Author Archive

Suicide Bombs in Brussels — May the Open Society Conquer Fear

Tuesday, March 22nd, 2016

About a year ago, this writer expressed sympathy for the victims of the attacks on Charlie Hebdo and their families. This morning, terror came to Brussels, Netopia’s home base. Bombs in the metro and at the airport, many dead and injured. Once again, Netopia’s thoughts are with the victims and families. Public transports shut down. European Parliament evacuated.

Netopia’s mission to discuss power, money and democracy in the digital society is put in perspective by the shocking acts of violence, just around the corner from us. It is difficult to see these acts as anything but an attack on democracy. Brussels is the capital of Europe and home of many institutions that help uphold rule of law, human rights and democracy. Netopia wants such functions to be more prominent in the digital society. It appears the terrorists want them to have less influence in the analog world. Of course, we don’t know the details and motives yet and can only speculate. Physical safety is a fundament for democracy. Without it, we think about our own survival, not the improvement of society. May the open society conquer fear.

Making the World a Better Place – One Buzzword at a Time

Friday, March 18th, 2016

What do you get if you cross SXSW with the the Game Developers Conference? Substance misuse! That is, from the hollows of Austin where anything goes, and material substance is unquestioned (all that glitters is gold) to San Francisco, and the oft misunderstood cognitive dissonance of game developers, with their quest for evidence of substance in the latest-greatest-new-found-fangled-thing-around! To attend both conferences consecutively equals a strange week, which is what this writer experienced.

First SXSW in Austin, Texas, then the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco. While it started out as a music festival, these days SXSW is just as much associated with digital technology. One might think that two digital industry events in one country would be very similar, but it turns out they could hardly be more different. SXSW Interactive is dominated by big tech companies, each with its own cool downtown hang-out replete with DJs, free beer and surprise appearances by music stars. Venture-backed digital entrepreneurs are a-plenty. A line from the 1991 movie Barton Fink springs to mind. Producer Geisler says: “Jesus, throw a rock in here, you’ll hit [a writer]. And do me a favor, Fink: throw it hard.” (Except in my case of course that writer would be an entrepreneur with a vision and a mission statement.) Don’t get me wrong, some of these may offer great services for users and make some people’s life easier. It’s just I can’t shake the feeling of déjà vu.

Late 90’s, I was half-involved in the red hot internet scene in Stockholm. While nobody really used the word startup back then, a lot of companies were fueled by risk capital, getting users was the priority and making money a very distant second. But the main thing is the attitude: hip and sorrowless, anything is possible. Cut to game developers, driven by angst and often with a self-image as the misunderstood outsider, they create great entertainment and in some cases tons of money. There is a curious appetite for what’s around the corner, just like at SXSW, and most are quick to embrace new technologies and opportunities. VR was a big topic at both, but at GDC no one said anything about “Internet of things”. But the greatest difference is in the scope of ambition. If at SXSW people say they want to make the world a better place, the game developers say “that’s never gonna work”. If I was king for a day, I would put one pessimist game developers in every room at SXSW and have him or her say that line in every meeting. Does this make me sound bitter? Not really, more like I guess I’d feel more at home at the music festival part of SXSW. Maybe next year…

Apple vs FBI – More Democracy, Not More Technology, Is the Answer

Thursday, March 17th, 2016

Should Apple yield to FBI:s demands and disable the function that deletes all content on an Iphone after 15 unsuccessful login attempts? If you’re a cybersecurity expert, the answer is no. The more encryption, the better. Any action that makes cybersecurity weaker makes the digital world less safe for everyone. If you’re a criminal investigator, it’s an important part of an investigation that ultimately can make the real world more safe for everyone. If you’re an internet activist, you may think that government institutions (and most companies and NGOs for that matter) are corrupt and the only way forward is through anonymous technology. And while some say authoritarian states may use the back door for bad reasons, as Peter Warren points out in his story on this issue, the US government could of course open the phone anyway if it wanted to (it’s a question of who blinks first), so could the dictators. President Obama spoke about this at the SXSW-festival in Austin, Texas last week (or rather he dodged the actual topic and spoke only about it in principle) saying that the encryption versus national security debate won’t be settled by taking an “absolutist view”. Tech companies would be better off helping law enforcement in a few important cases, rather than refuse completely and end up in a worse situation with a rushed law if there is a more important problem in the future. (Netopia can’t tell for sure who the president trusts less, Congress or Silicon Valley.)

One can of course have many questions about the American legal system, but ultimately there is rule of law and legal certainty in the US. The internet is not a free for all where anyone can do what they want, whether it’s a business abusing privacy rights, a government spying on its citizens or a criminal hacking into servers – democracy must rule them all, the government agencies and legal system are an extension of that democracy, not the threat to it. With the FBI and the killers’ Iphone, there is a court mandate for this particular case, which is very different from the illegal blanket surveillance from the NSA that Edward Snowden blew the whistle on. Yes, privacy is important, but that is much better protected with more democracy than more technology.

What if the next Silicon Valley is not in California?

Wednesday, March 9th, 2016

Europe has failed to bring any competitive internet companies. If pressed, we think perhaps of Skype or Spotify, but nothing on the scale of Google or Amazon. This is an identity crisis for a continent that sees itself as open-minded and creative. And it is true that if the model for a successful internet company is the kind of monoliths Silicon Valley has produced – fueled by venture capital and ad sales, hungry for growth and more users, absorbing start-ups and competitors left, right and centre – then Europe has little to offer. But what if this is just one form of success? On closer inspection, the picture is different.

Look at digital games: King, whose hit Candy Crush Saga peaked at close to half a Billion players. The Angry Birds of Rovio is one of the biggest most popular games of all time and one of the fastest growing brands in entertainment. France’s Ubisoft is a top global developer and publisher of games with multi-million selling titles like Prince of Persia and Assassin’s Creed. Another French company – Vivendi – is a giant in media and entertainment (including games) worth over 25 Billion Euros on the Paris stock exchange.

The list goes on: the UK is Europe’s main exporter of games, Germany has some of the most successful social media game companies in the world (Wooga and Big Point). Even Belarus has global hit with Wargaming.net, now headquartered in Nicosia, Cyprus. The Asian games industry, particularly in Japan, China and South Korea, have made big investment bets on European games companies, as have Americans. The point is that there is not one but many successful companies, which is different from the behemoths in the Bay Area.

Also, games make money from their players, not buy selling user data to third parties. If a game is free, there is a micro-payment system in-game, rather than a data-mining ad economy. And if you don’t agree game companies are internet companies, at least they are born digital. So there it is, a home-grown digital success story with growth, jobs and foreign investment. And that’s just games, add fashion, literature, music, television, film, design, advertising, architecture and that message about how Europe is behind in digital is blurred by a much bigger message: Europe’s digital opportunity is in the creative economy, not in copying the surveillance economy of the top 10 internet companies. Why Europe is not in the top 10 is the wrong question. The right question is: how do we take full advantage of the promise of the creative economy? Answer that, next think about what policies will support that. The next Silicon Valley will not be in Silicon Valley, that is for sure. Play our cards right, it may very well be in Europe.

[First published as newsletter March 8 2016]

Bitcoin Will Save Copyright Online

Wednesday, March 2nd, 2016

Former Pirate Party leader Rick Falkvinge is famous for two things: trying to end copyright and changing all his money into Bitcoin. Both of them can be thought of as a digital rebellion of sorts, but after a hearing in the European Parliament today, it seems that perhaps Bitcoin will ultimately save copyright.

Bitcoin is a cryptographic currency based on a technology called block chain (or “distributed public ledger” in EU Commission lingo). Block chains are sequences of information (blocks in a chain) that are supposedly impossible to modify or delete. The chain is updated with a new block every ten minutes or so; each block contains information about the previous blocks so the chain cannot be interrupted, and the chain is publicly distributed so it is stored in many places and not in one. It is a database, but the data is not in one place but many. Some say it takes away the need for trust; some call it an accounting revolution; some say it’s a transparency tool. (Lots of insights in today’s event; check out the video stream here.)

The internet is a great copy machine, which the entertainment industry learnt the hard way. Nothing is easier than to make copies online; in fact, it’s very difficult—if not impossible—to not make copies of files put on the internet. Many things can be said about that, but for now, let’s focus on crypto-currencies. Let’s say you want to make a new kind of money. Then you don’t want that money to be copied; in fact, that takes away the whole idea of money—it’s supposed to be a limited resource; otherwise, there is no value. So how can you put your new kind of money online? Bitcoin solved that problem with block chain. As Pindar Wong of VeriFI said in today’s seminar, “Block chain enables transfer, not copy.”. If block chain works for new kinds of money, it also works for copyright. The idea of a digital copy rises again. I can own a copy of a song; I can give it away or sell it, and after that, I don’t own it anymore. All made possible through the distributed public ledger that is the block chain. The problem of selling content online was a problem created by technology, but now it looks possible to solve it by technology.

Despite his best efforts, Rick Falkvinge may not have ended copyright but rather found the answer to how to save it. Surely he will take comfort from the fact that if the Bitcoin rate keeps going up, he can afford to buy all the digital music he could ever want.

Silicon Valley Secession

Monday, February 15th, 2016

Netopia likes NYU Stern-professor Scott Galloway for his one-liners but loves him for his pathos. Sure liked last year’s talk at the DLD conference in Munich, where Galloway predicted Amazon would buy a gas station chain within the next twelve months. In the live infographic this year’s talk, the professor upgraded to recommending Amazon acquire Macy’s and Carrefour. He points to education as the next big market for the Big Four (not cars, as many pundits would suggest). But behind the investment insight and the fast talk is a bigger image: what about us? In Galloway’s words, “It’s never been easier to be a billionaire, but never harder to be a millionaire.”. As fewer and fewer hands collect more and more wealth, where are we heading? The market caps of the Silicon Valley top dogs plus Alibaba are greater than the GDP of Russia and growing. The good professor suggests that Silicon Valley is becoming bigger than countries and wants to make its own law, seceding from the United States. (Not far from the Peter Thiel vision of a floating island on international water outside the jurisdiction of any state.) Sure, you can have free search, e-mail and image sharing. And feel free to put some of your money into the stock of these fast-growing behemoths. But how much power should we allow them? And is that choice for us to make individually? Or rather collectively, through democratic process? Plenty of books and movies coming out now on how we pay the price for letting Wall Street run loose. What will those books and movies be about ten years from now?

 

Friedman Questions #SocialMedia in the #ArabSpring

Friday, February 5th, 2016

Perhaps NY Times star columnist Thomas Friedman reads Netopia, but then again maybe not. In any case, he now joins in doubting the role of social media in the Arab Spring. For Netopia’s readers, it is no news that there were many more important factors than technology (and most people on Tahrir Square did not have internet access in the first place), as Mariam Kirollos has demonstrated. The myth of the social media revolution lives strong, yesterday I listened to a talk by an executive from Al-Jazeera who made this notion part of his speech. But while Kirollos’s point is that the revolution was driven by bigger forces – the people demanded bread, freedom and social justice – Friedman’s view is more techno-centric. Social media did spark the Arab Spring, but then turned into a vehicle for counter-revolution in Friedman’s account. Two different takes: was social media just a minor impact? Or central both to the regime and the protesters? Regardless, Friedman’s piece is a welcome and long overdue sobering-up from the punch-drunk self-aggrandizing image of Western companies liberating the oppressed through commercial technology. Welcome to the camp of the skeptics and the doubters, Thomas Friedman.

Steve Jobs – Netopia at the Movies

Thursday, February 4th, 2016

Few companies are blessed with consumers that are more like fans. Perhaps some car brands, but for the most part, Apple is a unique beast. Of course the Apple cult is in large part thanks to its messianic founder Steve Jobs, whose life story has been told many times but most recently as a major Hollywood picture. The writer – Aaron Sorkin – is himself a unique beast as screen writing goes, not many writers are celebrated the way Sorkin is (perhaps also Charlie Kaufman, but who else?) and Sorkin’s dialogue is always apparent behind any acting and direction. It’s not the first time Aaron Sorkin tells the story of a Silicon Valley portal figure, The Social Network in 2010 portrayed Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s rise to power. It’s fair to say that Sorkin’s basic idea is the same this time: private life events are connected to business strategies. In Zuckerberg’s case, his social phobia led him to create a technological tool where he can find information about other people without interacting with them (Andrew Keen sees this as Zuckerberg projecting his own autism onto the rest of the world in his 2015 book The Internet Is Not the Answer). For Sorkin’s Steve Jobs, it’s more about proving to the world that he’s right and you’re wrong which comes deep down from his feelings of rejection from being adopted as an infant. The movie is a constant argument Steve Jobs has with everyone around him. Of course Sorkin makes this argument very interesting to follow, as in his other work – like The West Wing – his trick is to make both sides equally convincing and once it seems the reasons are exhausted a new and deeper motive is revealed. I must confess I am charmed by this trick, I’m under Sorkin’s spell if you like. But if you’re an Apple fan, you may not be as happy with this Steve Jobs character. He is ruthless also to those who love him the most. But if you’re interested in Silicon Valley intrigue, it’s a great take on the founding myth of the highest valued company in the world. Weirdly, Michael Fassbender looks a lot more like Tim Cook than Steve Jobs.

Copyright as Privacy, #Privacy as #Copyright

Friday, January 29th, 2016

How is privacy connected to copyright? The similarities are stronger than you may think. After years of voices pointing to copyright as a threat to privacy (a favorite theme of pirates and tech companies), perhaps we can now take a deep breath and see other sides to the issue? One who got me thinking along these lines is Mike Holderness, a journalist involved with several organisations promoting authors rights. At a seminar in European Parliament this week (see separate story for a report), Holderness quoted Lawrence Lessig’s introduction to The Boy Who Could Change the World (The New Press, 2016) a posthumous collection of writings by Aaron Swartz. Swartz was an activist and a gifted programmer who tragically committed suicide while under federal indictment for data-theft in 2013, aged 26. Swartz contributed greatly the work to various internet development organisations such as the World Wide Web Consortium and was co-founder of Reddit, just to mention a few of his accomplishments. But more than anything, Aaron Swartz is remembered for his activism on issues like open access and not least the anti-SOPA campaign. Swartz was one of the strongest critics of copyright online (for more on Swartz, I recommend this documentary). Lessig’s introduction, as quoted by Holderness, talks about how Lessig quoted one of Swartz’s blog posts in one of his lectures. This upset Swartz, who said the post was for the readers of his blog, not the Stanford law students. To Holderness, this says that even Aaron Swartz cared about his moral rights as an author. How can this be? Perhaps another internet activist, Aral Balkan (you should follow him on Twitter: @aral) has a clue. This is what he tweeted yesterday:

Privacy isn’t about having something to hide; it’s about having the right to choose what you keep for yourself & what you share with others

Is that not the same basic idea as authors rights? It is my work and it is for me to decide how it is disseminated, how I am acknowledged as its creator, and it is my right that it cannot be distorted, at least not without my consent. Now replace “work” with “data” or “private information” and the pattern is there. Privacy – or data protection – and authors rights – part of copyright – are neighbors, not enemies.

Message to #DAVOS17 – Netopia Has the Answer

Wednesday, January 27th, 2016

The so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution was the main topic of the World Economic Forum in Davos, in case you spent all of last month under a rock and didn’t notice. Netopia has discussed this plenty, the idea that automation comes to white collar jobs. The point is that we can decide how we want to use the opportunity of automation; it’s not decided beforehand. So great then that the brilliant minds at the WEC come together around this topic. One report talks about the new skills that will help your career in the fourth industrial revolution (from now on, I’m just going to write 4IR, ok?). Spoiler alert: things like critical thinking and emotional intelligence are on the rise. And Creativity. I’m not sure those are actually skills, but they’re important for sure. Unsurprisingly, Netopia has some issues with this line of thought, however. First, it’s about adjusting to technology rather than making technology work for mankind’s purposes. That is techno-centrism; no patience for that. Second, it focuses too much on the individual and too little on a joint vision. Of course, each person has to be responsible for her own future, but that allows plenty of room for working together. In fact, the very idea of going to Davos to discuss issues like these suggests that there is more to it than every man for himself. (Netopia’s speaker invite was somehow lost in the mail, but we will be happy to overlook this little accident next year should the organizer care for some bold and compelling opinions on digital topics.)

The World Economic Forum concerns itself with such things as growth and jobs: 4IR can be great for growth, possibly creating jobs but just as likely taking away jobs faster than new ones arrive (depending on how businesses want to use the efficiency increases), but the main issue may be that it drives increased division of the labour market—white collar jobs replaced by simpler service jobs. The former insurance clerk is finding new employment at the coffee shop. As professor Scott Galloway once put it, “The smartphone economy is going to be great for jobs, but terrible for wages.”. Is there no hope? Of course there is! All we need is to find an industry that grows and thrives with the digital markets and that creates well-paid jobs with a good quality of life. Ideally, an industry where Europe is a frontrunner has plenty of talent and a strong track record. “What industry is that?” you ask impatiently. “The creative industry!” Netopia replies. This is where Europe shines, where cultural diversity is a strength and not an obstacle, where public education and welfare systems allow talent to bloom, where Europe’s heritage is a source of inspiration and the stuff of new expressions, where new technologies are developed and digital opportunities embraced, where freedom of speech and freedom of enterprise are prerequisites for success, where the democratic tradition becomes a business advantage, and where the influx of new perspectives and cultures adds to the competitive edge. Sure, there are great movies from the USA, cool games from Japan, literature from South America, hit songs from Korea, world music from Africa, culinary tastes from the Middle East, and, er, swimsuit fashion from Australia. But Europe can match or beat the world in every area. And Europe’s creative talent travels. Sure, Hollywood may have greater commercial success than Europe’s film industry, but there are many European filmmakers and actors who contribute to that success. The creative sector employs more than six million people in Europe and many more in neighbouring industries. It grows constantly, and as 4IR releases more resources, it can accelerate that growth. It creates plenty of export revenue, private investment, and tax income. With digital connectivity, European games, movies, music, books, apps, etc. can grow with the global market. Jobs are fun and rewarding, though some parts of the sector have challenges with job security. Growth in the creative sector is very friendly to the climate, and the most important natural resource—creativity—grows more the more it is harvested. And the growth creates lots of jobs because creativity (as the WEF report noted) cannot be easily automated.

Look this way, European policymaker! The creative sector is the answer you seek, the cure for your nightmares, and the hope for Europe. I would even go so far as to say it might save us from Brexit considering how the Cool Britannia success story rests on these thoughts precisely. So stop making policies for digital freenomics and stop selling out the creative industry’s resources by undermining freedom of contract and intellectual property rights. Make the digital markets work for the creative sector, not against. The European consumer deserves great European culture. Play your cards right, and that’s where that European consumer can find his or her next pay cheque too.