Author Archive

Towards a Knowledge Economy

Friday, May 12th, 2017

Today politicians, academics, journalists and entrepreneurs often refer to the knowledge economy. It is relevant to remember that although this might seem as a new buzz phrase it is far from a new phenomenon. In the influential book The Age of Discontinuity, Peter Drucker explains that the knowledge economy has gradually developed since early industrialism. Systematic use of knowledge in business was for example evident already among British toolmakers in the early 19th century. In contrast to traditional smiths, whose craftsmanship varied significantly in quality, the British toolmakers developed detailed plans for how each product would be developed. Thus it became possible for them to move towards a standardized production through which each tool produced was given the same measures and function. These tools were in turned used to build the early factories of the industrialized world, which made possible standardized manufacturing in larger scale.

This combined focus on skill development amongst the employees and investments in immaterial knowledge capital amongst organizations was quite unique in the early 19th century, but has since become a key part of the operations of many modern enterprises

The transition towards the knowledge intensive economy can be said to have occurred through two closely related trends. The first is that the skill sets and knowledge of individual workers have increased. The second is that enterprises and other organizations increasingly have been investing in various forms of knowledge capital. The toolmakers of the early 19th century Britain exemplify both trends. They were highly qualified experts with specialist knowledge about the cutting edge technology of the time. In addition, they worked in businesses where specific designs were produced for the products that were to be manufactured, while detailed plans were set up regarding how the work was to be conducted. Research and development continuously occurred in order to improve the products and the work procedures. The tools that were being manufactured where physical products, but the knowledge of how to produce them was an early form of immaterial investment in knowledge. This combined focus on skill development amongst the employees and investments in immaterial knowledge capital amongst organizations was quite unique in the early 19th century, but has since become a key part of the operations of many modern enterprises.

Throughout Europe, a transition from poor agrarian societies to prosperous welfare nations has been made possible through an increased knowledge content in the economy. Successful businesses, which contribute considerable revenues to European countries, are often knowledge intensive. This is certainly true of the modern start-ups in Europe, whose creations largely is based on immaterial values. It is also true of the industrial firms which set the foundations for Europe’s wealth during the industrial era.

An illustrative example is the Swedish engineer Göran Fredrik Göransson who in 1857 bought the design for a new method of producing steel, two years earlier developed by British engineer Henry Bessemer. The early experiments to make the method to work in practice had failed. Göransson however managed to develop the Bassermethod so that it resulted in steel with good qualities, a highly demanded good at the time. This was the start of the industrial firm Sandvik, founded in 1862, which since continuously has been focused on research and development. The firm invests heavily in new ideas, illustrated by the fact that it was granted fully 800 new patents in 2014 alone.

Knowledge capital and physical capital co-operate to create growth

Knowledge capital and physical capital

Siemens – the German company that continues to push industrial development, smart energy and modern infrastructure around the world – was likewise founded on a new technology. Werner von Siemens and Johann Georg Halske founded the company in 1847. The pair developed the technology of the telegraph, at the time based on Morse code, so that it instead used a needle to point to the sequence of letters. This invention, which made the telegraph much easier to use, became the foundation for the company that throughout its history has been investing in new inventions. During recent years the firm has moved towards a number of innovations with environmental benefits, including improvements in clean energy provision, technologies for intelligent power grids and development of a system for comprehensive traffic management.

Unilever, the Anglo-Dutch multinational consumer goods company that is ranked amongst the most prosperous businesses in the world, can track its origins to 1872. In that year Antoon Jurgens founded the first margarine factory in the world in Oss, Netherlands. A new technology was used to produce a more affordable alternative to butter for the growing middle class. The margarine was promoted with ads stating that the product was both “economical” and “nourishing”; important values in times where many children in Europe were still malnourished. With time the firm would merge with other firms that used technological advancements in food production, such as fisheries, to form Unilever. Today the firm aims to help people improve their health and well-being with new food technologies, while reducing the environmental impact of food production.

Immaterial capital increasingly important

Immaterial capital increasingly important

Source: OECD (2013). “Supporting Investment in Knowledge Capital, Growth and Innovation”.

Yet another example is Renault, formed in France by Louis Renault and his brothers Marcel and Fernand. Louis was an aspiring young engineers who teamed up with his brothers, who had developed business skills working for their father’s textile firm. Together they developed their first car in 1898. Research and development in the firm has since focused ever more on increasing traffic safety, while reducing the environmental footprint of the cars.

Without knowledge investments Renault, Unilever, Siemens and Sandvik would not have grown to successful ventures. In today’s marketplace, immaterial value creation is even more important.

These early examples of industrial firms, developed many generations ago, owe their success to a combination of immaterial and material value creation. Without knowledge investments Renault, Unilever, Siemens and Sandvik would not have grown to successful ventures. In today’s marketplace, immaterial value creation is even more important. Fashion companies rely on design rights, software companies on program code, entertainment companies on digital recordings and specialized service firms on service innovations and novel business models in order to thrive. It is also increasingly important for firms to invest in trademarks, through which they signal social and economic responsibility.

The top ten list of the fastest growing private companies in Europe, compiled by business magazine Inc. in 2016, shows that the new successful firms are equally focused on new technologies and ideas. The number one spot for example goes to Spanish firm M P Vat Services, built upon the simple idea of creating new information technology tools, which simplify paying tolls and taxes for transport firms. The programs patented by the firm simplify trade throughout Europe, creating widespread societal benefits. The second spot goes to Latvian firm Creamfinance. The online consumer finance company uses scoring techniques to offer loans in a speedier way. Better use of information thus benefits both businesses and families in need of loan.

The third fastest growing business in Europe is German B2X Care Solutions. The global tech company providing customer care for smart phones and other electronic devices to manufacturers, insurance providers as well as carriers and retailers. The fourth fastest growing firm is Malta-based Co-Gaming, providing online-gaming. The fifth place goes to Leapp Group International, supplier of refurbished Apple products with stores in the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium as well as online. Next in line is Avicii Music, the production company behind Swedish electronic musician Tim Bergling, better known by his stage name Avicii, who recently retired. None of these businesses would have been able to thrive without innovative business ideas and without protection of the immaterial value production which is vital for them.

With time immaterial investments have gone from being important for a few innovative businesses to being of widespread importance for European enterprises. This is in line with international trends, wherein immaterial investments are increasingly important as a supplement to physical capital investments. As illustrated below, international statistics shows that immaterial assets have grown significantly during later years. In some economies, such as the UK and the US, such investments even exceed investments in physical capital. A general finding is that the more developed an economy is, the higher is the share of investments in immaterial values compared to physical ones. The result of the immaterial investments, so called intellectual property rights, play a key role for European businesses. This is supported by the data presented in this report.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Wealth Creation in Modern Societies

Friday, April 21st, 2017

How is wealth created in societies? During a long time, economists gave the simple answer that capital, labor and natural resources were the three cornerstones of economic activity. The level of prosperity could thus be increased by working more hours, investing in more manufacturing equipment and processing more natural resources. The management consultant and author Peter Drucker, whose ideas have had major influence on the current understanding of modern enterprises, challenged this simplistic perspective already during the late 1960s. Drucker observed that many leading firms relied on the knowledge that existed amongst its employees and within the organization. Knowledge was the forgotten cornerstone that was needed to succeed.

“Knowledge is the main driver of today’s global economy”
Angel Gurría, Secretary-General of the OECD

The theory of the knowledge-based economy, based on Druckers observation, has with time gained strong support in research. As an example, at the end of the 1990s Peter Klenow and Andrés Rodríguez-Clare explored why wealth was created more rapidly in some countries than others. It was shown that the traditionally accepted theory about capital, labor and natural resources had limited ability to explain the development. The two economists found that 90 per cent of the variation of growth could be explained by how efficiently investments were being used, rather than the size of the investments.

Later studies have confirmed the link between innovation and growth: a combination of technical innovations, new ways of organizing work processes, organizational changes and innovative services are driving long-term development. Angel Gurría, secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), has summarized this insight by explaining: “Knowledge is the main driver of today’s global economy”.

The evolution of the knowledge based society has concurred with a development in which the economy in greater degree is based on immaterial, rather than physical, value creation. A significant share of the value created in modern industries and service sectors is immaterial in its nature. Examples of immaterial value creation are new business ideas, inventions and digital content. Much like patents, design rights and trademarks these values do not take the shape of physical goods. Rather they are the result of investments in various forms of organized knowledge. Within film, music and computer game development nearly all of value creation occurs through immaterial values, since the result of the work is digital rather than physical content.

The evolution of the knowledge based society has concurred with a development in which the economy in greater degree is based on immaterial, rather than physical, value creation.

As our report discusses, immaterial value creation is however not restricted to limited parts of the economy. In modern knowledge based economies, such as the member states of the European Union, immaterial value creation is important for many businesses. For example, businesses in various field find it useful to invest in building up reputation through a trademark and a well-designed webpage. While nearly all businesses to some degree rely on immaterial values, an increasing share are strongly dependent on them. Enterprises that rely on new technologies, advanced design, digital content, service innovations and other immaterial assets often gain a competitive edge. By relying on this form of high-end value creation, businesses in countries with higher wages can compete with low-cost competitors in countries with lower wages.

The fact that modern economies are increasingly focused on immaterial value creation has many benefits. Ideas travel faster over the borders and can more easily be scaled up. There are environmental benefits with a growth model which is not necessarily about manufacturing more products, but rather focused on smart solutions and immaterial content. The transition towards this new mode of economic activity has gradually been going on since early industrialism, and seems to have picked up pace recently.

How does growth occur?

Graph 3

 

Save

Save

Europe: Towards A Knowledge-Intensive Economy?

Monday, April 10th, 2017

While the European economies are amongst the most prosperous and innovative in the world, development in the region has stalled during recent time. A report by Eurostat shows that nearly a third (30.7 per cent) of global economic output was produced in the EU-28 countries as late as 2003. Ten years later, this share had dropped to less than a quarter of global output (23.7 per cent). Though the shift is partially explained by the catching up of developing economies, it also reflects stagnating growth in the European Union. During this period the EU-28 countries had lower growth rate than all but one of the non-European G20 countries.1 It is evident that Europe needs growth-inducing reforms.

The European Commission’s long-term strategy to boost economic development points out that “’business as usual’ would consign [Europe] to a gradual decline, to the second rank of the new global order. This is Europe’s moment of truth. It is the time to be bold and ambitious”. In order to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, the commission points out the importance of “strengthening knowledge and innovation as drivers of our future growth”. The Commission’s annual growth strategy for 2016 builds upon this theme by stressing the need to promote innovation and entrepreneurship:

Nearly a third of global economic output was produced in the EU-28 countries as late as 2003. Ten years later, this share had dropped to less than a quarter of global output […] It is evident that Europe needs growth-inducing reforms.

Promoting innovation and entrepreneurship, and thereby shifting towards a higher knowledge intensity in the economy, is vital due to changes in the global marketplace. The slow pace of economic development in Europe reflects a shift in the global business landscape. Merely a few decades ago, European firms had strong global positions in manufacturing, information and communication technologies (ICT) and other advanced services. Today a new generation of successful firms, from developing countries such as China and India, have taken up the competition with European businesses. Competition from firms in other developed economies, such as the US, Canada, South Korea and Australia, is also increasing. While Europe in the long run benefits greatly from globalization and trade, it is evident that some European enterprises are struggling to succeed in the global marketplace.

Examples are not difficult to find. Nokia, the leading tech company that recently played a key role for overall development in Finland and had a significant share of the world’s mobile phone market, has rapidly fallen behind and no longer manufactures phones. Well-known European car brands such as Jaguar, Land Rover, Saab and Volvo have been bought by Chinese and Indian investors. Chinese networking and telecommunications equipment company Huawei has recently reached twice as high global sales as its European competitor Ericsson, and more than four times as high as its other European competitor Nokia. Chinese household appliances manufacturer Midea has recently made a bid for German robot maker Kuba. Forbes describes this move as a way of acquiring the latest technologies for full automation of industries.

These examples are reflected in international enterprise statistics. As shown in the images below, European firms made up 34 per cent of Forbes 500 fortune companies. Ten years later, the number of European firms on this list of globally leading enterprises had shrunk to 28 per cent. The majority of the leading global firms are now found in China and other Asian economies.

Location of Forbes Fortune 500 countries in 2005

Graph 1

Location of Forbes Fortune 500 countries in 2015

Graph 2

Previously, European businesses could stay ahead by having access to physical capital investments that eluded firms in many other parts of the world, and act in a business environment superior to much of the world. To a large extent, these advantages have already spread to competing nations. Instead, European businesses have to rely on the competitive advantage which is becoming increasingly important in the modern business environment: immaterial investments

The old world order, in which the know-how, technologies and capital for competitive businesses to grow was restricted to Europe, the US and a few other developed economies is gone. Competition from China, India, Brazil, Vietnam, Iran and other upstart economies is already strong and will most likely grow in the years to come. The big question is how European businesses can continue to maintain a leading position in this new environment. Previously, European businesses could stay ahead by having access to physical capital investments that eluded firms in many other parts of the world, and act in a business environment superior to much of the world. To a large extent, these advantages have already spread to competing firms in other parts of the world. Instead, European businesses have to rely on the competitive advantage which is becoming increasingly important in the modern business environment: immaterial values, which create intellectual properties.

As the global economy becomes increasingly knowledge-intensive, much of the development of manufacturing businesses, ICT businesses and modern service businesses occurs through investments in immaterial rather than material assets. These immaterial assets take the form of technologies, patents, know-how, design rights, program code, digital media content and trademarks. The immaterial assets, which are the result of intellectual creation rather than physical creation, are protected by intellectual property rights (IPR).

IPR is becoming increasingly important for modern economies due to two long-term factors: firstly, that businesses that work with intellectual creation are becoming an ever larger part of the overall economy and secondly that intellectual value creation is becoming ever more important for firms in general. The first trend is exemplified by that software firms form a larger part of the overall business sector than in previous decades. The second trend is exemplified by that software is increasingly important not only to software firms, but also a range of other industries, such as manufacturing. This observation is also relevant for other forms of intellectual values, such as arts/graphics, music/film and design. Many firms for example today produce film not only for advertisement, but also for communication with stakeholders within and outside the organization (employees, investors, business partners) as well as for expressing long-term commitment to values such as environmental protection and socially sustainable growth.

The upcoming series of article are based on a detailed analysis of the European business sector. It is found that already today more than half of value added and four out of ten jobs are found in businesses that are IPR-intensive, that is to say, strongly reliant on IPR. IPR-intensive businesses play a key role in a wide range of fields of economic activities, including manufacturing, media, ICT, retail and professional services. Another finding is that IPR-intensive businesses are of significant importance not only for some, but all European Union member states.

Save

The Life & Death-Issue of Cyber-Security

Thursday, April 6th, 2017

3Questions to Andrey Suvorov, Kaspersky Lab

Cyber-security is a big part of the debates around the digital policy agenda in Europe. But what is cyber-security, what are the threats and what is the solution? Netopia talked to cyber-security expert Andrey Suvorov of Kaspersky Lab to get wiser.

Per Strömbäck: Why do hacks and other cyberattacks happen? Who is behind them and what are their motives?

Andrey Suvorov: In my role as head of critical infrastructure protection at Kaspersky Lab, the bulk of my time is spent considering cybersecurity in industrial settings. So it makes sense that I respond in this context. Let me start by explaining that I would prefer to use the term cyber incident, as opposed to referring to cyber-attacks only.

We are so dependent on technology now that even unintentional operator failure may lead to serious losses. For example, an experienced operator can run the wrong version of the right engineering package, which will in turn alter the settings. This can be as simple as the operator losing their attention. In this case, there’s no attack agenda behind it, but it’s just as damaging. These are what I classify as the first group of threats – human vulnerability.

The second group of threats is represented by people who take advantage of their knowledge of, and access to, industrial control systems to steal final products physically. For example, oil products (manipulating the process in the off-loading stage), or electricity during its distribution. They do not intend to destroy the process and/or company assets, but rather steal what is being produced. Unfortunately, it is difficult to detect such industrial fraud using existing solutions.

Targeted attacks represent the third and most dangerous group of threats. It usually takes months, or even years in some cases, of preparation, intrusion and collection of all details before an attack may happen. Hacktivists, cyber-criminal groups and government backed teams of experts may lead such sophisticated campaigns. Political and commercial motivations are among the top reasons to do it (based on analysts’ reports, cyber-attacks cost companies $400 billion every year). With industrial cybersecurity (ICS) organisations, it can be really scary as many ICS components are available over the Internet – 220,668 industrial cybersecurity components were discovered by the Shodan search engine. Most of the remotely available hosts with ICS components are located in the United States (30.5%) and Europe.

PS: Are 100% unhackable systems possible? Or even desirable? Can we trust in technology solutions?

AS: As all existing and future technology solutions are designed and implemented by humans, we cannot guarantee that other people with “bad agendas” will not identify and exploit their weaknesses. But definitely we can reduce the surface of possible cyber-attacks using some simple, and some more complex, strategies.

Critical infrastructure – power stations, transport companies, and other operators of services vital to the lives of individual citizens – are vulnerable to cyber-attack.

The simple strategy is to improve cybersecurity awareness and shift the work culture to be more cyber savvy. It’s worth noting, the majority of targeted attacks still present via an initial stage of infection. This usually results from a lack of cybersecurity awareness. For instance, an employee accessing links from a phishing email or via the use of a compromised USB drive.

The long-term approach is to create a trusted technology ecosystem, that is built using a “secure by design” model. In an industrial context, any new part of a technology system (a sensor, PLC, switch, integration SW, etc.) should be designed and tested with deep assessment of executable logic.

PS: Should I be worried? What should I do?

AS: When we speak about threats and concerns in relation to cybersecurity, it’s important to understand the threat in multiple contexts. Firstly, there is the threat to individuals, directly experienced through such things as fraud, ransomware, corruption or exploitation of personal data, etc. This can be deeply concerning for victims and can have very personal impacts.  The important thing is for people to stay alert. Any user can be a victim of cybercriminals, and everyone should be prepared for this. One cyber-attack can cost a user tens of thousands of dollars. User’s identity can be stolen and used to affect their acquaintances, important files can be destroyed or stolen, so it is easier to prevent than to bear such consequences. The must-have for every Internet user is a reliable security solution. But, in addition to this, users should increase their cyber savviness to be able to identify cyber-threats when they encounter them.

Next there is the threat to business – the consequences of which can be far-reaching. Attacks on businesses, of all sizes, happen regularly and their effect can range from inconvenient to crippling. When it comes to business security implications, it is very important to mention that valuable cybersecurity is not a project but a process, so an iterative approach for all parts should be applied. Business security products and services should be designed to cover all four strategic directions of IT security – threat prevention, detection, incident response and attack prediction.

The final context is perhaps the scariest of all. Critical infrastructure – power stations, transport companies, and other operators of services vital to the lives of individual citizens – are also vulnerable to cyber-attack. And there have already been cases of such attacks interfering with such services. Whether for criminal gain, espionage or terrorism, securing our critical infrastructure is a priority for governments around the world. The consequences of not being able to capably secure critical infrastructure could be devastating – on economies, businesses and the individuals who rely upon these services.

 

What is the “Knowledge society”?

Wednesday, April 5th, 2017

What is the ”knowledge society”? We tend to think of knowledge as something connected to individuals and so we need better skills and education to develop in synch with the world. But is that all there is to it? It would seem that the post-industrial economy is more complex than the skills of its workers. Large organizations can have thousands of employees working for them and thus very sophisticated management structures. But it’s not only about skills and organization, there is also institutional knowledge. Knowledge that various parts of organizations can access and use. Knowledge that others can be allowed to use on certain conditions. This is the formally organized knowledge.

The knowledge society may have the answers to many of today’s challenges

It can be very valuable: it can be traded, it can be licensed, it can attract investment, it can give competitive advantages. As the knowledge society advances, the economy becomes increasingly reliant on intangibles. In fact, the more advanced an economy is, the higher the degree of investment is into immaterial assets. Knowledge can be used to improve processes in areas which traditionally relies more on physical production, such as raw materials or agriculture. The greatest productivity increases can often be made thanks to knowledge in such industries: better processes, better marketing, better energy use and so forth.

It is often said that the future is digital, and while that may be true, even more so is the future intangible. The knowledge society may have the answers to many of today’s challenges, such as jobs, growth and to some extent energy and climate. In the knowledge society, there can be economic growth without exhausting resources. There can be new jobs, good jobs that rely on the work of the mind rather than the body. The common denominator for the intangible economy is intellectual property rights. That is the formalization of knowledge, which makes it possible to buy, trade, loan and sell.

In the coming weeks, we will publish a series of articles based on Nima Sanandaji’s report, Immaterial Value Creation in Europe. This report shows that intellectual property rights underpin large and increasing parts of the economy across all sectors. If the future is digital but digital technology challenges intellectual property rights, those technologies must be made future-proof. The perceived conflict of intellectual property and technology must be solved with better technology, not with lesser value of knowledge. Only so can the knowledge society prosper.

Nima Sanandaji’s report makes this case. I wish you an inspiring read.

 

This article is part of a series of articles published from the Netopia report Immaterial Value Creation in Europe, by Nima Sanandaji.

Digital Myth: Society Can’t Keep Up with Technology

Monday, March 27th, 2017

Rules shape technology, just as much as technology shapes rules.

The law may be a step behind cybercriminals who continuously update their technologies in order to stay out of reach. It’s fair that the legislation in some cases has difficulties keeping up with new applications – air space regulation must now deal with drones; new designer drugs must be added to the lists kept by customs and police – so to what extent should the law be allowed to extract data from online services etc.? The problem is that this view is technocentric: technology arrives, the world changes, people and systems must adapt. As discussed in many places within the covers of this book, that’s not an accurate description of how technology evolves. In many cases, one can argue that law created technology and not the other way around. In fact, the most frequent examples of this myth are cases where law created the problem, more so than technology.

Take piracy: conventional wisdom would hold that the problem is so widespread that individual infringements in practice can never be enforced. Pirates come first, law after. Looking deeper, though, the current situation is the result of how intermediaries such as search engines and broadband carriers operate. They won’t police the network or its users, but they will (at least in some jurisdictions) respond to legal requests from rights-holders, the so-called notice-and-takedown procedure. If, for example, a film is uploaded to YouTube without the consent of the filmmaker, he or she can send a notice-and-takedown request to YouTube to have it removed. As long as the intermediary complies with the request, it is immune to prosecution – this is called ‘safe harbour’. If in the next minute the same film is uploaded again, the filmmaker (or their studio, or lawyer) must send a new request like a game of whack-a-mole. If the film is popular among pirates, it quickly becomes virtually impossible for the filmmaker to keep up. This may look like the law is one step behind. It may look like technology outruns the rules of society. But it’s really only a consequence of how US Congress decided to implement a World Intellectual Property Organisation treaty. With the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998, the Clinton administration wanted to strike a balance between the interests of content rights-holders and network operators. This is when the system of notice- and-takedown and safe harbour was first put in place. Surely it must have been difficult to foresee the scale of the illegal distribution that was to follow. But if that particular law had been made different, say, requiring intermediaries to prevent re-upload of infringing content in order to qualify for safe harbour, the situation would have been dramatically different. In the example of YouTube, it would have had to manually monitor re-uploads or (more likely perhaps) develop a technology that identifies such uploads and stops them. Such a technology would have been the result of legislation, just as the technology we are familiar with is today.

We can call this related myth ‘The Myth of Getting Used to New Technologies’.

What about cases where new technologies arrive from elsewhere? We can call this related myth ‘The Myth of Getting Used to New Technologies’. This myth is about how new technologies are absorbed and included in our world. In a way, it’s technocentric because it looks at technology and its impact, as if new things arrive from outer space and have some kind of influence on our lives. Obviously, and as much discussed elsewhere in this book, this is a very limited view. Inventions can come from many different places and how they are normalized is a matter of ideology, demand, competition, chance, human factors and many other aspects. Look at the steam engine: in Fossil Capital (Verso, 2015), Andreas Malm discusses why it won over competing energy systems. One big advantage, argues Malm, was that it gave industrialists independence. Watermills were cheaper and, with the invention of automatic locks (constructed by one Robert Thom), just as reliable as steam. But water streams exist only in particular places and require the manufacturers to work together and make agreements to share the resource. Steam power, on the other hand, can be built anywhere and requires no shared facilities with competitors. It’s safe to say that many different factors outside the technology itself contributed to the adoption of steam power over the alternatives.

Steven Johnson is an American journalist and author whose work has meant a lot to me, both in my work life and on a personal level. Johnson’s Everything Bad Is Good for You (Riverhead, 2005) gave me the answer I was looking for in the early days of working for game developers in Sweden, where attitudes toward games were negative to say the least – one member was prosecuted by the Justice Chancellor for selling a game, but that’s another story (he was acquitted by the way and the law was later changed). Johnson argued that pop culture in fact is not dumbing us down, but making us smarter. One example was the increasing complexity of television drama; compare the linear structure of 1960s crime plots like those in Dragnet to the multi-plot and complex web of relationships and intrigue in a modern show like Game of Thrones. Or, for games, compare Pac-Man to the likes of World of Warcraft. Johnson went so far as to suggest that this was the missing link of the so-called Flynn effect, the phenomenon that the average IQ has risen steadily with every generation for the last century or so. That may be a bit too optimistic, but it worked for me at the time. Another book of Johnson’s was The Ghost Map (Riverhead, 2006) which looks at how the findings of Dr John Snow’s research into the causes of cholera changed how cities build fresh water supply systems and sewers, allowing cities to grow bigger than previously possible. It inspired me to seek out the pub in Soho named after him. It took some time walking those narrow streets with no correct address, but in the end we found it and its curiously low entrance door (must crouch to enter!) and I rewarded the patience of my company with a pint. When Steven Johnson spoke at a games conference I attended, I paid several hundred dollars extra to get the pass required for his talk. You get it; I have great admiration for the man (you should read his work too), which is why I was extra disappointed to read him in The Guardian (January 2nd, 2016) saying that with social media, we have to take the bad with the good and in the end society will adjust. Johnson wanted to make the case that no new rules are necessary, because we will get used to the new and everything will be fine. I had to ask myself if my old hero really meant that we have to accept the ISIS beheading videos, Putin propaganda, anti-vaccine and chemtrails conspiracy theories, rape threat campaigns and so on, and that it’s just a matter of getting used to it? Because my own opinion is that we should try to keep what’s good and get rid of or minimize what’s bad. Johnson describes a progress of information technology from scrolls to Gutenberg to now and says no one wants to turn back the clock to pre-printing press times.

It’s a good example of how The Myth of Getting Used to works, because Johnson falls into the trap of assuming that society evolved by getting used to the new things, by adjusting and embracing. That is simply not true. Each of these technologies also bred new institutions, laws, codes of ethics, certifications and so on. The printing press brought copyright, freedom of expression, press ethics and many other structures. Radio brought public service media, spectrum regulation and broadcasting licences. The combustion engine brought the traffic system: lights, lanes, signs, rules, driver’s licences, smog checks … you name it! The way society makes new technologies useful is not simply by getting used to them, but by introducing regulation systems. Checks and balances, if you will. There is no reason social media should be any different; it’s much too important to be left to a handful of companies to regulate. Society embraces new technologies by making rules for them. That we don’t need any rules because we’ll get used to them, is a myth!

 

Digital Myths is a series of posts published from the book 21 Digital Myths, Reality Distortion Antidote where Netopia editor Per Strömbäck takes a closer look at some of the concepts that have shaped the way we think, talk and make decisions about digital technology and the internet.

Faking soon…

Monday, March 27th, 2017

“Spies (Nikolai Levy Remix)” – The Long Tradition of Fake News

Friday, March 17th, 2017

In 1999, a 20-second MP3-file purporting to be from Coldplay was uploaded to Napster by a young man in Stanmore, North London. He entitled the file “Spies (Nikolai Levy Remix)”. He let a few people download it, and then deleted his original file.

The file started to get passed around. People started to claim they had the track. “Spies (Nikolai Levy Remix)” even began to show up on unofficial bootlegs, and Coldplay discographies for the band. The song has since been listed on fans sites as one of the rarest Coldplay tracks ever. There’s even a would-be copy on YouTube making someone some AdSense revenue.

However, to all Coldplay fans out there: “Spies (Nikolai Levy Remix)” does not exist. It’s fake. The original MP3-file was 20 seconds of static.

It started as a joke using his friend’s name to troll the downloaders.  So, what of Mr Levy? Well, Nic – as his pals call him – is still in North London working for his dad’s firm selling high-end medical equipment to hospitals. He plays no instruments, can’t DJ, or remix anything.

Sorry Coldplay fans, you have fallen prey to Gaslighting – the idea that those on the end of false information are led to doubt their own judgement and begin to consider the falsehood as fact.

Those fake emails saying your PayPal payment has failed, or claiming your credit card has been cancelled. They lead you to doubt what you know not to be true. You call your bank, you check your PayPal, you become suspicious and potentially distrusting of the real emails from your bank. After all, the real emails look like the fake emails!

If It Bleeds It Leads

Gaslighting is more than a smoke and mirrors to obfuscate information, it’s an attempt to fully reboot what is understood to be the norm, and create doubt. And where it succeeds online is that bad news spreads twice as fast as good.  In newsroom parlance: “if it bleeds it leads.” A bad story will attract more interaction. Traffic trumps truth.

However, online there is a tendency for people to trust. Be that adding strangers as contacts on Facebook or LinkedIn, or interacting with strangers (or bots!) on Twitter, which only to leave them open to manipulation for money or their time.

And internet users have proven themselves equally sneaky, willing to install things that promise to show who looked at their profile, or these days less pernicious, they just want check if a story is real.

Where spammers used to phish, or hack accounts via profile snoopers, now they create fact checking services that themselves are bogus!

Fake-fact checking is another Machiavellian opportunity to promise something others can’t supply, e.g. “real news” rather than fake songs.

Rule Number One

News media had hitherto been held as sacrosanct, trusted, unbiased and authentic. That was the case when paid editors, sub-editors and trained journalists acted as the filter. Or when politics was debated without “newspeak” style populism. The golden rule of journalism is: Check the source. But this has given way to rule number one for spammers: find the Achilles heel.

In all instances the aim is traffic. Get the user to a site, regardless of how unscrupulous the method. The spammer’s end-game is typically to drive users to a website that reaps Google’s AdSense revenue. In the early days, there were like-jacking, (‘Dad walks in on daughter’), to click-bait (‘You will not believe what happened next’) type content to fake news sites. And there are Twitter bots filling the social network with fake profiles churning out thousands of tweets a day with links to various bits of spam, be that links for gambling or motivational speakers. In each case, the conduits peddled are dolling out some fakery or inducement.

Litter Creates Litter

It’s been said that litter creates litter, so it’s important to keep our streets clean. Fake news seems to have a similar stain. Where there is fake news, there are those willing to contribute by sharing, liking debating the ‘facts’ of the story.

Every like, every comment simply serves to warm the Facebook algorithm score for the link, with more interaction, the algorithm serves the link further afield. The litter creates more litter!

The game of whack-a-mole to keep fake-news out of feeds has led to German fact-checking as standard in Facebook, the BBC has created a new division cutely entitled Permanent Reality Check, and, set against Brexit, the British Government is to debate the impact of fake news on democracy.

Fake Bans

Though Google has banned 200 fake news publishers from its AdSense ad network, the bans are not new, as evidenced by spammers driven fake “Check Adsense Ban” sites, that themselves are full of Adsense ads!

Google has previously waged war on content-sparse pages, or sites made up predominantly of various adverts from ad networks, or presented behind a captcha or a quiz.

Two-hundred sites is a drop in the ocean, Google can ban any fake or duplicitous site from its network, but leaves many illicit and infringing sites to generate traffic (these days from social media) which Google then monetizes.

So, where SEO gave us websites full of gibberish trying to attract the Google search-bot that would crawl then index those pages, Facebook has taken over as the traffic-gift that keeps giving.

Herr Zuckerberg tried to do the right thing, to take some responsibility, add checks and balances to Facebook algorithm, but the fact checkers are yet another cop-out and shifts balance back to human intervention. There was a moment, a split-second on the internet, around 2005 Facebook insisted people used a university backed email to access the site. In those days, Facebook knew which type of dog you were. These days, we’re back to doubting, that on the internet nobody knows what’s true, nobody knows you’re a dog. Who’s man’s best friend online?

Jobs, Growth and Europe’s Digital Future in the Creative and Cultural Sectors

Wednesday, March 8th, 2017

The creative and cultural industries have a huge impact on the European economy and are “one of the strategic industries we have in Europe,” explained European Commission official Antti Peltomäki at the Creativity Works! High Level Conference on the Creative and Cultural Sectors. Ideas Matters’ video highlights of the event posted below provide an overview of the public officials’ and private sector explanations of how this works in practice.

Mr Peltomäki, Deputy Director General of the European Commission’s DG GROW, reported that these sectors, including film and television production, music, software, publishing and design, represent 11% of all private companies in Europe, provide work to 12 million people, and maintain 40% of the global market share in creative and cultural products and services.

Intellectual property protection is vital to these sectors, participants agreed. “Almost every business in the European Union depends on immaterial value. They depend on patents; they depend on designs, copyright, and protected brands of the company,” said Dr. Nima Sanandaji, author of the Netopia report Immaterial Value Creation in Europe, launched at the event.

Private sector participants discussed how digitalisation and the resulting piracy have hurt these sectors but expressed cautious optimism that things are looking up. Nick Yapp, President of the European Writers Council, explained, “What digital has done is to make creativity much easier, but to make protection of what you’ve created and the marketing of what you’ve created much harder.”

Kees van Weijen, Chairman, Impala, and MD of PIAS Rough Trade Distribution Benelux, reported that “Legitimate downloads are picking up. We as an industry, together with our partners, have seen startups, including a lot of local examples, establishing digital distribution and digital streaming platforms.”

Annabella Coldrick, Chief Executive, of the Music Managers Forum, explained: “We are optimistic about streamers. Piracy has been a problem, but technology has helped provide some solutions to that problem. Streaming is something that people are signing up to and paying for. There are now 90 million paying subscribers. In Scandinavia the market is about 95% streaming—consuming music legally.”

European Parliament and Commission officials at the conference were united in their view of the economic and social importance of these sectors. Christian Ehler, Member of the European Parliament and Co-Chair of the Creative and Cultural Industries Intergroup, summarised, “Culture is a core of the European project.”

“The creative industry is much more than an economic driver. It is what makes Europe resonate globally,” said Pauline Rouch, Digital Single Market Advisor to European Commission President Juncker. “Artists and creators are our crown jewels. They bear our identity, and they are part of our culture.”

 

A robot barista?

Friday, March 3rd, 2017

3 Questions to Aleks Afanasyev, Product Specialist at CafeX

Netopia tried a robot-made espresso at CafeX in San Francisco’s Metreon center. With the recent debates about robot tax and jobs lost to automation, Netopia found a real world specimen. The robot would not answer questions, but product specialist Aleks Afanasyev did.

Per Strömbäck: Did a robot take your job?

Aleks Afanasyev: No, it gave me a job.

PS: Will robots put baristas out of work?

AA: We’ve only had positive feedback from baristas who tried our coffee. We see ourselves as an extension of the coffee roaster. The robot can make coffee with machine precision, grind the beans perfect every time, have the exact right water temperature, the exact right milk temperature etc. Your coffee is perfect every time.

PS: Will you put traditional cafés out of business?

AA: The café is a different experience, you can sit down, go on a date, do some work. Ours is an option to get your coffee without standing in line and save time. Those are two different things.

The robot café is a machine arm moving cups from two coffee machines similar to what can be found in better offices. You order from surfpads or an app and the robot sends a text message with an access code when the coffee is ready. Of course, coffee vending machines have been around for ages, so one must ask how those are not robots – policymakers who want to tax robots have some difficult lines draw.

Now, if we could only get the robots to drink the stuff…

Robot-coffee

(Photo: Per Strömbäck)

Save

Save

Save