Werd I/O

[Hannah Devlin, Tom Burgis, David Pegg and Jason Wilson at The Guardian]

Quite a disturbing new startup coming to light in The Guardian:

“The footage appears to show experimental genetic selection techniques being advertised to prospective parents. A Heliospect employee, who has been helping the company recruit clients, outlined how couples could rank up to 100 embryos based on “IQ and the other naughty traits that everybody wants”, including sex, height, risk of obesity and risk of mental illness.”

Eugenics is a discredited, troubling idea, and the startup’s claims are akin to junk science, even if the underlying data was drawn from UK Biobank, which seems like a great resource when used for good. Still, the startup is clearly out there offering its services, while using a regulatory arbitrage strategy (operating between jurisdictions to exploit legal differences and finding ways to exploit loopholes in the law) that isn’t a million miles away from techniques used by startups like Uber, and throwing up all kinds of ethical questions in the process.

A major figure in the startup is Jonathan Anomaly (his real name), who has been advocating for “liberal eugenics” for some time:

“Anomaly is a well-known figure in a growing transatlantic movement that promotes development of genetic selection and enhancement tools, which he says should not be confused with coercive state-sponsored eugenics. “All we mean by [liberal eugenics] is that parents should be free and maybe even encouraged to use technology to improve their children’s prospects once it’s available,” he told the podcast The Dissenter.”

Of course, eugenics isn’t controversial or unethical solely when it’s forcibly done by the government. As the article notes:

“Katie Hasson, associate director of the Center for Genetics and Society, in California, said: “One of the biggest problems is that it normalises this idea of ‘superior’ and ‘inferior’ genetics.” The rollout of such technologies, she said, “reinforces the belief that inequality comes from biology rather than social causes”.”

Enough ink has been spilled on science fiction stories that describe the effects of exactly this startup’s mission that the founders should have understood they were building a biotech torment nexus: something that was described in fiction as a technology that must never be built for the good of humanity, lest we fall victim to both intended and unintended consequences. Regardless, if someone can build it, they eventually will, and here we are.

There’s a related ethical question raised here, which related to who, exactly, should have access to biological research data. It turns out that UK Biobank also gave access to its database to a race science group. Should it have? Or should there be ethical safeguards on these databases? I’m more inclined to say that knowledge bases should be as open access as possible, but the implications for use by eugenicists and racist groups are pretty dire.

#Technology

[Link]

[Cory Doctorow]

Cory Doctorow discusses how he reads writers like Molly White:

"This conduit is anti-lock-in, it works for nearly the whole internet. It is surveillance-resistant, far more accessible than the web or any mobile app interface. It is my secret super-power."

I agree. I start every day in my RSS reader (I maintain a very simple live list of my subscriptions over here) and it's one of the best tools I use. I rarely miss a news story from a publisher I care about - whether that's a newsroom, an individual, or an organization. And nobody's getting in the way to try and predict what I should be interested in.

RSS is free, open, well-established, and easy to use. More people should be using it. Even you.

#Technology

[Link]

[Dries Buytaert]

"I'm excited to share an experiment I've been working on: a solar-powered, self-hosted website running on a Raspberry Pi."

Lovely!

The key seems to be a Voltaic 50-watt panel and 18 amp-hour battery, which run to around $300 in total. That's not a lot of money for something that can theoretically run in perpetuity.

I've been wanting to make my own website run on fully green energy for a long time, and it's hard to find a web host that does this directly rather than through trading carbon credits, which I'm deeply suspicious of. (The exception is Iceland, where geothermal energy is common.)

I wonder what it would take to productize something like this and make it an all-in-one home server solution? Or to put your wifi router and modem on solar? (Assuming your whole house isn't on solar, that is, which mine sadly isn't.)

This also seems fair:

"It may seem unconventional, but I believe it's worth considering: many websites, mine included, aren't mission-critical. The world won't end if they occasionally go offline. That is why I like the idea of hosting my 10,000 photos on a solar-powered Raspberry Pi."

I feel the same way.

#Technology

[Link]

[Mathew Ingram]

Mathew Ingram's overview of the WordPress drama continues to be updated with new information. The hole just seems to be getting deeper and deeper. As he says: it's a mess.

"It's pretty clear that Matt sees what he is doing as protecting WordPress, and forcing a no-good corporation to cough up some dough after years of taking advantage of the community (he says he has been trying to negotiate with WP Engine for more than a year now, while WP Engine says it gives back to WordPress in a number of ways.) To some observers like me, however — and to some other longtime members of the WordPress ecosystem — it looks like Matt has dragged the WordPress community into a legal mess with a variety of unforeseen and potentially serious consequences."

I still don't fully understand what prompted this sea change in how Matt has addressed the wider community, including WP Engine. I have this ongoing sense that there's another shoe left to drop, whether it's relating to stalling revenue at Automattic and pressure from its board (pure conjecture on my part, to be clear), or something else entirely. Without some strong motivating factor this just seems to be self-sabotage.

At this point I'm really curious to see what's next. All this drama has also made it clear that for the kind of CMS WordPress is - more of a framework than an out-of-the-box solution at this point, but with a strong ready-made editing and administration experience - there aren't many alternatives. That's not to denegrate other projects like Drupal, etc, because I think they're different kinds of CMSes. Ghost is much more narrowly focused, too. I think if WordPress had a real competitor in its space, this might all be playing out differently.

(If I was WP Engine and had run out of options to de-escalate, I'd be going ahead and forking WordPress right now. And what a mess that would be.)

#Technology

[Link]

[Anil Dash]

Anil Dash makes a pertinent observation about the current state of the web:

"At the start of this year, I wrote The Internet Is About To Get Weird Again, which began by calling back to the Internet of 2000. In thinking more about it, though, we more closely resemble the Internet of a few years later, where the crash of the dot-com bubble and the stock market had the same effect that the popping of the crypto bubble did: the casuals who were just trying to make a quick buck are much less likely to jump in the pool."

I agree.

The way I've been thinking about it is: There's everything to play for. We understand what can go wrong. We understand many of the needs, although we should always go out and learn more. But for the first time in a long time, the internet isn't calcified: there isn't a sense that the platforms people use are set. Anyone can come along and build something new, and it's absolutely possible for it to catch on.

And, as Anil says, the spirit of the web is more intact than it has been in a long time. Gone (hopefully) are the Wall Street-esque folks who are here to make a bunch of money; instead, we're left with the people who genuinely care about connecting and creating and making something good. That's what powered the web's heyday, and that's what has the potential to make a difference now.

Let's go make good stuff.

#Technology

[Link]

[Wes Davis at The Verge]

The feud between Automattic (or more specifically, Matt Mullenweg himself) and WP Engine is getting bonkers:

"WordPress.org has taken over a popular WP Engine plugin in order “to remove commercial upsells and fix a security problem,” WordPress cofounder and Automattic CEO Matt Mullenweg announced today. This “minimal” update, which he labels a fork of the Advanced Custom Fields (ACF) plugin, is now called “Secure Custom Fields.”"

What appears to have happened is this:

1. WP Engine was banned from the WordPress plugin portal.
2. A flaw was found in its popular Advanced Custom Fields plugin and patched - but because it was banned from the portal, WordPress users couldn't get an automatic update.
3. Rather than seed the patch, Automattic forked the plugin, renamed it, and took over the upgrade path in-place.
4. All WordPress users of ACF that upgrade via the portal will now get Automattic's version, which removes all commercial ties to WP Engine.

Technically, Automattic (or anyone) can fork any open source plugin - that's what open source is all about. But seizing the upgrade path and swapping for the new version in-place in the portal is a pretty rotten move.

ACF is well-used in commercial sites and is often provided by agencies as a bedrock for their customizations. This isn't some sideline: for many users, ACF makes WordPress significantly more useful.

It's an existential issue for any open source plugin contributor. Again, forking is well within anyone's rights - but replacing the upgrade path is something only Automattic can do.

This is only muddied by the fact that the portal is technically owned by Matt alone, rather than Automattic. But the lines are blurry at best.

Whereas the feud had previously not created a risk to WordPress's functionality, for many serious users this is now a big problem. A stable platform with solid upgrade paths is a huge part of why people choose WordPress. Whatever's going on behind the scenes, this altercation has created huge risk for anyone who's thinking about making the leap (and, at the same time, may open up opportunities for other open source CMS vendors).

#Technology

[Link]

[Karl Bode at TechDirt]

"The Harris campaign has remained largely silent on whether Khan will be allowed to stick around. And it remains entirely unclear whether Harris will continue Biden’s support of something that, for once, at least vaguely resembles antitrust reform and a crackdown of concentrated corporate power."

Many tech leaders - the article calls out Reid Hoffman - have put open pressure on Harris to let go of Khan. FTC leaders often change between administrations, but I agree the premise that Lina Khan has actually done a pretty good job - and certainly better at anti-trust than we've seen in decades.

That's important because tech hasn't been a sideline industry for a long time. It's integrated into every aspect of how we live our lives and learn about the world. We should care about how much power an individual tech company (and its backers) can get, both to protect a competitive market and to ensure no one company has outsized influence on our democracy.

And as Karl Bode points out, it will say a lot about Harris's Presidency:

"Right now, Harris is remaining ambiguous about whether Khan will be allowed to stay at her post; allowing voters to fill in the blanks using vibes and their imagination. Whether Khan is kept in office, or replaced with yet another cookie cutter careerist, should prove pretty immediately telling in the new year."

We may find out soon.

#Technology

[Link]

[Bix Frankonis]

Bix Frankonis does not agree with my analysis of the Fediverse and the Social Web Foundation. For him, much of the issue relates to appropriation of the "social web" name:

"Like many trade groups, this one is named and self-described in a manner deliberately meant to capture and colonize an entire area. To become, in effect, synonymous with what its name names. It shits on twenty-five years of the web."

He's obviously entitled to his opinion, but I personally think it's a stretch to say that it shits on 25 years of the web. Of course there was a social web before the Fediverse - I'm a long-term indieweb participant and an even more long-term blogger. But I don't think that precludes this name, which is more of a bet on one embodiment of the future of the social web.

But here's what I really love: this conversation is playing out across platforms, across blogs, and across sites. In many ways, it's an illustration in itself of what the web is, and why blogging remains wonderful.

#Technology

[Link]

[Dries Buytaert]

"Addressing the Maker-Taker challenge is essential for the long-term sustainability of open source projects. Drupal's approach may provide a constructive solution not just for WordPress, but for other communities facing similar issues."

Dries lays out a constructive approach to crediting open source contributors. There's no stick here: just a series of what amount to promotion and status levels in return for making contributions like "code, documentation, mentorship, marketing, event organization" and so on.

I've certainly had to deal with the maker-taker problem too, although not at the magnitude that either Drupal or WordPress need to consider it. When I worked on Elgg, the open source ecosystem was relatively underdeveloped, and I don't remember it being much of a problem. In contrast, Known plugged into a significantly more advanced ecosystem. The solution Dries lays out makes a ton of sense to me, and I wish we'd done more along these lines in both cases.

#Technology

[Link]

[Matt Haughey]

"A couple months ago I was hanging out with my aunt, and she mentioned her cable+internet bill was around $250 per month. I thought that was insane and that I should do something about it. She's a 75 year old retiree that watches baseball and the hallmark channel, and she shouldn't have to pay as much as a car payment every month to do it."

What follows is a very smart way to share media profiles with a family member who doesn't live in your house, using Tailscale as a way to make them seamlessly appear like they're a part of your household.

Tailscale is easy-to-use and is virtually magic. I use it across my devices, and recommend it to others. This is a use case that makes a lot of sense.

#Technology

[Link]

[Rest of World]

"Technology has transformed how we spend, study, live, eat — even how we sleep. And for the 6.75 billion people around the world who consider themselves religious, technology is also changing their faith. How people worship, pray, and commune with the divine is transforming from Seoul to Lagos."

These are amazing stories that sometimes sound like provocative satire: PETA is building robot elephants for Hindu temples, for example. Or take this app, which will narrate the Bible in your own voice, perhaps so that you can make it more accessible for your children.

Many of the examples feel a lot like startups spotting new markets without consideration for whether they should. Some are more authentic. All are continuing examples of how the internet is changing religious life all over the world.

#Technology

[Link]

[Tracy Durnell]

"Blogs coax out deeper thinking in smaller blocks. A blog gives you the space to explore and nurture ideas over time, perhaps growing so slowly you hardly notice the extent of the evolution of your thoughts till you read something you wrote a few years ago."

Everyone should blog. It's been the single most transformative tool in my career - and a huge part of my life.

Given the latter part, I needed to hear this:

"We know, when we’re reading a blog, that we’re getting a glimpse into the writer’s active psyche, a tour of their studio as it were — not hearing their thesis presentation or reading their pre-print publication; hearing from other people being people is part of the appeal of blogs."

Over the last few years I've downgraded the amount of personal writing in this space in favor of more thoughts about technology. I never quite know where the balance is, but I think there's a lot to be said for turning the dial closer to the personal.

If you haven't started yet: try it and let me know about it. I'd love to read your thoughts.

And if you know you want to start but don't know where, Get Blogging! has your back.

#Technology

[Link]

[Robin Rendle]

"Every problem at every company I’ve ever worked at eventually boils down to “please dear god can we just hire people who know how to write HTML and CSS.”"

Yes. Co-signed.

Speaking of which ...

"ProPublica, the nation’s leading nonprofit investigative newsroom, is in search of a full-stack senior product engineer to lead work on our publishing systems and core website."

I'm looking for an exceptional engineer who cares about the open web to join my team. If that's you - or you know someone who fits this description - there are more details at this link. I'm here to answer any questions!

#Technology

[Link]

[Tracy Durnell]

"Links — connections between ideas — are the magic system of the Internet. They power the open web, enriching online writing. Generative AI is the parasitic dark magic counterpart to the link."

I love Tracy's observation that "online, we think together", which also calls back to the original definition of the word blog ("weblog" = "we blog").

Links are context, further thought, community. Removing that context removes depth. They're inherent to the web: they're what the web is. When platforms want to strip-mine value from our work - our writing, our thinking - by lifting it away from its community and context, we need to fight back. And fight back we will.

#Technology

[Link]

[Eva at kibty.town]

PSA for anyone who switched to Arc as their main browser (hey, that's me!): it had a giant vulnerability that the team, at the time of writing, doesn't seem to have acknowledged publicly, although it has been patched.

Aside from the lack of disclosure, perhaps the biggest ongoing concern for me is in the last few paragraphs:

"while researching, i saw some data being sent over to the server [...] this is against arc's privacy policy which clearly states arc does not know which sites you visit."

Sigh.

#Technology

[Link]

[Federal Trade Commission]

"A new Federal Trade Commission staff report that examines the data collection and use practices of major social media and video streaming services shows they engaged in vast surveillance of consumers in order to monetize their personal information while failing to adequately protect users online, especially children and teens."

None of this is particularly surprising, but it's frankly nice to see the FTC see it and recommend taking action. Lina Khan is doing great work actually holding software monopolies to task.

My favorite recommendation is the first one:

"Congress should pass comprehensive federal privacy legislation to limit surveillance, address baseline protections, and grant consumers data rights;"

This should have happened years ago, and even now, getting it done will be a struggle.

This one, on the other hand, falls into the "and pigs should fly" category:

"Companies should not collect sensitive information through privacy-invasive ad tracking technologies;"

Yes, companies should not, but they will until comprehensive privacy legislation is enacted with meaningful penalties. This report is a step in the right direction; that legislation must come next.

#Technology

[Link]

[Matt Mullenweg]

"Those of us who are makers, who create the source, need to be wary of those who would take our creations and squeeze out the juice. They’re grifters who will hop onto the next fad, but we’re trying to build something big here, something long term—something that lasts for generations."

Matt Mullenweg takes a strong stand for open source, and against companies that claim to be open but aren't quite.

Of course, not everything Automattic does is open source - its commercial operations were kicked off by the centralized Akismet anti-spam service, after all - but I agree that this clarity is useful.

It ends with a call to action: to support organizations that support ecosystems rather than abuse them. It's hard to disagree with that.

#Technology

[Link]

[Matt Burgess at Wired]

"Today, a group of six computer scientists are revealing a new attack against Apple’s Vision Pro mixed reality headset where exposed eye-tracking data allowed them to decipher what people entered on the device’s virtual keyboard. The attack, dubbed GAZEploit and shared exclusively with WIRED, allowed the researchers to successfully reconstruct passwords, PINs, and messages people typed with their eyes."

Fascinating stuff. This attack doesn't work with a normal laptop or device because we tend to look at the screen as we type instead of the keys. But on the Apple Vision Pro, your gaze is your pointer. By tracking what you're paying attention to, attackers can understand exactly what you're typing, including sensitive information.

Apple has patched the problem, presumably by making its virtual avatars just a little bit more dead in the eyes. But as more eye-based interfaces roll out, more exploits will surely be discovered. As we reveal more of ourselves in virtual space, more of our secrets become apparent, too.

#Technology

[Link]

[Lucas da Costa at Briefer]

"Some people call our strategy "open-core" and that's technically right. Still, I'd rather say that we have two pieces of software: one that is open-source and another that is not. I think that's more honest because we're not trying to hide the fact that we're selling a non-open-source version of our software."

This is a pretty honest take on open sourcing a product in a VC-funded startup, which needs to maintain a certain level of valuation growth to justify its investment.

Someone in edtech once told me that if I held back any of a product I was building that they would tell their substantial network not to use it. I don't think that's fair: I'm not sure there's much to be gained by making features that are mostly used by wealthy companies free. This is particularly true when owning your licensing means you still retain optionality to provide a lower-cost or zero-cost license for certain organizations.

I also like this reason for open sourcing their core product:

"Finally, by going open-source we commoditize our competitors' core functionality. This means they now have to compete against us in terms of innovative features, performance, and price, all of which are usually not their strong suits, let's be honest."

When executed well, and used against high-priced enterprise software in particular, this approach deflates closed-source business models and can be a real competition lift. I like that Briefer is naming that.

The one piece I don’t agree with is this:

"Open-source helps us manage Briefer's roadmap along with our users because there will be more of them, and because they'll have access to the source code. That way, they can help us figure out where to go, and help us get there by implementing what they need."

My experience in open source is that it doesn't absolve you from needing to keep a tight hand on the product steering wheel. Your open source community can actually muddy the water here, because open source users aren't always the same thing as customers, and may need a different set of features or functionality. Maintaining a coherent product vision is harder in open source, not easier.

Still, this was a lovely post to read, and I appreciate the open thinking. It certainly made me want to check Briefer out.

#Technology

[Link]

[iA]

"In a text editor, chapters are files. Organizing your files is work, but in a large text body it’s essential work. Your book or thesis will grow from it and get stronger as you clarify the structure. With iA Writer 7.2, structuring large writing projects has become a lot easier."

In other words, my favorite text editor just got a big upgrade for anyone writing large projects (hey, that's me!).

I've long been an iA Writer superfan: all my blog posts are written in it, and I use it as the starting point for most meaningful documents. This new update brings it into direct competition with Ulysses, another markdown text editor I love. I've been using iA Writer for short-form writing and Ulysses for longer-form writing (I have a very large book draft in there right now). But now, potentially, I can do it all from one app.

What it doesn't seem to do - yet - is the kind of file re-ordering that Ulysses excels at, so I can move scenes and chapters around each other with ease. From this post, it sounds like that will come:

"Tree view is the first step toward a document outline. Tree view is the technical foundation for offering a more detailed view of the document structure. All we can say for now is that it will work very much like tree view, just inside the document."

It's all great work. This level of care and attention in a text editor really matters. I'm grateful that iA exists.

#Technology

[Link]

[Nolen Royalty]

"On June 26th 2024, I launched a website called One Million Checkboxes (OMCB). It had one million global checkboxes on it - checking (or unchecking) a box changed it for everyone on the site, instantly."

This story gets deeper from here: how he found a community of teenagers secretly writing to each other in binary using the checkboxes in the site is lovely.

#Technology

[Link]

[Ingrid Melander and Guy Faulconbridge at Reuters]

"[Telegram founder] Durov, who has dual French and United Arab Emirates citizenship, was arrested as part of a preliminary police investigation into allegedly allowing a wide range of crimes due to a lack of moderators on Telegram and a lack of cooperation with police."

At face value, this seems like an enormous deal: the idea that a social network operator should be arrested for not moderating and not cooperating with the police seems like a precedent with implications for a great many platforms.

Telegram has been blocked in Russia since 2018. While it's unlikely to be blocked as such in the EU, it's plausible to see a world where it's removed from app stores and made harder to access.

Decentralized platform builders in particular will be watching this carefully: what does this mean for people who are building censorship-resistant and governance-free platforms overall?

Of course, at the same time, we may not have all the information yet. We'll have to watch and see.

#Technology

[Link]

[George Hammond at the Financial Times]

"Y Combinator, the San Francisco start-up incubator that launched Airbnb, Reddit, Stripe and Coinbase, is backing a weapons company for the first time, entering a sector it has previously shunned."

Specifically, its a low-cost cruise missile startup, which the Financial Times reports would be suitable for use in a potential war between the US and China. The cruise missiles are 10x smaller and 10x cheaper than today's alternatives, but presumably still murder people.

Also from the article:

"There is “a very interesting situation where geopolitical heat and the end of zero-interest rate policies have made people become more pragmatic,” said the founder of one start-up that was in the same group of YC-funded companies as Ares. [...] “People support builders doing cool, hard stuff.”"

Very interesting indeed. Certainly, you can make money by selling weapons of war. But should you? And in what world is killing people "cool stuff"?

Silicon Valley's origins are in large part military, of course, so this shouldn't be too much of a surprise. But for a while there, in the wake of the this-is-for-everyone radical inclusion of the web (which was not a military creation), it seemed like tech was heading in a different direction. It's disappointing to see that this was ephemeral at best.

#Technology

[Link]

[Tara Tarakiyee]

"I want to talk about three examples I see of cracks that are starting to form which signal big challenges in the future of OSS."

I had a knee-jerk initial reaction to this post - what open source bubble?! - but Tara Tarakiyee makes some important points here about our dependence on open source code and how that might change over time.

The through line to all of them is about money. The OSI's new "open source AI" definition is loose because AI vendors likely couldn't make money otherwise (although whether they can make money anyway is still up for debate); source-available licenses have become prevalent because it's easier to sell commercial licenses and therefore make a living building software; much open source software was precariously funded through European Commission Next Generation Internet grants, which are now evaporating.

While we can stand for pure open source values all we like, the people who build open source software need to make a living: food must go on the table and they need a roof over their heads. Ideally their compensation would extend beyond those basic necessities.

This has been the perennial problem for open source: how can it be sustainable for the people who build it? We're not launching into a post-monetary Star Trek future any time soon. In the meantime, people need to be paid for their work, or open source runs the risk of being a hobbyist-only endeavor.

People won't pay for software that they don't need to pay for. I suspect open-core, which opens the core of a software platform while monetizing high-value extensions, is the best answer we can hope for. But even that might not be realistic.

#Technology

[Link]

[Alexander Saeedy and Dana Mattioli at The Wall Street Journal]

"The $13 billion that Elon Musk borrowed to buy Twitter has turned into the worst merger-finance deal for banks since the 2008-09 financial crisis."

"[...] The banks haven’t been able to offload the debt without incurring major losses—largely because of X’s weak financial performance—leaving the loans stuck on their balance sheets, or “hung” in industry jargon. The resulting write-downs have hobbled the banks’ loan books and, in one case, was a factor that crimped compensation for a bank’s merger department, according to people involved with the deal."

Let that sink in.

It's not like this was unpredictable: it was obvious that Elon Musk was not going to turn Twitter into a roaring success. While Twitter was, at its heart, a media company, Musk's direction has been a muddle of three sometimes-competing priorities: his long-held desire to create X, an "everything" app; his desire to build his own brand in an effort to boost his own equity and therefore wealth, sometimes in ways that got him in trouble with the SEC; and his desire to influence global politics.

There's no three-dimensional chess being played here; this likely isn't an intentional plan by Musk to write off the debt. It's simply narcissistic mismanagement, and one has to wonder how this will affect his businesses at Tesla and SpaceX in the longer term. There will come a time when shareholders declare that enough is enough - although given that they approved his ludicrous pay deal, perhaps that time isn't coming soon.

#Technology

[Link]