lonely.

Now, it's true that I wasn't fully independent, or alone. I work for latakoo, an enterprise video management startup based out of Austin, Texas. I'd been working with them first as an unpaid advisor, and then transitioned to lead their technology team. However, they were all in Texas, and I was all the way over here. Flights and Google Hangouts are useful, but they're not quite the same as having a ready-made community to plug into.

I've always liked to have my own projects, but the last big self-owned project I'd helped to start - something called Elgg - had not ended well. It still continues to be widely used, and I'm still very proud of the work we did, but the startup we'd founded with it succumbed to a series of bizarre interpersonal issues that I still don't fully understand. It's a shame, because we had been successfully bootstrapping, and had succeeded in a way that I think most web startups wouldn't be capable of, from a standing start with zero knowledge.

Those interpersonal issues were killer. There were, through the course of Elgg's evolution, a number of what felt like attempts to subjugate me in importance in the company, and in the project. I was threatening, I think, which is bizarre; if you've ever met me, you'll know that I go out of my way to be un-threatening. (And I was responsible for building the project, which is still in use in two national governments, Fortune 500 companies, etc etc.) In the end, though, it was a disagreement over a fundamental business direction that made me leave; I realized that it could never be profitable under its current heading, and I realized I didn't have quite enough clout to change this on my own. The company faded away less than a year later, and Yammer, a company that took exactly the direction I wanted to head in, was sold to Microsoft for a billion dollars.

So it goes. I left in 2009, just as the web was becoming more mobile; it was something you accessed from everywhere, rather than on your desktop or laptop. So I started to build something called Outmap, which would let anyone create, curate and crowdsource sets of geographically-tied data, and then share and access them from wherever they were. My two big use cases were (for the free version) crowdsourcing lists of free wifi access points using Twitter, which was a big issue at the time, and (for the pro version) being able to take biological species counts using a smartphone.

But then there was a kerfuffle with some people, because they felt that perhaps I shouldn't have been creating any social software at all after Elgg. All software is social, of course, and it was really an attempt to bully me into doing some things I didn't want to do, having already been bullied into doing some things that I also didn't want to do. They had a lot more money and power than me, though, which meant that I wound up shelving the project.

All of which brings me to San Francisco in 2011, feeling utterly burned-out about my own projects, and feeling shy about connecting with people in the industry because I was no longer doing the thing I was vaguely known for. I was forced to be a talker rather than a doer; something I strongly dislike. I had left my girlfriend behind in Edinburgh, I was dealing with a dying parent, I was in the midst of my startup's scrabbling-around phase (trying to find the right product-market fit), I was personally losing money every month because of the phase we were in, and I didn't know anybody at all. Without realizing it, I lost faith in my ability to create things on my own terms. Reader, I was miserable. For a year.

This is where community becomes important. Finally, in an act of desperation, I put out a message saying that I was having trouble meeting people (although, yes, that was mostly because of my own barriers). Tantek Çelik responded, inviting me to a microformats dinner in the Westfield Dome, where I had some great conversation with him, Kevin Marks and Ariel Waldman, and we collaboratively ended up submitting a pull request to Elgg, to get its profiles to support appropriate microformat markup.

A month or two afterwards, I went to XOXO and found a community of independent makers and doers who were creating things on their own terms using the power of the Internet and were improving their lives in the process. In a quiet corner one evening, I cried. And then I made a resolution: I would give myself time, every day, to build my own things again. In November, as part of NaNoWriMo, I wrote a novel.

That Elgg pull request was eventually rejected, and it was as a direct result of this that I found myself writing the first code for Bonita and then idno, and then eventually presenting my platform at IndieWebCamp. It was a lot more than a simple social platform that embodied some technical principles; for me, this journey has been more symbolic. It's been about taking my life, claiming some ownership, and rearranging it to be what I wish it to be.

(An important note: I have no ill will towards the current Elgg team at all, which is, in my opinion, doing a great job.)

I wrote the database and object code for idno while I was spending my evenings in my mother's recovery apartment, while she was getting slowly better after her invasive surgery. A couple of commits were from the ward after she was readmitted. I wrote the interfaces when I had moved back to my own apartment, and was still waking up every night with flashbacks from the day of the operation. I presented the first version - chickens! - when I was finally beginning to breathe again on my own terms, and was wondering what the rest of my life would look like. And now, I'm getting ready to release.

For me, the movement has been about software, sure, but it's more importantly been about meeting amazing people and once again being a part of a human movement. I have found my community in San Francisco, and I am no longer lonely.

They say that to have real satisfaction in your career, you should feel like you're making progress on meaningful work. More and more, I feel that way about my life. And it's helping me with my work on latakoo, my interpersonal relationships, and the way I feel about the world.

The power of XOXO isn't in the things that people are making on their own terms, although the things they're making are incredible. It's in the sharing of those things, and in the motivation to create, and in the community.

For both the and communities, I can say this: I'm proud to be there.

· Posts · Share this post

 

The return of the crafty makers from the future is every bit what I hoped it would be #xoxofest

 

thumb.jpg

Last year, I said this about :

I’m excited by the people I already knew; I’m excited by the people I met for the first time and might never see again. The conversations stretched past midnight every night. Everyone was an equal participant, and the meaning of XOXO – literally, hugs and kisses – was evident from the opening party through to the closing moments, as the conversation spilled over into an entire street in the middle of the night.

More than anything else, this was an uncynical, hopeful event that celebrated humanity and individual creativity. This is the promise of technology. Let’s make things and connect.

Here I am again, hanging out in Portland with a collection of amazing creatives and makers. I don't mean "creatives" in that asinine corporate marketing kind of way, but rather, people who create; while last year the event was open to anyone who backed it on Kickstarter, this year the only rule was that you had to be someone who makes things. Personally. Executive teams and marketing fact-finding missions were not allowed - unless, of course, the people on those teams were, individually, people who made things for themselves, on their own terms.

The result is, once again, an inspiring group of people, and once again I'm finding that the conversations I'm having in hallways and courtyards are every bit as inspiring as the talks I'm seeing on stage. I'm seeing more of my heroes this year, too - people like Evan Williams, Maciej Ceglowski, as well as people I didn't know were heroes until yesterday, like Molly Crabapple and Vi Hart.

Let's talk about the word "inspiring". Usually we use it in these kinds of contexts as a kind of platitude; it's almost a cipher for "oh, that speaker was very interesting." At the participants are inspiring in a more direct way, as in: "I want to go home and make something incredible right now." Since last year's event, I've written a novel and kicked off the creation of a new open source social platform. If anything, I want to create more things - but also do it in such a way that they're sustainable in themselves. Last year's event helped me blow off the pseudo-clouds of my impostor syndrome. This year's event, again so full of emotion and motivation and creative, hyper-intelligent people engineering their own lives so that they can make the things they dream of, is the kick in the pants I need to begin taking my own creation seriously.

And that, really, is the magic of XOXO. This isn't pie in the sky or some kind of nebulous conference about values. These are people who have done it; people who have made art, music, software, literature, devices and movies themselves. Hundreds of them. And they all want to talk, and hang out, and maybe make together. I hope to be back, and I hope to be meeting those entrance requirements - just make something! - for the rest of my life.

· Posts · Share this post

 

Building a business is the best kind of engineering challenge

I distinctly remember saying, as a young developer a decade ago, that I didn't enjoy the business side of startups. I was very wrong. There is no other side to startups - and engineering a profitable business is at least as challenging and rewarding as creating anything else.

Paul Graham's essay How to Raise Money is excellent: a distillation of the fundraising advice that Y Combinator gives to its classes into an article packed with actionable advice.

If you're running a startup, or are interested in the startup ecosystem, it's a required read. Here's the link again.

Paul says a lot here about the kinds of investors that are valuable, the important things to take away from an investment round (hint: more than enough money to achieve your goals, not necessarily a high valuation), and how to approach investment in the context of building a high-growth company.

But here's something else to take on board:

If someone makes you an acceptable offer, take it. If you have multiple incompatible offers, take the best. Don't reject an acceptable offer in the hope of getting a better one in the future.

This is one of the most important lessons you can learn - about anything, let alone startup funding. If you receive an offer, whether it's a price on a house or a funding offer for a startup, that meets your goals, then take it.

The prerequisite for this, of course, is that you've set goals. You need to have a plan, understand where you are, and have a good idea about what it'll take to get from here to there. Of course, in startups and life, plans tend to change - but then, you adapt the plan. Think of it like a GPS navigation system. You're not legally bound to stick to the path the map lays out for you - but as soon as you deviate from it, the software figures out the best route from where you are now. As an executive or a product manager in a startup, you need to be that GPS navigator.

Paul points out that you should have more than one path mapped out:

And the right strategy, in fundraising, is to have multiple plans depending on how much you can raise. Ideally you should be able to tell investors something like: we can make it to profitability without raising any more money, but if we raise a few hundred thousand we can hire a one or two smart friends, and if we raise a couple million, we can hire a whole engineering team, etc.

To do that, you need data. As Tim O'Reilly pointed out in his post, How I Failed, that means making sure everyone understands you're a business:

Every manager - in fact, every employee - needs to understand the financial side of the business. One of my big mistakes was to let people build products, or do marketing, without forcing them to understand the financial impact of their decisions. This is flying blind — like turning them loose in an automobile without a speedometer or a fuel gauge. Anyone running a group with major financial impact should have their P&L tattooed on their brain, able to answer questions on demand, or within a few moments. It isn’t someone else’s job to pay attention. Financial literacy doesn’t come naturally to everyone. Make sure it’s part of your employee training package, and make sure that people running important business functions are held accountable for their numbers.

Everyone should understand their budgets (and have budgets!), and operate within them. And everyone should have an awareness of what a potential plan will cost, and whether it's actually feasible using the funds and resources available to the team.

The days of raising a huge amount of money and hoping that a business model will arise are over, if they were ever here to begin with. Twitter was famous for this strategy, but you have to remember that its founders had a very solid track record and were trusted in both the industry and the Silicon Valley community; it didn't just happen out of the sky. They were seasoned businesspeople, and had top-tier business development resources available to them.

Bootstrapping - where you grow your company without any investment - remains very interesting to me, but isn't applicable in every scenario. While it's nice to build an engine that makes enough money to support itself from day one, not every business can support this; sometimes investment is required. Equipment, infrastructure, advertising or simple market runway justifications are reasonable - and open up business possibilities that bootstrapping couldn't manage.

However, with controlled growth and a practical starting product, I think bootstrapped startups can manage more than you'd think, although perhaps not in the timeframe of a VC-funded one. Nonetheless, here more than ever, this GPS sense of the business roadmap is required. There isn't a business that isn't, ultimately, tethered to the numbers.

Many developers think of startups in terms of building something cool, and indeed, the product is very important - but it's also the engine of your business. It's what people hopefully buy into and pay for. You can't base a startup on creativity and good intentions alone. Pragmatism, practicality and the ability to face reality head on are requirements.

The good news for entrepreneurial developers is that this isn't a million miles away from the principles of architecting a complicated software application. Certainly, a different set of requirements and skills are involved, but in both cases you're talking about a lot of interconnected pieces and resources that have to work together just so. If you ignore a requirement, or mis-assess your platform resources, your application will be belly-up. That's true of your business, too. The good news is, in both cases, you can monitor resources, iterate and test. Okay, you also need to have empathy, people skills, and a dozen other qualities as a business leader, but guess what? You need those to build great software, too. What kind of application will you build if you can't empathize with the user?

I think of my early developer self, and wonder what I was talking about. Building this machine is an amazing journey - and the rewards, of course, are great.

· Posts · Share this post

 

The Internet Explorer 8 web developer's dilemma

Google Analytics has announced it will end IE8 support by the end of the year, following Google Apps, which ended support for the browser last November.

Legacy browser support remains one of the hardest problems in web development. For years, Internet Explorer 6 was a bugbear, because enterprise applications were written with it in mind. Sadly, the same is true of its descendent: nobody uses IE8 on the weekend, which means that it's probably forcibly installed on enterprise networks, where users aren't allowed to install their own software.

Internet Explorer lock-in is rife in the enterprise, because of the browser's non-standard web support and ubiquity on Windows computers. Faced with supporting IE8 or web standards as they were actually specified, many enterprise vendors went with IE8, because that's where the customers were.

Compounding the problem, IE8 is the last browser in its line that will run on Windows XP, which is still prevalent in enterprise environments (even if users are slowly making the migration to Windows 7). In other words, to run a better version of Internet Explorer, enterprise IT departments don't just have to give permission for it to be installed; they must upgrade their computers from another operating system first. This is a significant expense.

In the web development community, it's easy to be dismissive and say that these organizations should be running Linux, and shouldn't have got themselves into this situation to begin with. (I've heard this attitude a lot.) That ignores the much broader context that Windows enterprise computing sits in, including the software ecosystem and the support infrastructure that's grown up around it. Most importantly, though, if we want to sell to a customer, it's probably a good idea to support the platforms that they actually use. The larger and more security-conscious the customer, the more reticent they may be to upgrade their platform software more regularly.

So how do you balance the fact that so many customers are on Windows XP with the fact that Internet Explorer 8 is a hideous, insecure platform that must be developed for separately?

One option is to gently suggest Firefox or Chrome, which both work with Windows XP SP2. At latakoo, we'll be doing that increasingly less gently; we've already communicated to our customers that we'll be slowly phasing out support, and we'll soon be adding some visible messaging urging them to switch browsers. However, the pragmatic reality is that many users can't switch, because of their IT rules, and often because of the IE8-specific in-house apps they're running, so we can't simply turn off support, even though maintaining IE8-only code costs us extra.

Moving away from IE8 will be more secure for every organization. (Microsoft is ending support for Windows XP in 2014.) Until then, if you're an enterprise IT manager, I recommend encouraging a two-browser solution: IE8 for the apps that really need it, and a secure, modern browser for everything else (including latakoo).

For developers, there's a lot to be said for increasingly less-subtle messaging explaining why Internet Explorer 8 is a bad choice. You're providing useful advice, while also encouraging your customers to get better value for money out of your service (because more developer time can go into new and more resilient features rather then legacy browser support). But don't switch off support completely - not quite yet at least - lest you leave some of your most important customers out in the cold.

· Posts · Share this post

 

At last! Another male developer talks about sexism in tech.

1. I know that my mediumsplaining misogyny adds zero value, so consider this a personal vent rather than a serious attempt to contribute to the conversation.

2. There's a giant misogyny problem in tech, and in the San Francisco Bay Area. I've seen more catcalling here than anywhere else I've ever lived, and been on the periphery of more conversations predicated on traditional gender role assumptions and casual objectification.

2a. That doesn't mean there aren't awesome, progressive people in California; obviously, there are a lot of them, including all of my friends here. And to be clear, I love living here.

2b. I was a teenage boy, and although I've always tried to be respectful of others, I've definitely said some things about people that I'm not at all proud of now. I also know that I'm writing from a position of privilege which is not always visible to me, and while I try not to be a part of the problem, sometimes I probably am.

3. With all of this said, I think it takes a serious lack of self-awareness to get up on a podium at an internationally-famous event and present an app called Titstare.

4. Titstare is disgusting but fleeting. What I care more about is how the wider problem affects my industry, my profession, the environment I live in, and therefore pretty much my entire life. Not to mention the lives of people I care about.

5. Apparently some people need this spelled out: women are not somehow biologically less suited to working in technology, or the sciences, or mathematics. It's worth checking out how the genders break down at, say, a high school level for those things, globally. Or, you know, just using a little common sense and working it out for yourself.

5a. Here's something else that shouldn't need saying: the glass ceiling is a ridiculous relic that should make us all ashamed. I'm a strong believer in equalizing maternity and paternity leave as one way of bringing it to an end. Women are not worth less in the workforce than men. This disparity is not merit-related.

5b. And by the way, the whole concept of a meritocracy is bullshit. It's built on an empathy void, and completely ignores individual context and history.

6. I don't want to work or live in all-male environments, or any other kind of monoculture. I would rather that smart, awesome people who can contribute amazing things didn't feel like they aren't welcome.

7. I honestly believe that a huge part of the problem is that a lot of people in tech are incapable of feeling genuine empathy for people from other contexts. I don't think they can put themselves in someone else's shoes, and see things from their point of view. This is a learned skill, and it is valuable: not just for preventing yourself from being hateful to others, and being a decent human being, but also for your startups, too.

8. Another common geek trope is to be deliberately controversial to get a rise, and to publicly wonder why people are so sensitive. Here is why people are so sensitive: because the controversial things you are saying are tantamount to persecution. Can't understand why that might be hurtful? There's that empathy void again.

9. But without wanting to diminish the previous points, all of this pales compared to the out-of-the-blue requests for sex, the dehumanizing comments, the rape jokes, the abusive emails, the sexual assaults, and the day-to-day slights and injustices that I honestly wouldn't have believed any functioning adult human would stoop to. I can't mediumsplain this, or mansplain it, or explain it, or even come close to understanding why this kind of stuff exists. I can put myself into the shoes of the abusers here - and they are abusers - to try and determine their motivations, but the best I can think of is that it's some kind of sick power game. It's so completely broken as to defy belief, but I do believe it, of course. I don't know how you go about correcting someone who thinks that any of this is in any way okay.

10. These aren't fucking revelations, people. Our industry is supposed to be building the future. I don't want to live in a world where people are discriminated against because of their gender, sexuality, ethnic background, context or class. Solving that for the world is a hard, disruptive problem. Solving that in our industry seems doable. We're not doing a very good job of it so far though.

11. I'm sorry / not sorry for this vent. Selfishly, I wanted to write something down, but there are lots of people who talk about these issues in an informed, eloquent way, which I haven't here. @shanley's Twitter feed is a great jumping-off point; I've learned a lot from the resources and issues she links to.

· Posts · Share this post

 

Watches and glasses are small thinking

I'm less interested in smartwatches, glasses, and so on than the idea of intelligent screens that all connect to the same robot brain. So you can walk over to a window, or a phone, or a tablet or a computer or a fridge, and it knows it's you and you can use the same apps & data.

There's two ways that can work. One is that you're building apps that know about every form factor and device capability and are deployed separately, in the same way that Netflix has 120 different versions of each video to match the exact screen and Internet connection you happen to have. That's completely nuts. The other way is that you're sending an app interface down the wire that automatically adjusts to the device that you're accessing it through.

The best technology for that is the web, and that's one of the reasons that getting identity on the web right is so important. Being able to open your watch ("open your watch"?) and use the exact same app that you use on your tablet, or your car, is a big deal. Of course, the interface changes and adapts based on the amount of real estate you have and what the device is capable of, but building individual support for every single new thing that comes along is not sustainable.

So I don't care so much about watches or glasses. What's much more interesting to me is that idea that I can access my stuff on anything. Whatever works for me, wherever I am. That's cool.

· Posts · Share this post

 

One more note on surveillance

My dad always used to complain that he was being followed, and I never used to believe him. Honestly, I thought he was paranoid and a little crazy.

But then, one day, I saw it; a man following and recording us. It was unmistakeable. Blatant even. How had I missed this before?

All of this has been happening for a long time. My dad organized Vietnam War protests, and was stopped by the police every time he went out in his car thereafter. We know that people like Noam Chomsky have been under surveillance for decades. This kind of surveillance isn't new.

What's new is the technology we've all built to help them do it.

That man who followed us? I took a picture of him and he ran away. Just saying.

· Posts · Share this post

 

Government - the last great gatekeeper - is ripe for disruption.

You know, on one level, I just want to say "fuck everything", hold up my hands and walk away.

This closing piece on Groklaw is well-thought-out, considered, and gut-wrenching. "But for me, the Internet is over," Pamela Jones writes. Perhaps it should be over for many of us; as she points out, the founder of Lavabit, which shut down recently in response to an NSA search warrant, has stopped using email entirely. "If you knew what I know, you might not use it either," is the pull quote. Jesus.

This isn't about the Internet as such. It's about surveillance, for sure, and the chilling effects it has on freedom of speech, on freedom of thought, and the inevitable march we're all making to a new kind of distributed society. We're all connected to each other now, and the cat's not climbing back into the bag. Music was disrupted; movies; business. Government will obviously be disrupted by the new kind of interconnectedness we all share. Some have argued that it's happening already. In that context, it should be no wonder that all of this is going on. The change is inevitable, of course, just as the disruption of the entertainment industry was inevitable, but we're dealing with powerful structures.

We're all making it easy to be surveilled, by placing our data into silos, and putting so much of it on the Internet at all. Moore's Law was the only real limit to mass surveillance, and we're there. We're awash with data. Phone calls are routed over IP. How many of us send personal letters anymore? Not that it matters, because guess what, that's being logged too. (And sure, most of these news stories are coming out of the US, but don't let that fool you. We've see stories from elsewhere, too, and we know that the different agencies share information with each other.)

"Friends don't let friends use cleartext," my friend Marcus Povey writes. I'd argue that friends don't let friends put their trust in algorithms that can be backdoored, socially engineered and compromised without our knowledge.

I no longer buy the idea that we can code our way out of this. Not entirely.

Here are two things I would love for everyone to do; I'll start. The first is to publicly declare the jurisdiction in which you live, and in which your data is hosted. That way, people can make an informed decision about how to communicate with you. You can do it like this:

Hey, everyone! I live in California, my email is hosted by Google, I keep documents on Dropbox, and my server is hosted in Dallas, Texas.

Now you know whether to email me. And it also gives me some motivation: to move my email away from Google (hopefully with Mailpile's help, and to set myself up with something like ownCloud in place of Dropbox. (Of course, I'd declare where I hosted that, too.) I'm going to place this notice in my profile.

The second, and most important, thing is to take proactive, real-world action.

None of us can afford to be apolitical anymore, and we can't afford to be sidetracked by ridiculous political sideshowing. You might be a libertarian or a conservative; I'm a liberal who likes to call himself a social capitalist. It doesn't matter. What matters is everyone coming together, in conjunction with organizations like the EFF and the ACLU (and Open Rights Group and Liberty), and actively protesting. Get on the streets, tell your friends and neighbors what the problems are. Do it rationally and non-violently, but raise awareness however you can.

We have to learn how to play politics. There will be voices who call for revolution, or who publicly declare that playing this game is tantamount to aligning ourselves with government. I don't believe that these are productive discussions. (Although, I'll restate my belief that government will be subject to the same forces that other sectors were. The Napsterization of democracy will be good for all of us.)

Still, I think it's more practically possible to make freedom a mainstream political force again, and it seems to me that the best way we can do that is on the streets, in the real world. It's baffling to me that this should be necessary in America, whose self-labeling as "the land of the free" now seems wilfully Orwellian. Nonetheless, we need to deliver a clear message that only the politicians who actively support our civil liberties will, in turn, receive our support. The aforementioned organizations, as well as groups like Demand Progress and Restore the Fourth are already doing great work on this.

Even more than that, in our own actions, we have to conscientiously object. Buy services from countries with a good civil liberties record over countries that don't. Store offline. Opt out of services that track you for no good reason. Support anti-tracking measures, and projects that seek to put your own data under your own control. Support Manning. Support Snowden. Support journalists like Glenn Greenwald.

We get the world that we deserve. Some of our greatest minds have been focused on how to make extensive silos of data that infer things about our behavior, often without our knowledge or consent. They've disrupted music; they've disrupted movies; they've disrupted business. It would be very nice if we could all disrupt that last great gatekeeper - just enough so that the balance of power rests in equilibrium.

· Posts · Share this post