Categories
Companies

Beneficial Corporations

I’m tempted to write the title of this post with a question mark, as it’s not always clear that corporations are good. On the macro level, corporations have been a huge boost to elevating human quality of life. Governments can be slow, incompetent and wasteful. Corporations move fast. They’re good at raising capital and achieving big things. They can also do great harm.

I’ve been employed by corporations for the past couple of decades, yet I still don’t consider myself “the corporate type”. Very few people do. It’s the safest way to go if you live in America and have to pay health care for a family of four or more. If solvency is your thing then somebody in the household better be getting that subsidized health insurance as part of a corporate plan. It would be nice if working for a corporation was the safest and the most ethical way to bring home the bacon. I’ve never worked for an organization that benefited the greater good, but in the next five years I’d like this to change.

What qualifies as beneficial? I’ve thought about this before and I’ll think about it again. A search for “beneficial corporations” brings up the usual lists of “best companies to work for,” and the companies deemed to have the most social responsibility. Topping these lists are the likes of Facebook and Google. This should raise an eyebrow. One could argue that Facebook and Google are among the least socially responsible companies of all time, as they maximize advertising effectiveness by unleashing uncontrolled psychological experiments on the entire civilized world.

Tech companies are always cited as being the best to their employees, but they also work their employees to death. If you work for a Silicon Valley company then chances are you’ve kissed that work-life balance goodbye. You might’ve even found yourself crying alone in your cubicle as you miss your daughter’s dance rehearsal … again.

Work-life balance is a term that should not even exist. It implies that work is not good, a contrast to life. In reality work is an integral part of life. But the kinds of work people do these days can be anti-human, unnatural. I know that words like “human” and “natural” can be ambiguous, but if a term like “work-life balance” enters the common vernacular then something’s not right.

Even if work-life balance at a company is excellent, the benefits these companies provide to the world is usually limited to whatever perks they give their employees. Some companies seem to have a guilt complex about this.

In the past decade or so it has become popular for corporations to ask (demand?) that their employees volunteer their time to a charity, to “give back” to the community. This is one way to define social responsibility. However, the term “give back” is suspicious. To “give back” implies something was taken, probably without consent. If a corporation pays taxes and fulfills its legal obligations, isn’t that enough? Why are these reparations to the community necessary? If the organization was doing something beneficial in the first place then all of this mandatory volunteering would not exist.

One peculiarity of our economic system is that really beneficial jobs don’t pay good money. If you hear about someone helping someone else then you’re going to assume they’re not getting paid. Childcare, elderly care, teaching, farming: they’re all essential to maintaining or quality of life, not to mention our survival. These jobs are often thankless, the most difficult and the least lucrative. Some (like stay-at-home mom) don’t pay anything at all. On the flip side, a hedge fund manager, a corporate lawyer, even an engineer working as a cog in the military industrial complex, all of these are worthless (if not harmful) to society, but the money is nice.

What if there was some way to accurately measure and qualify the value of helping people? What if this became the new currency? Why can’t we have a system that incentivizes the pursuit of excellence while also taking care of our own?

I’m still not sure what qualifies as a beneficial corporation. I’m refining the definition as I go. Maybe it’s enough for a company to take care of its own employees and leave it at that. For me, it would be an awesome step in the right direction to help people and get paid. I’m going to keep an eye out for opportunities. My next employment situation will be with an organization that’s doing some good.

Categories
Applied Magic

Multimedia Archiving Project – Intro

Wouldn’t it be awesome if there was an easy way to catalog and control the ever-rising deluge of photos and videos we generate with our devices, a system of organizing that could be transferred to future family members for safe-keeping? What if this system had the following traits?

  1. locally-controlled (by you)
  2. decentralized (resilient)
  3. platform-independent
  4. with a standardized file structure
  5. and a standardized file naming scheme
  6. that is both effortless
  7. and flexible

Well, that would be awesome, indeed.

It so happens I have such a system. It achieves the first five of the above traits, but it’s not yet effortless (if there is such a thing) or flexible. Without me the system falls into disarray. This post isn’t exactly a life hack – not yet, anyway. It’s the first of what will be several posts on this project as I get closer to making it more flexible and easier for others to use. With this post I wanted to explore the reasons for such a system, and to illustrate the general idea.

Ten years ago my dad gave me a box of photos and slides, which I scanned and integrated into my family’s multimedia mess. This effort began a home-grown archiving system that would come to be known as the Multimedia Archive Project (MAP). For me it’s a workable solution, still evolving today.

My ultimate long-term goal is to establish a system (more a protocol than an actual set of tech) that is easily transferable to my kids and subsequent generations. A decade later I’m in a holding pattern, still looking for technology that could suit my needs. Here’s some more details about what I mean by the above traits and why they’re important to me.

What is “locally-controlled”? I want the primary location of my family’s multimedia files to remain in my hands, so to speak. I’m not contributing to the oceans of photographic knowledge that an artificial intelligence uses to shape the world in ways I don’t see fit. This might seem paranoid now, but the world is starting to understand “free” services for individuals have big costs to society as a whole. It’s very important that I maintain control.

“Decentralized” just means it’s impossible to lose data. This part isn’t exactly effortless. It requires discipline and planning that most people aren’t willing to do. The Multimedia Archiving Project is backed up in the same system I use to back up all the data in my household, which includes consolidation and copies made to mirrored USB drives, a NAS, and a cloud service based in Switzerland that is a stickler for General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules.

“Platform-independent” is another cornerstone of this project. I don’t want to be locked into any single app, or depend on one company’s services. When I started this effort ten years ago the big cloud services were making it difficult to switch platforms. They’re a little nicer now, but to some degree this is still true.

Apple offers a great all-in-one photo archiving solution, and they’ll no doubt be around for decades to come. I’d be the first to recommend Apple to anyone who doesn’t have the discipline or technical chops to handle a DIY solution, based on their track record of quality software (iTunes for Windows not withstanding) and data privacy. Still, I prefer platform-independence. My family and I have some Apple devices, but we don’t have a Mac. What if I put my trust in a company who changes the rules twenty years down the road in a way that is unethical, inconvenient, and-or too expensive for me?

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I’d rather delete everything than trust a mind-control advertising platform like Facebook or Google with my family memories. Last year we went skiing with another family in beautiful Niseko, Japan. The other dad and I were on the mountain together one afternoon and he took a video of me as we skied down the slopes. I thought it would be an awesome video, with the sun in the right position and the spectacular scenery. And it was! The only problem was it had been live-streamed to Facebook and I didn’t have a Facebook account. Never mind me. What if the photographer wanted to preserve this video – or any media – and pass it down to his kids? They’d need Facebook accounts, too. This illustrates the importance of platform-independence. It’s the freedom to never be locked down to a proprietary system that defines how you can use your own stuff.

There are some very positive trends in digital identity that could work in my favor as the decades unfold (see previous post). Bottom line, I want the flexibility of moving my family memories securely and safely, with the maximum privacy levels, whenever I want.

The “standardized file structure” and “file naming scheme” are the coolest features of the system. They’re inspired by ISO standards. This gets into how this system works.

How does this thing work?

First, there are rules, because every system has rules. Fortunately most of the rules are enforced by code, but the first one must be observed by humans: NEVER MODIFY ORIGINALS.

The second rule is there is one and only one destination path for any given source device, a file folder in the ORIGINALS directory. For example, there is a folder for all the originals backed up from my wife’s iPhone, a folder for my camera photos, a folder for our Gopro, and so on. These devices and paths are configured in an XML file. This system runs on Windows, so I use PowerShell. In the future I might go with Linux and Python.

The process begins by running a script to “add new files to archive,” which reads the XML file for source and destination paths, checks to see if the devices in question are plugged into the system, and if so compares the latest photo and video files on the device with what’s already in the archive. If there’s new stuff then it copies it to the destination folder. I run a separate script to rename the files in a standard format so that anyone can take one look at the file name to know the date it was created, by whom, and where (all this data is available in the metadata of standard media files). A five-digit sequence number is tacked to the end of the file name. Ten years ago I never thought I’d have more than 99,999 files per device, but who knows? My wife is approaching 10,000 photos and videos now after five years with one iPhone (and these are the files remaining after she deletes stuff from her phone).

Since rule number one is NEVER MODIFY ORIGINALS (renaming doesn’t count as a modification, as it does not change the “last modified” timestamp), I maintain a separate directory for “COLLECTIONS,” which are basically photo albums of certain events or seasons. This is a manual effort and probably always will be. I don’t have the AI at my disposal to magically identify people, places, and events to assemble a photo album on the fly.

When the files are copied, updated, and renamed, I then kick off the backup script (basically a fancy Robocopy) to replicate the changes to the various backup locations, including the folder to sync with the cloud service.

In the future I might keep this basic system intact but expose a portion of it to a paid AI service to assist with categorizing, facial-recognition, tagging, and the like.

In days of old, family memories might be preserved in the form of hard-copy photographs in a shoe box. Back then, the problem was keeping this single point of failure safe from fires and floods. Now, the problem is we have too much stuff. Some intervention is necessary, and this system works for me. As for “effortless,” I’m not sure I’ll ever completely reach this goal. Maybe the point of an archiving system is that is should require some effort, otherwise how do we decide how we’re represented by future generations?

Categories
Digital ID

Good Digital Identity Equals a Better Quality of Life

It’s amazing we’ve gone this long with password protection as the primary way to prove who we are and what belongs to us online. Nobody likes user names and passwords and they’re a hacker’s dream. Dual-factor is more common now but it is proprietary and a short-term fix. Digital identity is much bigger than the convenience of logging into websites: without an expansion of this technology’s capabilities the future of our civil liberties are at stake.

A universal system of digital identity is a crucial piece of establishing meaningful and effective digital rights. To protect our future freedoms, we need an authentication system that is:

  • universal
  • decentralized
  • highly-available
  • sovereign (to the individual)
  • and most of all, secure

So what is the big deal with digital rights? The answer is obvious for corporations; their value is directly tied to their ability to maintain the integrity of their intellectual property, all of which is digital.

For individuals, the data we give away increasingly determines how much liberty we enjoy and what opportunities come our way. What we share online can determine whether we’re approved for a loan, accepted to a school, hired by an employer, or asked out on a date.

Fortunately there have been positive developments in the establishment of digital rights for individuals in recent years (See links to articles at the end of this post.) Digital rights are an issue in the U.S. presidential race for the first time I can remember. It’s about time.

Digital rights should be as clear-cut as property rights, but there’s still a lot of gray area for individuals. Part of the problem is lack of awareness. Another issue is that most of our digital property exists outside our direct control. On a technical level we can say that an online account belongs to us and that the files associated with that account also belong to us. But if the data gets into the wild then how can we take credit or claim it’s ours? With the right approach, digital identity has the potential to protect our virtual property more securely than age-old property rights.

In decades past, if someone stole your precious collection of Credence Clearwater Rival albums on eight-track tapes, you could call the police, but chances are you’re not going to get any “leads” on who stole your old-school tunes. In more recent years, if you purchase a product, say a blender, that allows online registration (and you’re diligent enough to complete the process and hold onto the registration info), then you have at least the potential to claim indisputable ownership of that blender if it’s stolen and then miraculously shows up at a garage sale or an eBay auction. The online registration process is analogous to how Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) encryption works. The manufacture is the Certificate Authority. The serial number stamped into the blender is the private key, and the proof of purchase is the public key, as it’s transferable.

What’s the right approach for data? What about all the bits and bytes that come from our smart home, our refrigerator, and multitude of devices we use? With a universal system of digital identity, would every outgoing packet be digitally signed and tagged in a way that can’t be hacked? (See Oasis Labs, below.) Anyone who has worked in cyber security knows there’s no such thing as one hundred percent secure, but with today’s technology we can get close enough.

In the past couple of years there has been a lot of talk about “self-sovereign identity” and biometrics, secured with block-chain tech. Block-chain ledgers bring the system a little closer to impenetrable by making the certificate authority distributed. A startup called Oasis Labs is working to make this a reality, but they’re in the beginning stages. Microsoft has been backing “self-sovereign digital identity” for a couple of years. This is a technology that would be a huge benefit to individuals interested in protecting their digital rights. No surprise, Facebook is not on board.

Digital identity is a hot issue right now. Like most people I’m no expert on this topic now, but we’d all be well advised to follow it closely in the coming years.

Microsoft and decentralized identity “Microsoft believes everyone has the right to own their digital identity, one that securely and privately stores all personal data. This ID must seamlessly integrate into daily life and give complete control over data access and use.”

Oasis Labs “With Oasis Labs you can use data without liability, easily comply with new regulations, and collaborate on shared data without risking privacy or losing control.”

GoodID looks interesting, but I can’t tell from their website how the technology works or whether it meets the criteria for digital identity mentioned at the beginning of this post.

As for digital rights:

(For an illuminating example how data we give away can affect the course of our life, see “It’s time for a Bill of Data Rights” in the MIT Technology Review.)

Some other recent and noteworthy articles:

Utah Just Became a Leader in Digital Privacy

Contract for the Web “A global plan of action to make our online world safe and empowering for everyone”

Categories
Data Social Media

Data is the New Dirt

You may have heard that “data is the new oil”. You might also sense a bit of marketing hoopla in this phrase. There are a few ways to define “big data” but none of them fits with this analogy. My definition comes from my experience in transforming disparate data sets into business intelligence for the purpose of enabling an organization to accomplish its tasks. The data by itself is useless. Data is the medium from which value is extracted, not the value itself. In this view it’s more accurate to say that data is the new dirt.

It is true that data needs to be transformed just like oil needs to be refined, but the key difference is that oil is a finite resource and data is infinite. The scarcity of oil determines its value. Oil in raw form has value. A barrel of crude is worth about US$60 today (I would’ve guessed much higher!) but raw data is worthless. In fact it’s less than worthless. It cuts into the bottom line.

Imagine you’re a CIO of a big organization. You’re standing in a state-of-the-art data center humming away with endless rows of sleek cabinets packed with the latest server hardware, each hosting tens of thousands of virtual machines running database server software on untold petabytes of storage. The lighting is low and the place pulses with high-tech power. It’s all very bad-ass. But as you walk down the center aisle you approach a wall where there’s a huge LED display with a seven-digit number spinning out of control – an amount representing the net cost in millions of dollars per year spent storing all this data Your gut tightens as you fathom the volumes of data flooding the data center and the costs spinning straight to hell. Those numbers are burning into your retinas as you stare up at the LED. Your face is about to melt off like the Nazis in the climactic scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark. But you make your wisdom saving throw and recover just in time, calling HR and telling them to hire some data professionals now.

The point is it’s not the data that’s valuable; it’s truth, and these days there’s a scarcity of truth. The number of things into which oil can be refined is limited. On the other hand data can be molded into any information that is somewhere on the scale between insanely valuable and totally useless. Transforming data must be a flexible, adaptive process or its value is never realized. Somewhere in this mountain of data are facts, the rarest nuggets in the world.

Admittedly, my professional view spells big data with a little “b”. What I work with is nothing compared to the vast oceans of Big Data processed by Silicon Valley powerhouses and the internet of things. Big Data in this sense may very well be the new oil for a handful of tech companies, but anyone who has flown from Houston to Galveston knows the impact oil refinery can have on the environment. The data centers that store all this data use a lot of juice, the production of which also affects climate. Social Media also outputs a massive amount of social pollution unchecked.

Looking at the bigger picture, “Data is the New Oil” can also infer that everyone’s data is valuable and every individual should be getting rich, too. In the future there will be stronger, well-defined data rights to support this, but for now it’s delusional and dangerous thinking, a point made in the excellent blog post, “Data isn’t the new oil, it’s the new CO2,” by Martin Martin Tisné, managing director at Luminate, a philanthropic organization I follow. I plan on writing more about Luminate in the future, as well as Mr. Tisné’s article in the MIT Technology Review, “It’s time for a Bill of Data Rights”.

Categories
Uncategorized

The Best Toilet in the World

There are many things I love about Japan, and one of them their cleanliness and centuries-old devotion to good hygiene. The Japanese are known for their sensible protocols for staying clean, like no wearing shoes in the house and showering before baths. They also have the best toilets in the world.

When Commodore Matthew Perry sailed his “black ships” into Yokohama harbor in 1852, the level of tech he brought with him must have terrifying to the Japanese, who were still running around in robes, carrying katana and spears. At the time, the Japanese were centuries behind in war tech, but they were centuries ahead of the Westerners when it came to clean.

The comedian Ron White jokes that the most luxurious items in his Beverly Hills home are the Japanese toilets. He got so accustomed to the toilet lid opening as he approached that he defiantly pissed all over traditional toilets when they didn’t obey.

In Japan these “luxury items” are standard in every house, and the motion sensors are the least of their awesome perks. The most beneficial feature is the bidet. Toilet paper only requires a light padding to dry off, and you’re done. No repetitive wiping with course, dry paper. An Indian comedian, Hasan Minhaj, accurately observes that wiping a dirty ass with dry paper is the most ineffective way of cleaning. If you stepped in dog shit would you clean your shoe with a dry cloth? No, you’d run water over it to clean it off. Many cultures have adopted a moist towel approach to wiping, but the Japanese built-in bidet is far superior.

Some of the toilet side-arm control panels can be bewildering. I still don’t know everything our toilets can do.

There are many other wonderful features of the standard Japanese toilet, like UV light to sterilize the toilet bowl after you finish, and warm toilet seats that keep your butt warm on winter mornings. The toilets are more resource-friendly, offering the option for small or large flush. Each toilet has a control panel, either on the arm rest (yes, arm rest) or mounted on the wall. Some of the display panels can be bewildering. There are options to adjust seat warmth, water pressure, nozzle position, energy saving mode, deodorizer, and so on. I still don’t know everything our toilets can do.

Japanese toilets are not only the cleanest and most comfortable, they’re healthier for the butt, too. These toilets are a game-changer. After experiencing this beneficial tech, there’s no going back.

Categories
Social Media

New Hope for a New Decade

On New Year’s Eve 1979, I was eleven, cozy in my pajamas after a nice hot bath. I lay on my belly on the carpet of my grandparents’ living room, filling the pages of a sketch pad with dreams of the new decade to come. The Eighties were going to be kick-ass!

My grandparents lounged in lazy boy chairs and smoked as we watched an episode of M*A*S*H. Later we watched Lou Grant. I know these details now because I still have the sketch pad, and I’m reading the notes. (I just confirmed these shows were broadcast on the day in question, although there’s no mention of what we watched in the interim one hour between the shows.)

I didn’t take notes of every evening, but it was the first time I was conscious of entering a new decade. I drew spaceships and electric cars (the kind of stuff Elon Musk works on now, in real life), and other beneficial tech that would no doubt improve our lives in the future. Technology was exciting and cool. It would have been impossible to imagine an uncontrolled psychological experiment performed on the human race for the purpose of selling products and ideas, let alone draw it in my sketch pad. The inability to conceive of such a thing then is why many people were slow to understand the negative impact of social media today.

(I didn’t intend for this to be another post about the negative impact of social media, but it’s useful as a way of further defining what I mean by beneficial tech.)

Flash back to the scene of me watching TV with my grandparents on the last day of 1979. This was the golden era of TV, when there were just three competing networks who were in business to sell advertising. At the start of each show there was a commercial break, and another cluster of ads every fifteen minutes thereafter, with a few national ads and maybe a couple slots for local stuff. There were probably twenty or thirty ads aired during the time my grandparents and I watched TV that night, but nobody was paying attention. Commercials were for socializing, grabbing a bowl of ice cream, or taking a bathroom break. TV shows like M*A*S*H were not created for the purpose of selling things. Their entertainment value was incidental to the advertisement business that supported the platform on which they aired.

On the surface it looks like the content of Facebook is also incidental to its ads. But the amount of content is infinite, and “the algorithm” chooses what each individual sees. Put back in the TV age, this would be like everyone watching a slightly different version of the same show. At some point during an episode of M*A*S*H, Hawkeye would pause, look directly at me, and wink, holding the toy I hadn’t received for Christmas. “Still want one of these?” On an emotional level that’s how Facebook works.

Except it takes time for this magic to do its thing. The tech needs to learn every nuance of our behavior and moods. This requires hundreds of hours of our attention. In order to harvest the maximum amount of attention, social media companies employ armies of psychologists and developers to engineer addiction. The idea is to silo people into easily-marketable groups, and the best way to do this is to get them hooked and incite emotional reactions. It just so happens the easiest human emotions to tweak are all negative: anger, rage, hatred, and fear. Multiply this effect by billions of tweaked individuals and the result is a world of angry, depressed, divided masses who view the people on the other side of their engineered, bipolar worldview as sub-human.

This sucks.

It doubly sucks because on almost every measurable level we’re living in the best time in all of human history.

What to do? It doesn’t matter if someone doesn’t use social media, because everyone else does. Anyone who abstains from the madness is breathing in toxic fumes, second-hand-smoke.

My grandparents were cool, not because the commercial brainwashing of the day had convinced me that smoking was cool (it very likely had), but because they were fun people and I loved them. They loved me too, and would’ve never intended to do me harm; but one side-effect of hanging out with them was a continual lungful of second-hand smoke. At the time, I didn’t mind the smoke. Nobody did. It was 1979.

Is social media even less beneficial than cigarettes? On the micro level there are no doubt positive things that happen on Facebook and other platforms, but it’s possible to argue this point. Cigarettes were intentionally addictive and non-smokers breathed in the harmful byproduct. Forty years later, a technology called social media is intentionally addictive and non-users experience harmful byproducts. But the difference is that social media is also intentionally toxic. Cigarettes were incidentally toxic. If there had been a way for tobacco companies to engineer their product so that it didn’t kill their customers, then I’m sure they would’ve done it. Social media companies are colossal advertising platforms that purposely divide people, and mass-produce negativity for the purpose of selling products and ideas.

Should social media be regulated like tobacco? Maybe, but we’d need new laws. Anti-trust litigation isn’t the right tool. Alphabet and Facebook are indeed monopolies. (Their combined market capitalization is $1.3 trillion dollars as of last year, and no one else is even close.) But monopoly is not the problem. The problem is that social media companies are wielding unchecked control over a dangerous technology that does measurable harm to society. How is this not the most alarming thing in the world? Would it be beneficial to humanity if this market became more competitive through government anti-trust intervention? I don’t think so. Instead, the ad-based business model needs to go.

Social media should be sold as a premier service. In the past thirty years companies like HBO and Netflix obliterated the ad-based model of the big three TV networks. It turned out there was a big market for quality entertainment. The result was Peak TV. Shows like M*A*S*H were great, but any given show on Netflix today would be the best show on TV forty years ago. This further defines what I mean by beneficial tech.

A hundred years from now historians will look back on this time and see early social media as humanity’s first big mistake with AI. The technology is at a nascent stage. It can be a bridge to something better down the road.

So what about my dreams of a kick-ass decade? The Eighties turned out to be filled with a mix of miracles and personal tragedies, like any decade for anyone. There was also an explosion of fantastic entertainment and exciting change. I’m optimistic about the upcoming decade.

Let the Roaring Twenties begin!

Categories
Social Media

Why I Avoid Social Media

Technology is a beautiful thing. For the past twenty-plus years I’ve been striving to make tech work for us, because that’s the way it should be. Tech should free up more of our time, and give us more agency over our lives. Aside from being beneficial, it should also be cool. I would never suggest that someone stop using a tool that meets the above criteria, but I think we can all agree that in the past decade social media has fallen short of all three.

By social media I mostly mean “Goobook,” though other apps like Twitter and Reddit can serve up their own versions of hell. I admired (but did not use) the original Instagram before it was more tightly integrated into its parent company’s advertising machine. I don’t know much about the other apps. I just say Goobook for short because it sounds funny and makes me smile.

In the big picture Goobook is probably in some rough period of early evolution, just as the mid-nineteenth century industrial revolution had its share of inhumane bumps in the road. One day the current tech will lead to something that serves us instead of the other way around. But to get there, I believe the ad-based model must go.

Time Is a Non-Renewable Resource

The most basic reason I don’t use Goobook or any of the other apps is because there are an infinite number of better things I’d rather do with my limited time on this earth. For example, nothing. Most people probably don’t remember, but doing nothing can be pretty cool. Some call it meditation. It works wonders for mental health.

In an ad-based business model social media uses machine intelligence and slot machine psychology to get us hooked. Like casinos, it wants the maximum amount of our time. It could care less about our mental health.

Netflix, as an example of the paid model, has some binge-worthy content, but it doesn’t care how much I watch as long as I pay my eight bucks per month. I’m happy to pay it for the value it provides.
Tricking someone to give up their time is not cool, considering it’s the only resource we can’t get back. In Michael Ende’s classic book “Momo,” a homeless girl with special talents fights back against time thieves, the sinister “men in grey”. Written in the Mad Men era, it’s a critique of consumerism and stress, but it might as well be about what’s happening today – except one hundred fold.

Please Take My Money Instead

Goobook has bragged to its customers (its customers are advertisers, grandpa) that it can make an active user feel any emotion and she won’t know why. We like to think we’re rational beings, but emotions rule the world. Emotions are also how advertisers sell things, and negative emotions work best. Nobody buys stuff they don’t need because they’re happy and self-assured. Positivity is the arch enemy of advertising, and Goobook is the most powerful ad platform ever unleashed on the world.

How does this digital trickery work? From a tech point of view it’s fascinating stuff. From a human point of view, not so much. Machine intelligence records micro movements and reactions of individual users over time. The machine cultivates a behavioral profile, until it knows exactly which of our emotional buttons to push. Tristan Harris, former design ethicist at Goobook, has some truly eye-popping examples of how “technology hijacks our psychological vulnerabilities”. Fortunately for us Tristan is now co-founder of The Center for Humane Technology, and spokesperson for the Time Well Spent movement, making him one of the most awesome human beings on Earth.

Goobook also likes to brag that their so-called services will always be “free”. Any complete, truthful disclosure of true intent would be hilarious. Imagine if new users saw this upon signing up:

“We’re not going to lie to you. We employ an army of psychologists and engineers who design revolutionary technology for the sole purpose of getting you addicted to our app. Given enough time, they will succeed. But don’t worry, we’ll never charge you a cent!”

Fake promise

Well I should fucking hope not. In fact I’m thinking Goobook should pay me and everyone else for being lab rats in this uncontrolled psychological experiment they’re performing on the entire world. Let’s take a quick look at the results so far. Since Goobook really took off ten years ago we’ve seen an astonishing rise in uncool.

Cavalier attitudes toward privacy led to the undermining of democracy (Cambridge Analytica, Brexit, the breakup of the European Union, and the rise of nationalism everywhere).

Journalism got monopolized. (All journalists are now “sharecroppers on the Facebook farm,” according to WIRED magazine), subject to censorship based on whatever its users want to see, and thanks to its negative feedback loop this means Disaster, Tragedy and Politics (which, let’s face it, is all the same category these days).

This has led to general grumpiness and negativity despite the fact that nearly every quality of life statistic has improved over the past forty years. The preceding statement is factual, but just the fact that we doubt it for a second is proof that the concept of truth has also taken a hit.

Binary “thumbs up / thumbs down” thinking has polarized society and has disabled our ability to think deeply about complex and nuanced issues – at a time when we need this ability the most.

There’s also a lot of growing interest and debate over the possible role of Goobook in the uptick of U.S. opioid use and suicide rates in the past decade, especially among teens. I was skeptical when I first saw an article on this topic, as I thought it could be that instead of Goobook causing depression, depressed people were drawn to Goobook. And Goobook-bashing had become so trendy that I wanted to keep an open mind. At first the accusation reminded me of my teenage years growing up in the U.S. Bible Belt, when there was a lot of hysteria over the supposed evils of Dungeons & Dragons and heavy metal. (I was a big fan of both, by the way, and look how well I turned out!) But now, compared to apps whose stated business intent is to systematically and subliminally manipulate the thoughts and emotions of billions of people using AI-driven addiction techniques, music and role playing games seem absurdly tame. Considering social media is most effective (for its customers) when its users are isolated and bummed out – and these happen to be the exact conditions under which drug addiction and suicide happen – it wouldn’t surprise me if there was a link.

The New Normal

Somehow we’ve accepted all this as totally normal, when just a few decades ago it would’ve seemed like dystopia on high. In 1984 I was in junior high school, and appropriately enough George Orwell’s famous book was required reading that year. Imagine going back to the 80’s and explaining to me that thirty-five years in the future there would be a system used by everyone, whose stated purpose was to addict people, and to tweak their emotions over time.

My teenage eyes would go wide. “Dude… The Ministry of Truth actually exists in the future? The government has taken control?”

His naiveté stuns me for a second but then I laugh, thinking of the recent congressional hearings with Goobook. “No, in the future the government is dumber and weaker than ever. Tech moves fast. Government is slow.”

He’s confused for a moment but then recovers. “So it’s like Tyrell Corporation in the movie Blade Runner?”

“Ah, good reference. Something like that. Except the tech we have in 2019 is much less cool. That, and the big tech companies of the future all have headquarters in beautiful, cheery places, where all the employees believe they’re making the world a better place.”

“Why would they believe that?”

I ponder this for a moment, thinking of something that would make sense to him. “You know all those people in your school who think pep rallies are awesome?”

The teenage me nods knowingly, but then shakes his head in dismay. “How did all this happen?”

“It happened over a long period of time. People just went along for the ride and then they were hooked. Remember those freaky propaganda films on drug addiction they made you watch last year? It turns out there’s a science to addiction, and the people who implemented Goobook have got it all figured out. Like any addiction, it starts as a fun escape.”

“I’d never fall for that shit.”

“Don’t worry, you won’t. But everyone else will, so it doesn’t matter. It becomes the new normal, and that’s how the world around you will change.”

“Can anything be done?”

“Yes. Fortunately there are ways out.”

I mentioned Tristan Harris at the Center for Humane Technology, who at the moment would get my vote for one of the most awesome guys on Earth. There are others, a rising wave of smart thinkers fighting this thing like Momo fighting the men in grey. One way out seems to be paid subscription, because then the app would be serving us instead of us serving the machine. Goobook wouldn’t make as much money, at least not at first. But the paid model is sustainable and better for everyone in the long run. It’s a little like the early industrial days when companies went unchecked and polluted the environment in their quest to maximize profit at all cost. Goobook is doing the same thing now, except they’re polluting our hearts and minds. We need more awareness on this issue to get it cleaned up. I’ll do my part.

Other champions of this effort are:

Roger McNamee (ZUCKED)
Douglas Rushkoff (TEAM HUMAN)
Jaron Lanier (Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now)

For the sake of more beneficial tech and a cooler future, I wish us all the best of luck.

This post first appeared on my author site, May 1, 2019.

Categories
Clean Energy Climate

Bill Gates Picks the Most Beneficial Emerging Tech

It seems appropriate to start a blog about beneficial tech with an interview of tech legend and philanthropist, Bill Gates.

At the moment I don’t exactly have the clout to arrange this, so I’m reading the transcript of an interview of Gates by the chief editor of MIT Technology Review, Gideon Lichfield. It’s just as well, as Lichfield asks many of the questions I planned on asking. The topic is the Ten Breakthrough Technologies of 2019. Gates picks which emerging technologies he thinks could be the most beneficial for the largest number of people.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation continues to lead incredible efforts to raise quality of life for poor countries, promoting and implementing technologies in medicine, education, and sanitation. There’s even a revolutionary new, low-cost toilet that separates solid and liquid waste material for recycling. I’m eating breakfast as I read this, so I skip to some of the cleaner breakthrough technologies.

Gates predicts that an executive assistant AI will be available in the next five to ten years, a super-smart Cortana or Siri. I have mixed feelings about this. I don’t want an AI backed by a huge Tech giant whose primary motive is to subtly manipulate my thought patterns for the purpose of selling me shit (ideas or products), not to mention the privacy and security issues. It seems like Hacker News publishes a story every week about some creepy vulnerability in baby cams and other home devices. It’s going to be very difficult for any Big Tech operation to earn back trust after Snowden and Cambridge Analytica. However it would be so cool (and beneficial) to have a private, trustworthy AI to help with mundane tasks. I’m thinking of SARA, the private AI in my novel TOKYO GREEN. Is there any chance we could get a private AI? How would the technology get smart without having the ulterior motive to persuade, sell to, and control people? These questions demand attention, but Gideon doesn’t go there. I’m marking digital personal assistants as a “maybe” on the beneficial scale.

The most encouraging points of the interview are those about several big-picture efforts to improve the environment and fight back against climate change. Gates has dumped billions into an investment group called Breakthrough Energy. I take a break from the interview and check out their web site. It looks fantastic. “Reliable, Affordable Energy for the World – Investing in a Carbonless Future”. I make a note to follow this blog in the future, along with Gates Notes. Gates is big on nuclear power and so am I. Turning back to the interview, there’s a statement by Gates worth quoting:

“If we didn’t have climate change the quest to get broad acceptance of nuclear power wouldn’t be a priority for me. The general public attitude towards nuclear is a real challenge.”

Bill Gates

Yeah, I totally agree. Nuclear power is the clear answer to the world’s long-term environmental and energy needs. It’s too bad that anti-nuke became part of the environmental movement’s dogma back in the hippie days. Having lived within a few hundred miles of the Fukushima meltdown in Japan, I know first-hand the gripping fear and hysteria that the mere mention of “radiation” brings with it, and how these emotions are stoked and distorted to further a political end.

Gates reminds us that clean energy is good, but not nearly enough. Only about one-quarter of the world’s carbon emissions come from producing electricity. Another quarter comes from the harvesting of animal flesh (cattle). This must hit home with Gates, as he loves eating hamburger. For the world this will only become more of an issue as developing countries become more nutritionally diverse.

“All of that new consumption translates into tangible improvements in people’s lives. It is good for the world overall—but it will be very bad for the climate, unless we find ways to do it without adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.”

gatesnotes.com

Rather than quit eating hamburger or shaming people into eating less meat, Gates picks post-livestock meat as one of the most important emerging technologies going into the new decade. This tech is cool, beneficial, but also expensive. The challenges are in bringing down the costs. I make a note to find out where we are on lab-grown (post-livestock, they call it) meat, and do a quick search. It looks like Gates (along with Richard Branson and Cargill, Inc., a huge agricultural company) invested a lot of money in this stuff.

“Memphis Meats, a post-livestock meat producer, received a new $17 million donation from a slew of major American industrial powerhouses…”

futurism.com, August 2017

I’ve also heard of Beyond Meat, but haven’t tried it. I imagine it’s tough to find in Japan. Is Cargill investing in this stuff because they see it as the future, or because they want to maintain control of the industry?

The two big winners in this interview are nuclear power and post-livestock meat.

There was a time in the late nineties, around the time of Microsoft’s anti-trust suit, when my impression of Gates was not so good. Now, given his philanthropic impact, he’s a total bad-ass. Gates is my personal prototype for being a beneficial person. I haven’t watched too much TV lately, but the Netflix special “Inside Bill’s Brain” is on my list of things to see.

The Interview posted on MIT Technology Review

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Breakthrough Energy

Gates Notes

Categories
Etc

Beneficial Tech

It’s a bright and sunny morning here in Greater Tokyo Metro on the first day of a new decade. My family and I are happy and healthy and I’m conscious of how fortunate we are. I can’t think of a better time to start a project that will allow me to give back to the world.

My goal with this blog is to promote, understand, and use beneficial tech. I’ve been a problem-solver and solution-provider in Tech for the past twenty-five years, making tech work for us so that we don’t have to work for it. My work has been beneficial to a variety of organizations, but it would be a stretch to say that I made a positive impact on the greater good. This blog is a tale of my own personal journey toward putting my skills to better use. So this blog is about being beneficial with a capital “B,” as in better quality of life. Beneficial to whom? Everyone. That’s right, baby – all of us, the human race.

How do we measure whether tech is beneficial? I’m tempted to dive deep into philosophical quandaries about what’s beneficial and what’s not. It’s possible for seemingly negative tech to have a far-reaching positive impact. For example, what if civilization is driven by some collective hive mind that we can’t comprehend, driving us to create tech that does short-term harm to quality of life while leading to a major metamorphosis of our species in the distant future? Think of a caterpillar that builds his own coffin (cocoon), only to transform into a butterfly. Think of the charcoal skies of the early industrial age and how this would pave the road to a better overall quality of life for the human race. Even something as potentially horrific as nuclear weapons has had a positive effect, having reduced worldwide conflicts with the power of deterrence. In general I remain optimistic about tech, but resist wishful thinking and the status quo.

There’s the old trope of humanity versus technology. Some would say that “beneficial tech” is an oxymoronic term. I’d say such an assertion is moronic. It can be fun to entertain the Unibomber’s no-tech utopia, but there’s no going back. All we can do is form a solid idea about what it means to live a good life, and then focus on that vision during what’s sure to be a bumpy ride.

For now I have a few starting definitions for beneficial tech, though I expect this to expand and retract as time goes along.

  1. Tech that elevates all of us up the hierarchy of needs.
    I’m referring to Maslow’s theory of human motivation. It starts with meeting physiological needs, and moves up the pyramid to safety, belonging, esteem, and finally self-actualization. These things mean different things to different people and cultures, but it’s a good start.
  2. Tech that protects and cleans (or at least doesn’t harm!) our natural environment, including space.
  3. Tech that allows for a more creative, productive, and humane work experiences. What is work these days, anyway?
  4. Tech that protects Tech (hackers & cybersecurity).
  5. Indoor gardening, DIY endeavors, and community projects that encourage a more connected, cost-efficient way of life. At the moment I don’t know anything about indoor gardening, but this idea is a key part of my concept of better living, and I intend to learn as much as I can.
  6. Storytelling with data. Wake up! This is important. Okay, maybe not to most people, but for me this is where the rubber hits the road. Big data (or really any size data) is the main thrust of what I do. I’ve heard “Big Data is the new oil,” and even “Data Science is the sexiest career”. Neither of these statements make any sense to me, but there’s no doubt that data can add real power to decision making and efforts to improve the world.
  7. Space! The final frontier. I’d like to see some real progress with space exploration in my lifetime. Space unifies us as a species. It feels like a natural destination, and it’s just flat-out cool.
    To be clear, “beneficial” can be cool, but not all cool tech is beneficial. I’ll explore this concept, too.