Continuing my series of posts on this week's Freedom to Connect conference, here is Larry Lessig's closing keynote. It was a big thrill for me to see Larry deliver one of his trademark presentations in person.  I remember the first time I saw one online: his Free Culture introduction from OSCON 2002.  That was my first introduction to copyright as an issue and I remember being amazed at both what an interesting topic it was and at how engagingly Larry delivered it (he was the pioneer of fast-moving, slide-per-word presentations). Both the substance and style have been big influences on me. Larry has moved on from Copyright and Free Culture as core issues. In roughly 2007, after fighting the copyright fight for years, he came to realize that the fundamental problem preventing progress on copyright -- and on every other issue confronting us -- was corruption in government.  The fact that policy and politics are moved by money, not by people.  He sees this as the root problem, and is channeling all of his efforts through his new organization, the Root Strikers. I really like the way he's presenting his case: that everyone doesn't have to take on money-in-politics as their first issue, but it should be their second.  In other words, focus on whatever primary issue moves you, but realize that this problem affects everything, and keep it as your #2 priority.  I think this is a clever framing, and it really works for me. So, I would encourage you to watch this video -- it frames "the war against community broadband" as the first issue, backed by corruption as a underlying theme. Kudos to David Isenberg for putting on a great event this week -- I really enjoyed it, and having Larry as the closer was a great finish.

In the spirit of posting highlights from this week's Freedom to Connect conference, I'd like to next point to the talk given by former FCC chairman Michael Copps, entitled "Step Number One to Getting our Democracy Right".  Here's the video: The full text is here, and it's probably a quicker read than a watch. Here's the part that really rang home for me (emphasis mine):

broadband is indeed the front-and-center infrastructure of the Twenty-first century. It is dynamic and opportunity-creating to an extent greater than any of the nation’s numerous earlier infrastructure challenges. It is part of the resolution of almost every big problem confronting us: creating jobs, making America more competitive in the global market-place, providing better health care, decreasing our energy dependence, stopping environmental degradation, educating ourselves and our children and grandchildren, and opening the doors of equal opportunity to all. But let’s remember that earlier generations had to respond to infrastructure challenges, too. Turnpikes, roads, bridges, harbors, canals, railways, highways, and electricity. Not to mention plain old telephone service, too—these were all infrastructure build-outs. Each one of them was a huge challenge in its own time. And each one of them helped jump-start the economy; each one created thousands of jobs; each one contributed to making our people more productive and our country more competitive.

This was a major theme of Freedom to Connect and I totally buy it -- fast, open, equal access to the internet is a foundation for everything else.  For education, and for nearly every aspect of our economy (now and certainly in the future).  It is some of our most important national infrastructure.  And we're not keeping up.  To keep quoting Copps:

the Internet was invented here and got its start here. Fast forward 11 years later and we’re Number 12 or 15 or 20 in the world. Some would quibble about which ranking is correct—but none of them is anywhere close to where your country and mine needs to be. I don’t say this because I want us to be able to pin a ribbon on our chest and tout our number-one status. I say it because we’re not coming back—America is not coming back—unless and until we get this infrastructure right.

So, the question is, how do we do it?  This is the trillion dollar question.  Copps' full remarks are worth a read to get a better handle on the philosophical, political and economic context.  Can local communities step up to fill the gap? (Last year, North Carolina said no).  Will disruptive innovations catch fire, bypassing our gridlock?  I am still struggling to wrap my head around the politics and economics of all this.  So I don't have a fully formed perspective yet.  But one thing is undeniably clear: this is really really important.  I'll close w/ one more selection from Copps' talk:

We have available to us the most open, dynamic and opportunity-creating technology ever devised, but its wings are clipped. Less and less are a thousand points of invention and innovation controlling out technology future, while more and more the models of consolidation and bottle-neck control are. This is not to deny the many good things happening out there, but it is to note that the system we have is making it harder for those good things to deliver their full potential. The struggle for an Open Internet is a new chapter in a very old story. It’s the story of gate-keepers and toll-collectors who have always been there when new technologies or businesses come along. Again, that’s something we should expect. It is also something we need to avoid. To put our heads in the sand on this one would have serious long-term consequences.

This is it -- we need to understand and communicate the importance of and potential for this medium.  The big takeaway for me, in terms of framing, from both Copps' talk and Moglen's, is that there's a very clear message to be made about innovation, competitiveness and the economy, and that's where I'll be focusing my attention.

Yesterday at the Freedom to Connect conference, Eben Moglen delivered a fantastic talk entitled "Innovation Under Austerity".  It's about an hour long and is really worth the watch. Eben lays out, in clear, compelling terms, the case for open, decentralized, bottom-up innovation as the clearest way for us to address the big and increasingly complex challenges we're facing in the world today.  We have the opportunity to deliver the world's knowledge to everyone, everywhere -- and at the same time to unleash the most powerful force for positive change possible: our own creativity.  Eben's main purpose of the talk is to introduce innovation as the frame for convincing our leaders to support an open Internet -- that makes sense to me, and his talk should give advocates for the open internet a lot to go on in this direction. I also want to point out one idea that really stood out to me: about halfway through, Eben hits on the important role that autonomy plays in the facilitation of innovation.  I never thought about autonomy in much depth before, but Eben lays it out as one of several forms of privacy (the others being secrecy and anonymity) that directly enables creativity and innovation. Think about it like this: cities have always been places of great creativity and innovation.  A large part of the reason for this is that, in cities, people are able to escape "the surveillance of the village" and "the social control of the farm" (in Moglen's words) -- and experiment with "new ways of living".  This is possible because cities give people the ability to be alone among the masses -- while at the same time being together with others who share their interests.  They are able to escape (or temporarily divert from) the identity and context of their life, and explore new things without fear of social consequence.  They are autonomous, and that breeds innovation.  If you think about it, it makes perfect sense. And the Internet is the same way -- the old adage that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog is a big deal.  The ability to be who you want to be, where, and when and with whom is a great part of the freedom of the net -- it's part of what drives community, and it's a part of the foundation for innovation.  It's easy to buy into the idea that real names are the foundation for civic discourse, when in fact history tells us the opposite.  If we're not careful, we run the risk of enabling a total surveillance environment in the name of stability and progress -- and Eben's point is that we should use innovation as the frame for steering a different course. There is so much more I could dig into in Eben's talk, but I'll leave it there for now.  For anyone who is interested in innovation, the internet, free culture, and "nerd politics", this is a must watch.

Last week, Twitter did something big: they introduced a new patent assignment agreement that binds them to use their patent arsenal only for defensive purposes.  In an environment where things are getting ugly in software patent land, this is a bold move. The agreement (here on GitHub), which they'll use for upcoming work and also apply retroactively, enforces the intent by both requiring complete inventor approval for any non-defensive use, and further, by granting inventors the right to sub-license the work in the case that Twitter breaks its part of the agreement. This is fascinating for lots of reasons, but I'll focus on three: First, because it's a hack on the system -- rather than attempting to make head-on patent law reform (a noble but unquestionably difficult cause), it creatively hacks a solution to the problem -- quickly and without needing to ask anyone's permission.  It's beautiful that way, really.  Don't like patent law?  Then let's, collectively, change the way we use it -- if it works, then we'll have achieved the same goal with far less headache. The second reason is that it's a visible, powerful act of Internet Citizenship.  By adopting this Twitter is taking a step towards making the Internet a better place to work, invent, and start a business.  Of course, this value is not uncontroversial: this article on PE Hub gets at some of the tensions from the perspective of VCs and entrepreneurs:

“Regardless of your political beliefs, fundamentally, VCs have a fiduciary duty to our investors, and this structure does not enhance shareholder value,” says Ganesan. In the end, he adds, “My LPs don’t fund me to create change; they fund me to create returns.” Still others argue that there are powerful cultural reasons why this patent reform initiative can’t simply be dismissed. “This newer generation of VCs has a much more progressive agenda,” notes economist-investor Paul Kedrosky. “Whereas other VCs take a more orthodox asset management view, which is: ‘These are the dials I have to turn to maximize value,’ [people like Wilson] think you can build a healthier ecosystem for the future.’”

Fred Wilson's point, from the article, and expounded on in his post on the USV blog, is that restricting the use of software and business method patents levels the playing field, and encourages companies of all sizes to compete based on features and experience, not using weaponized patents.  Even if a single company could stand to profit from this type of activity, his point is that getting away from it is good for the ecosystem as a whole. Finally, perhaps the most interesting point is that this is likely to have Netizen Effects. By that, I mean that Twitter's actions should ripple through the Internet ecosystem, as other tech cos, startups and VCs adopt this and similar policies (either for the good or the ecosystem, or simply to compete for engineer love w/ Twitter).  This is where things get really interesting.  It's possible that we could see a major shift in the way internet companies approach this area of intellectual property strategy, as a result of a visible, repeatable, netizen hack. That's exciting and I hope we can figure out how to support more of this kind of thing.

I'm not a hard core follower of GTD, but I do believe that working from the top of your inbox all day long is a recipe for disaster.   However, accessing email is important and necessary.  Problem is, with most email clients (I use gmail), you have to pass through the inbox (risking distraction) to do anything else you might need to do with your mail, such as composing or searching. Recently, I've developed a workaround for this, which allows me to a) send and b) search without ever seeing my inbox. It's working pretty well for me so I thought I'd share:

• Sending: Using the Quick Compose w/ Gmail and Quicksilver technique, I can now fire up a new Gmail compose window from anywhere (even outside of the browser) by invoking command+shift+m.  Now, when I think "Oh, I need to email Karl about our project", I don't go to the inbox, I go to the compose window directly from wherever I am.  Priceless.

• Searching: Using the Gmail Search chrome plugin, I can go directly to a Gmail search from a new browser tab, by starting out with g+s+ and then my search query.  I get straight to what I was looking for; no trip to the inbox along the way.

• The end result: I'm spending way less time in my Inbox, and doing a better job organizing my time around my real priorities.  I think that's a good thing.  The down side is that I've actually missed a few emails recently, as spending less regular time in the inbox means a bigger pile when you do get there.   But I see that as a manageable problem, and less important than getting past the prioritization-by-inbox routine.

The Internet works differently than most other things we're used to.  20th century humans are accustomed to hierarchy, control and scarcity.  The Internet, by contrast, is distributed open, and abundant.  That difference is fundamental -- it not only empowers what's possible on the Internet (which we increasingly understand), but it also informs how we need to go about solving the Internet's problems (this is harder). So, I've been thinking about this notion of "the Internet way" (hat tip to Holmes for putting this phrase in my head), in two separate but related contexts: 1) The Internet way of doing things -- meaning networked, collaborative, direct and efficient. All of my favorite examples (AirBnB, Skillshare, Kickstarter, Wikipedia, etc.) exhibit these characteristics.  This is exciting and magical, and full of hope and opportunity. 2) The internet way of solving problems -- and in particular, I mean solving problems that the Internet itself creates.  This is where things get tricky, and where we bump up against our natural tendencies to think in terms of hierarchy and control. Today, I'm going to focus on the latter, because it's harder and arguably more interesting. Solutions that are "net native" or that take "the internet way" tend to be non-intuitive.  Rather than exerting top-down control, they leverage bottom-up peer production and empower users to protect themselves and each other.  Rather than being closed and proprietary, they are open and transparent. Albert Wenger writes consistently great stuff on this topic, so I'll just use some of his examples to get a bit more concrete: Problem: Sex ads and human trafficking Newspapers and websites run classified ads that are blatantly used for sex services.  This fuels the human trafficking trade. Old way:Remove adult services ads from newspapers and websites like Craigslist The problem with this type of approach to Internet issues is that it doesn't fix them.  Top-down control almost always results in a never ending game of "whack-a-mole", which drives undesired activity deeper underground into less regulated (by other usersa nd well as by authorities) territories.  Shut down craigslist ads, the ads to go foreign sites, etc.  Prostitution and human trafficking are still going strong. Internet way: (quoting from Albert):

To attack the problem of pimps forcing women into prostitution we need to come up with the most effective ways for the women themselves to be able to reach authorities and for third parties to be able to detect suspicious activity. One idea for the former is providing anonymous access to help via text messages and widely publicizing this .... The obvious idea for the latter is to work with sites like Backpage and not against them.  For instance, it is quite possible that a much better screening system can be created that identifies ads that may involve trafficking based on how the text is written and how the ads are posted.  We won’t know that until we try it out (and big data has gotten very good at picking up even very subtle patterns).

Problem: Copyright infringement (aka piracy) The Internet reduces the cost of distributing audio and video files to practically zero. Old way:  Lock all content down with DRM. Make sharing copyrighted works a felony; prosecute individuals who share file and websites who make it possible.  Apply surveillance technology throughout the network to inspect and block packets transmitting unauthorized works. The problem with this approach is the same: it doesn't work.  And furthermore, it's massively expensive and deeply restricts personal freedoms. Internet way: simplify the buying process.  With increased network access, there is more demand for content than ever.  Make it easy a) for individuals to pay for things and b) for innovators to build products and services on top that grow the audience and the industry.  Rather than lock content down w/ DRM, open it up and create an open standard for rights management. Problem: Mobile app security A number of mobile apps have been getting into trouble recently, taking liberties with their users data. Old way: Use regulation or the app store review process make sure that bad apps don't get through to consumers. Internet way: (quoting from Albert again):

It would be a shame if this resulted in more centralized control over apps and longer review processes.  What we need instead is some kind of peer produced approach to app security.  What I have in mind is something along the lines of what Chris Dixon did with SiteAdvisor for web sites. Some people will (voluntarily?) run software on their mobile handsets that monitors app activity, including which servers these apps communicate with.  The results from these “monitors” are aggregated to provide security rankings for applications.

As we continue to explore the new, connected world, I think it will be useful to keep coming back to this framing -- are the solutions we're proposing equivalent to fighting a tidal wave (unnatural, ineffective)?  Or are they native to the environment, taking advantage of our new strengths and capabilities? Or, as Andy put it: remind ourselves that the Internet is not the problem.  The Internet is the solution. What are other examples of solving problems the Internet Way?  It's our job as the Internet community to help identify them, promote them and explain them.  I'll be keeping track of what I find here.

When the Internet erupted on January 18th to voice its discontent with SOPA and PIPA, it was a moment of loud power.  Fight for the Future has a nice infographic describing everything that happened that day: 115,00 websites blacked out, 10mm signatures gathered, 8mm calls to congress; all in one day.  The Internet exercised its voice, and boy was it loud. The SOPA strike was like a digital nuclear bomb — it needed to drop, to make it clear that the Internet can stand up for itself.  It’s critical to have that in our arsenal when we need it. But it shouldn’t have to come to that. Luckily, the Internet also has tremendous quiet power .  I think about the Internet’s quiet power in terms of production — the ability to make things of lasting value, together.  For instance, the ability of the Stack Exchange sites to surface the best answers to hard questions, or the OpenStreetMap community’s response to the haiti earthquake, or the way that the Peer-to-Patent program lets collaborators on the Internet help build a base of evidence for use in the patent process.  Each of these takes the input and attention of a large community of people, and turns it into a lasting asset. So, how can we harness our quiet power for ongoing, constructive engagement in civic issues (Internet-related and otherwise)?  By flexing our muscles and demonstrating the nuclear threat, I think there’s an opening to work with.

One of my favorite phenomena over the past few years -- and one of the stories I like to tell most about why the internet is awesome -- is something I call "Prescient Markets".  Marketplaces (or just producers in some cases) that take a large amount of the risk out of producing & selling products by only building what they know, in advance, that people will buy. The original, and still my favorite example is Threadless. In case you don't know it, Threadless is a t-shirt making/buying website where users upload the t-shirt designs.  Then, other users vote on the designs.  The highest-scored designs are then actually produced as shirts and put up for sale.  "Winning" designers are given $2500 cash if their design is selected (in advance of any sales, mind you) plus $500 in Threadless gift certificates and $500 every time their design is reprinted. With this system, Threadless drastically reduces their editorial role in deciding what to produce, based on the assumption that a shirt with many votes and a high average score is likely to sell.  (of course, it's no guarantee, as the people voting may not actually buy, or may not speak for real potential buyers, but it's a really good head start).  Then, perhaps my favorite feature of Threadless is what happens when shirts go out of stock -- if you see an out of stock shirt that you like, you can sign up to order it in your size, and if enough people do that to justify a run, new shirts are printed and put up for sale. Another site that takes this approach is Quirky, which is basically "Threadless for stuff."  Through a structured, crowdsourced product development process, product ideas are honed, and ultimately a final product idea is developed. Quirky employs a presale process that proceeds to manufacturing once a certain threshold is met. Quirky's process is infinitely more complicated and collaborative than Threadless', and to be honest, I'm impressed that they've been able to successfully architect, describe, implement and manage their scheme. Revenue is shared with each product's "creator", plus a (potentially quite large) group of "influencers" who have contributed to the development of the product in certain ways.  One really nice touch is that when you order a product from Quirky, the picture of the inventor and the names of all the influencers are on the outside of the box. Another, super high-profile example of a related model is Kickstarter, which crowd-funds creative projects, using a pledge-against-a-threshold model.  The most incredible story coming out of Kickstarter is the TikTok+LunaTik kits that turn an iPod nano into a watch -- with a modest fundraising goal of $15,000, the creator Scott Wilson raised $942,578 in pre-sales.  Last I checked he was on a plane to Beijing to scope out manufacturers. Kickstarter is slightly different than Threadless and Quirky because there really is zero risk for the producers -- they're not committing to build anything unless they get the money up front -- and I almost didn't include it for that reason.  What I think is particularly interesting Quirky and Threadless is that they are using crowdsourcing and community to de-risk a product development bet. Naturally, I'm wondering how this kind of a process can be applied to other sectors. In particular, it's gotten me thinking about how it can be applied to the government technology buying/building market, which we focus on with our work at Civic Commons.  Government is under-performing in technology, procurement is a problem, and cities are running out of money.  So something's got to give. Somewhere within all this mess, I suspect that there's an opportunity for governments, vendors, startups, and civic hackers to make something good out of this idea.

Whenever you start a project (and I'm thinking about building websites and web applications), you are balancing two somewhat opposed goals: 1) get something working right away and 2) satisfy all your hopes and dreams. The first, I think, is a good instinct.  The second is the real challenge -- it's your wildest hopes and dreams for a project which can ultimately stop you from just getting something working, now, that accomplishes the smallest essential essence. Paul Graham and Eric Ries describe this as the Minimum Viable Product -- I agree with that idea completely -- but sometimes in practice it feels like even "MVP" ends up being bigger & more complicated than it should be.  I've worked on projects where the idea of "getting to MVP" looms large over the team -- I feel like when that starts to happen you're actually building more into your MVP than you should be.  The beautiful moment in building a product is the first time when it actually serves some basic need, and does that in a way that's fun to use.  And that moment can't come early enough. So, if you find yourself debating problems you don't yet have, or arguing the nuances of the perfect, most elegant data model, maybe the thing to do is stop completely and ask  yourself if the most basic essence of what you're making has been built, and if it has, if it's fun to use.  If it's not built yet, you should stop and build just the absolute simplest thing that works.  Not for public consumption, necessarily, but for yourselves and your team. If it is built, then you should ask: is it fun to use?  If it's not fun to use when it's at its most simple, it's only going to get harder to make it fun to use once it's more complex. Simple, and fun to use. I'm not saying I've successfully approached every project this way, but I try to, and will keep trying to.

This weekend, I built some shelves in my closet. It was pretty simple affair -- some pre-finished shelving boards, wooden corbels, and a rod for hanging things. What's funny is that the supplies for all this have been sitting on the floor in my office for about eight weeks now. Every time my wife asks me if I'm going to do the closet, I say "yeah, but there's a lot I need to think through, to figure out how I want it." I had big plans for super custom shelves, with beveled trim and all kinds of beautiful polish. And so while I thought about it, the pieces sat there for more and more weeks; meanwhile my clothes continued to pile up on the floor and become an undifferentiated mass because I had no shelves.

Finally, after more gentle prodding from Frannie, I took a few hours the other day and put up the shelves in the way that made the most immediate sense. It was quite simple in the end, but the change was dramatic. Now, instead of a big messy pile, I have shelves on three walls and everything is stacked neatly. My daily wardrobe has been refreshed as I've found shirts that have been on the bottom of the pile for weeks. Amazing! Some product is better than no product.

Now that the shelves are up, there are a few things that aren't quite right. Lucky for me, it's easy to put a few screws in the wall and move a shelf. So I did -- and I added another hanging rod when I realized I needed one. Simple -- a total of one more trip to the hardware store and 30 minutes of work. I'll surely make more changes in the future.

The point of this is not to talk about my closet and awesome t-shirt collection. This is about iteration and product development. And of course I'm thinking about it in terms of my real job, building things on the web. Especially when there' s a big team involved, it's really easy to get into a pattern of "think think think! argue! mull mull! get it perfect before we build anything!". When really, often times the best approach is to just build *something* and start using it, then go back and make revisions.

The old carpenter's adage is "measure twice, cut once". That makes sense when materials are expensive and decisions are permanent (i.e., you can make a rope shorter, but not longer). But with the web, like with closets, I prefer: measure, cut; measure, cut; measure, cut.

That's not to say I don't believe in planning; I do. I believe in working strategically from a strong thesis. But when it comes to building, less sooner is always better than more later.

This isn't a new idea! Of course not -- it has been written about extensively, and it's an idea I've been a believer in for years. But I'm still surprised by how easy it can be to fall back into a "measure twice, cut once" mentality.