What the Web Wants

Google is a builder. What should it build?

My answer: Google should build out the infrastructure for the Memex, which involves user-centric back end processing on the open web of documents and semi-open “web” of databanks, the “wiki-ization” of all search, browse, and finding behavior, and, incidentally, by my science fiction story at least, should also lead to:

(1) the re-calibration of global information capitalism, making it more powerful and more efficient than ever;

(2) the end of the broadcast paradigm; the true embrace of many-to-many; the solution to the problem of funding journalism in the digital age;

(3) the re-invention of the education system and research university;

(4) making democracy work much better for the people; making the people work much better for democracy;

(5) helping bring about a more stable, prosperous, free, and freedom-loving world.

What the Meltdown Means

(1) We are in the very beginning stages of a potential inflection point in the organization of mind/capital/democracy/economy. The precipitous decline of the economically and ecologically unsustainable growth model of the past 50 years will reinforce and expedite a great restructuring that was already underway.

(2) It is late capitalism, spurred by technological disruption, which is us pushing towards this new paradigm. Winning nation states will be those that work symbiotically to understand, adapt to, and actively foster new global institutions of production, innovation, and collective democratic deliberation.

(3) Competitive market forces in both the enterprise and consumer information industries converge on: know the user, empower the user, reward the user, create The Platform for participation, knowledge and cultural creation, verification, dissemination, and compensation, while minimizing transaction costs in markets and organization costs in enterprises.

(4) Platforms are markets.

(5) In the digital age, we can align capital with individual social and economic *value add* more closely than ever before.

If We Called It Knowledge Management Infrastructure (KMI)

KMI subsumes the Google search;

KMI subsumes the Facebook, the twitter, the email, and the phone call;

KMI subsumes the Wikipedia;

KMI subsumes MSM;

KMI subsumes academic publishing and changes how we do research, how we do science, and how we educate;

KMI subsumes “the enterprise application”;

KMI subsumes Wall Street and financial regulation;

KMI subsumes NSA TIA while protecting Freedom, freedom of expression, and the cherished civil liberties of modern liberal democracies better, IMHO, than going forward without it; think Federalist Papers 2.0.

KMI: the most difficult and important challenge of engineering and political science ever approached by humankind.

KMI: where capital is incorporated into the OS.

KMI: capitalism and democracy for the digital age.

KMI, first steps: Change nothing big. Think, talk, write, experiment, and allow present institutions and economies to continue to evolve in the face of the facticity of the One Machine.

Attempted imposition of radical change in service of some vision of some version of the KMI is unwise at this time because:

(1) we’re still at the very beginning stages; it’ll be really, really hard to design it exactly right; continual experimentation and bricolage over the course of many years will beat top down design;

(2) still too many egomen ideologies and dying paradigms at this point; better to let them die a “natural” death, e.g. creative destruction

(3) late capitalism, including the current crisis and subsequent realignment, is taking us there anyway, and will do so better than our theories about it; potential for successful KMI grows as the networked information economy grows.

Read / Write / Hear / Talk Web

I like to think
(and the time is near come)
out of many asynchronous
cybernetically enhanced conversations,
One.

I like to think
(and the sooner the better!)
of a cybernetic meadow
where mammals and computers
live together in mutually
programming harmony
like pure water
touching clear sky.

I like to think
(right now, please!)
of a cybernetic forest
filled with pines and electronics
where deer stroll peacefully
past computers
as if they were flowers
with spinning blossoms.

I like to think
(it has to be!)
of a cybernetic ecology
where we are free of our labors
and joined back to nature,
returned to our mammal
brothers and sisters,
and all watched over
by machines of loving grace.

–Richard Brautigan

Google’s Four Cloud Customers

(1) Prosumers [Consumer Web Users]

(2) Enterprises [Enterprise Software Users]

(3) Advertisers [Enterprise Software Users and Prosumers]

(4) Government [Enterprise Software Users and Netizens]

—

Q: What ties all of these “users” together?

A1: The “social graph,” the “location graph,” and the “question-answer” graph.

A2: user – n., a post through which various types of messages pass; a bundle of intelligence and intention interacting with the collectively intelligent Network; each act of each user *on grid*, and each user’s *path* through the Network, contributes to the intelligence of the Network; each user is [compensated/accredited/rewarded] in proportion to his or her contribution to the Network’s ability to meet the needs and intelligently interact with all other users in a perpetual positive feedback loop.

A3: a databank = one mindspace in the cloud = one user, one mind, one person; many capacities, many relationships, and many rights, with federated, open policies and permissions; wherein our handles will be handled by whom? those clever Googlers? the Facebook? Uncle Sam?

A4: The Memex = the Noosphere = the graphed knowledge web changes media changes advertising changes markets changes democracy.

The DOJ and Google Are Finally Getting Ready to Dance

The DOJ is gearing up to go after Google for its Yahoo search-advertising deal.

This is funny because Google’s stated corporate mission is to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” And it is working towards this goal by becoming the media company which will run the advertising OS.

Do ya think that might have “anti-trust” implications in the long run?

Partial answer: Yes, but as Google gets closer and closer to its laudable goal we are going to have to re-think the whole playing field of firm competition, our “anti-trust” laws, and probably a few other things as well.

Who do we want to lead us at this pivotal moment in our history? Change we can believe in? Or the “original mavericks for real change“?

(Hint: McCain can’t use a computer. Palin is an irresponsible Rovian maneuver, a sideshow designed to flame the old culture wars, demote our political discourse, and strip the real history (the Lincoln) out of Obama by turning this election into a cartoon. Don’t let them! The Republicans are playing the politics of cynicism at the expense of our country in a time when our country, and the entire world, need true leaders with true vision more than ever before.)

The Annotated Danny Hillis

Let’s step out of the education box (though it’s a very important part of this) for a second and look at the bigger picture:

The automated [search/advise agent] would not need to create the *explanations* [itself] — human [users] would create the *explanations* in the knowledge web, and the paths that connect them, [through both their implicit and explicit interaction with the Memex] …

In the process, [the Memex] would improve both its model of the [user] and the information in the database about the success of the *explanations* …

The process of *teaching* helps [the Memex] learn to be a better *teacher*. If an *explanation* doesn’t work, and consistently raises a particular type of question, then [the Memex] records this information in the knowledge web, where it can be used in *planning the paths* of other [users]. [User] feedback [also automatically] makes its way back to the knowledge web’s [other modeled users along the social graph] so that they can use it to improve [the] *explanations* …

Because [Google Reader] knows which subjects you are and have been interested in, it can consolidate your learning by finding connections that tie these subjects together …

What [the Memex] would do is help [the user] gain mastery of factual [and commercial] knowledge—exactly the kind of knowledge that is overwhelming us …

The shared knowledge web will be a collaborative creation in much the same sense as the World Wide Web, but it can include the mechanisms for credit assignment, usage tracking, and annotation that the Web lacks. For instance, the knowledge web will be able to give *teachers* and authors recognition or even compensation for the use of their *materials*. [Users] will be able to add annotation and links to explanations–connecting them to other content, suggesting improvements, or rating their accuracy, [and] usefulness. For instance, with such a system, it would be possible for the [user] to accept only knowledge that has been certified as correct by an authority …

The trick [will be] showing the [right media/advertisement/content] at the right time. [The Memex] can do that …

All of this raises the possibility of a different kind of economic underpinning for the knowledge web, one that is not possible on the document Web of today …

The system could also become the ultimate hiring tool, since employers could map areas of knowledge that they need in prospective employees …

The task of recording the world’s knowledge is so overwhelming that only peer-to-peer publishing can plausibly accomplish it. Yet the knowledge web is not only a record of knowledge but also a way of imparting it. The knowledge web will do for *teaching* what the World Wide Web did for publication. Peer-to-peer *teaching* will allow literally millions of people to help each other *learn* …

One of the downsides of peer-to-peer publishing is quality control. Publishers of textbooks and journals do more than market and distribute; they also edit and select. In the case of peer-reviewed journals, some of the burden of quality control is shifted to the reviewers, but it is still coordinated by the publisher. On the World Wide Web, there is no commonly accepted system of rating and peer review, nor is there a mechanism to support one. The result is chaos. The information you find by searching on the World Wide Web is often irrelevant, badly presented, or just plain wrong. It is difficult to screen out obscene material and propaganda. It is almost impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff …

The knowledge web addresses this problem by supporting an infrastructure for peer review and third-party certification. It supports mechanisms for the labeling, rating, and categorization of material, both by the author and by third parties. The browsing tools will allow information to be filtered, sorted, and labeled according to these annotations. In addition, user feedback tools will be built into the browsing software to help identify material that is particularly good, bad, or controversial …

The knowledge web will allow an even more generalized form of linking than the World Wide Web. In the knowledge web, not only the author but also third parties can create links, comments, and annotations …

The knowledge web will provide [] various payment mechanisms, including subscription, pay per play, fee for certification, and usage-based royalties …

Usage statistics would serve as a means to allocate the income among the various authors. This system has the advantage of rewarding authors for usefulness without penalizing [users] for use …

[I]t is not just the technology that is ready for this idea—people are ready for it. Email, the Web, and video games have all whetted their appetites. The younger generation is more than ready …

Future of the PBS

If I’m watching the National Convention live on the Public Broadcasting Service and I turn to my friend and make a comment in response to something David Brooks just said, will my two cents one day go (to the extent I want them to go) where they *want* to go along the “social graph” and (to the extent that you might want them to) pop up on your live viewstream?

Are my interjections worth your hearing? Are you my friend? My follower? Perhaps you want to speak for yourself?

The future of television’s talking heads is surely some as yet unimagined version of bloggingheads. I mean, just how many talking heads are out there anyway? And who will do the editing, annotating, vetting, fact-checking, routing, and re-routing of all that content?

Are you particularly interested in what Chris Matthews has to say to Keith Olbermann about that last speech, or is that just what’s on your screen, your radar? Maybe you’re more interested in what Sean Hannity had to say to that guy who used to be on Inside Edition? Or perhaps you’d rather hear what that professor who inspired you in college might have had to say? What about the sharpest and best presented analysis available from the sharpest minds available based on a forever more granular understanding of each mind’s domain expertise?

The future of television is not television because (1) the web can and will do video and audio much better in the long run, (2) the future of advertising is not push, but pull, and (3) the future of ensuring the compensation of (co-)creators is not copyright.

Can you guess who will do the pulling?

Google Chrome and the Future of the Omnibox

Look out, more baby steps towards the WebOS. (Memex?) The Googs has gone to great lengths to prevent paranoia. I for one am not worried for two reasons: (1) good beats evil in the emerging networked information economy, and (2) I agree with this reasoning , generally speaking. But let’s take a look at the fine print, courtesy of Ina Fried, just to be safe:

1. Google reserves the right to automatically update and install Chrome. This is becoming standard fare with much software these days, but worth noting. “The software which you use may automatically download and install updates from time to time from Google. These updates are designed to improve, enhance and further develop the services and may take the form of bug fixes, enhanced functions, new software modules and completely new versions. You agree to receive such updates (and permit Google to deliver these to you) as part of your use of the services.” … 3. Don’t be surprised to see more ads. Traditionally, it is Web pages and not the browser itself that serves ads. Google isn’t saying it will change this paradigm, but its terms of service don’t rule that out either. “Some of the services are supported by advertising revenue and may display advertisements and promotions. These advertisements may be targeted to the content of information stored on the services, queries made through the services or other information. The manner, mode and extent of advertising by Google on the services are subject to change without specific notice to you.”

1 + 3 = Yes they can change the paradigm overnight if they can dream up the right way to do it. (Hint: it would help them a lot to have FB’s graph, and that’s why they are pushing for an “open” decentralized social graph. [Double hint: personally, I'm pushing for databanks and a public resource Memex.]) The Omnibox is a game-changer because it’s not just a search and address bar in one; it’s also gonna be a command line down the road, one that will be able to harness the totality of all applications and data in the cloud.

And let’s not forget their mobile platform is called Android.

Feel Our Ubiquity Baby

When you’re online, you’re doing one of three things: (1) receiving, (2) hunting, or (3) doing.

Doing is about to get a whole lot easier.

Duh. Like all of this stuff, it’s so obvious in retrospect: natural language commands will be the dominant UI of the WebOS.

The most interesting part from my perspective: Example 5 [author and share]. This thing is being set up for profound network effects.

The aggregate activity of all users—creating, sharing, and forever refining and improving *commands*–will give Ubiquity and its progeny (the Memex in the databanking paradigm?) truly awesome power.

When some prosumer, pursuing his or her own interests, takes the time to create the “garbilify” command and shares it with the world, I will not need to know about it in order to use it. I will only have to want to “garbilify” something and tell my *browser* to do so. And maybe if I “garbilify” successfully, the prosumer(s) who helped me do so will be credited?

And down the road, could I make a command like “show me a list of gifts my nephew will like ranked by price that are available at the mall near me right now”? Can you see how we might get there? (Hint: future shoppers shop and make purchases “on grid” with their iPhones/Androids; and my nephew has his own personal databank just as I do.)

Or imagine I am reading an op-ed piece on nytimes.com and I come across a claim that sounds a little fishy to me. Could I highlight that text and make commands such as “show me what people whose opinion I trust have said about this” or, even better and further down the road, “fact check this”?

Of course this sort of thing will take more than a browser add-on, even one as potentially groundbreaking as Ubiquity. It does seem to me that the technologies required for such future web services are forming all around us today. I believe one of them is called the “social graph.” Can you see where this is heading?

Ubiquity and its progeny will one day bring a programming of sorts to the masses. Do you want a traditional corporation, or even a traditional foundation, to be in control of it all? Perhaps a public resource Memex then? Of the people, by the people, and for the people?