Comments on Crypto

I'm a hardcore crypto skeptic, borderline hater. Regarding digital currencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, I don't see what real problem they are solving--outside of enabling criminal activity in general, and ransomware spectacularly. 

My impression is that many of the proponents fall into 2 or 3 camps. One camp is the promoters--they have something to sell. Maybe because they are also a believer (Camp 2), often because they are a huckster. Another camp is the deep believers. These seem to be libertarian types, who have some very deep-seated dislike of any form of centralization. They see currency independence a crucial step in some form of idealized, Atlas Shrugged-ish elimination of the need for individuals to have any need for government. Then the third camp are speculators. They see the meteoric rise of crypto and are drawn in by the justifications. The difference between the deep believer camp is that the financial payoff is what gets their attention; the belief follows.

So there is another strike against cryptocurrency--the company it keeps.

There are a number of crypto supporters who jump in to say that the tech is about much more than currencies. But I never hear even vaguely convincing examples(1). People talk about smart contracts, but they seem very vague, it isn't clear to me how they practically improve on "dumb" contracts (other than the satisfaction of removing a "middleman", even if that doesn't save money or have any tangible benefit), and it seems like they assume away the enforcement problem.

Then there are NFTs! The first time I read about them, I thought it was an elaborate tech in-joke. NFTs are screaming "The Emperor Has No Clothes"--setting aside extreme niche, hobbyist uses, that could probably also be accomplished with traditional commercial centralization (e.g., being able to prove were an early backer of some Indie artist). 

I've listened to podcasts on the topics, to see if I can find out what I am missing, and they usually just convince me more. I should admit, I am at some risk of "motivated reasoning", especially regarding NFTs, because their promoters talk about creating "digitial scarcity". As if scarcity can be a social good! I hate scarcity, I want abundance!!!! 

***********************

(1) Granted, it in principle it could be that time will find great use cases, even if nobody is citing them now. E.g., Friendster or even FB didn't foresee the power of the news feed. I will still keep my bet.

Nonprofit or Government-Sponsored Social Graph?

Social networks are likely central to many forms of future business innovation. Innovations such as experimenting with business models other than advertising and marketing. The problem: it is now all-but-impossible to get a critical mass of people to sign up for yet another network. This creates a huge barrier to entry, entrenching the established networks (Facebook foremost among them). App.net is one relatively well-known example of how even a high-profile, technically outstanding entrant, with something truly innovative to offer, quickly fails.

Is it possible to create a durable, viable, public social graph as a service? I am thinking of something either sponsored by a quasi-governmental entity (like Fannie Mae, or ICANN), or funded as a stand-alone organization (like Mozilla).

In particular, with the looming expectation that Facebook and the rest are going to be subject to coming government regulation, could the requirement to allow users to export their social network be part of such regulation?

Media: Nix the Glitz

Opening theme songs in TV and radio shows are such a tiresome waste of time. Now that I consume all such content via DVR or Podcast, I always skip over them. I suspect most people do the same, or would like to but just not quite enough to go to the effort of fiddling with the controls on their device. Why does anyone think this empty content is a good use of time?

I even use a compression setting on Podcast Addict to compress the time between NPR stories. I really don't care who the reporter is, where they are reporting from, and I have always hated the precious interlude music.

The most extreme version of this is all the inane pre-game hype before sporting events. From a purely commercial perspective, this form of empty content does make better sense than the useless intro filler. But I don't really understand why viewers would tolerate it, most particularly in the DVR age. If you are a superfan who wants lots of backstory, etc, , fine, but superfans aren't going to learn anything useful from the hype-rich, content-deficient pregame garbage. The internet is what they need.

So although I called out NPR in my extreme example, they actually score pretty high in this regard. The NPR ethos in general is to find important and fascinating stories, ply their master storyteller skills, and let the story tell and sell itself. No hype required.

Location sharing

Almost as soon as I got a smartphone, equipped with Google Latitude opt-in location-sharing (long-since subsumed into Google+), I have believed that smartphone-based location-sharing will eventually have some significant effect on relationships. How could a person conduct an illicit affair, if their partner can track their location? Conversely, how could one explain refusing one's partner's location request?

In the ensuing 4 years, I have been surprised how slow adoption has been. As far as I can tell from my very young adult children, there is little to no location-sharing practiced. Not even that ad-hoc kind, enabled by Glympse. So maybe I am wrong, but I still believe this will slowly but surely come to pass.

There may be an intervening period of location-cheating apps, but then the discovery of one of those by your partner would be highly incriminating.

How Long Till Location-Sharing Makes Cheating Impossible?

Frictionless, always-on location-sharing has been possible at least since the earliest days of Android (2008). I have been surprised that it hasn't become more common, but I have to think it will. The Google+ implementation is very nice, and there are other options as well.

From the time I first discovered it, I wondered what impact this would have on relationship cheaters. The analogy would be the surge in spouse-installed PC spyware--such as Who, What, When--in the early, pre-cloud, pre-social network days of home computers.

While I doubted by generation would embrace location-sharing, I figured "digital natives" would. Hasn't happened as fast as I would have thought. But still, I have to think it will happen. And once always-on location-sharing becomes normative, how do you refuse or temporarily suspend your significant other? That alone would obviously be the proverbial "red flag".

(I suppose I can also foresee partially-effective countermeasures, apps that interfere with or false-report location. But if you are using something like the built in Google+, that could be hard.)

Remember when cell phones were banned in gyms?

This article talks about a bar that has preemptively banned Google Glass. Made me think of the progression of cell phones...sometime around 2002, when cell phones had become very common, the YMCA I go to "banned" using them on the exercise floor. That rule was more or less respected. Then a couple of years later, as cell phone cameras became the norm, the rule didn't change, but the level of posting was increased, including the locker rooms.

Here's the funny thing...now that phones have gotten more powerful, and cameras, even video, could easily be used surreptitiously, respect for the rule has fallen by the wayside. Phones are so mutli-purpose, that people use them everywhere, including the locker room for listenting to music, answering texts, who knows what else, maybe using exercise tracker apps.

Anyway, assuming Google Glass or something like it catches on, I predict a similar cycle of resistance then surrender.

Corporate Punishment and Deterrence

Corporations are indispensable and vital in a modern economy, but let's not kid ourselves, they are utterly  amoral. Given the circumstances, almost any publicly-held company will eventually morph into a self-serving, competition-destroying, self-dealing monster. There is an old saying--every business person is champion of free market competition--except in their own industry, where they are more than happy to engage in special pleading, if that advances their interests by securing subsidies, tax breaks or best of all, regulatory barriers to competition.

So it is useful to think about the mechanisms for disciplining corporate excesses. Sometimes, the market and consumer behavior works. Certainly for routine matters such as incremental price increases, the market reaction is the best determinant, much better than any sort regulatory control. But in other situations, especially where uniquely defended market positions exist, such as created by network effects, the issues are more complex, and aren't addressed by a simple vote-with-your-wallet incremental buying decision.

So it is especially heartening to me to read about the backlash against Facebook-Instagram, for their recent gross over-reach. (Even if the NY Post report that "Instagram "may have shed nearly a quarter of its daily active users in the wake of the debacle" is likely way overstated.) 

For every one high-profile consumer-backlash issue, there are hundreds of cases of corporate bullying and self-dealing that go un-sanctioned. Therefore, we must hope that for the few cases that achieve a high profile to serve as effective deterrents, the punishment has to quite severe. If the transgressing companies don't pay a high enough price, on the rare occasion where they are tried in the court of public opinion, then there is little deterrence effect.

Hence, for a severe serial offender like Facebook-Instagram, netizens should all be rooting for major blowback. And hoping that even if (when) Instagram backtracks a little bit, users still stay away.

Urban Dictionary Is Amazing

Like a mini-Wikipedia.

Old Rituals, Undone by Information Age

• Letters and mail-call started disappearing more than 10 years ago, with the widespread adoption of email.
• The family phone--its competition for the line, knowing who your kids are talking to--started disappearing 7-10 years ago, as it began increasingly common to get cell phones for increasingly young children.
• In my case, at least, the venerable bedside alarm clock--with its need to be set every evening--has been replaced by the multi-alarm flexibility of the phone.

I wonder how long until we don't need to carry a wallet?

Yelp Found Moderately Useful

I've been a bit of a Yelp skeptic, but I did find it mildly useful for looking up local restaurants and the like while traveling.

Online Habits Obfuscator

The linked article talks about counter-measures against web sites tracking and accumulating your personal information. One idea I had that I haven't seen mentioned is an "obfuscator", to execute fake searches, to compromise the value of your real data. A little wasteful of bandwidth, but seems like a good way to fight back.

Full-Text Search for English Lit

When I was in my late teens / early twenties (20+ years ago) I thought sometimes about how computer technology would transform various activities in the future. This included dreaming of having searchable books for English compositions and term papers. The other day, my daughter, a 10th grader, came to me saying "Dad, could I find Lord of the Flies online? I really need to be able to do CTRL-F to find quotes I am searching for".


I leaned back and said "Daughter, let me tell you a story". After I "regaled" her with the observation above, I helped her find a free, online version. She was elated. I only wish I had the chance to experience that as a student.

First Use of E-Boarding Pass

I opted to have my boarding pass emailed to my phone. First chance I have had to use that option. It worked well enough, one less thing to remember.

Have You Heard of ChaCha?

Have you heard of ChaCha? I hadn't until recently. It flies under the radar of even very tech-savvy adults. Apparently my kids have been using it for a couple of years. Although it has gone through a couple of business models, ChaCha is now known for providing very quick, free responses to queries you text it. If that sounds a lot like texting someone to Google for you--it is. Like TechCrunch, I am positively dumbfounded that this could lead to a profitable business model, but apparently it does (in no small part because many of its contracted employees do piecework for what amounts to way sub-minimum wage).

Net Neutrality Is Important, and Pay-Per-View is NOT Analagous

The complications notwithstanding, net neutrality, broadly speaking, is what exists now. Among the many benefits net neutrality brings is that it fosters innovation. The great fear of the net neutrality purists, however, is that without federal rules, the Internet providers will begin cutting deals with content providers to give certain traffic priority over other traffic. For instance, Verizon could cut a deal with YouTube that allowed its videos to stream faster than, say, a Hulu video. Or it could even block Hulu. Or it could begin charging consumers extra for Netflix movies that were of better quality than ordinary streaming. As Harold Feld, Public Knowledge’s legal director, puts it: “Companies do what companies do.”

(Which brings up one of the true oddities about the fervor over net neutrality. Cable television distributors make decisions all the time about what people can see and how much they have to pay for it. If special sports-only tiers aren’t an example of placing some content over other content, I don’t know what is. Yet because it is merely television, and not the sacred Internet, nobody seems to view this practice as a crime against humanity. But I digress.) [my italics]

The first paragraph is a good explanation of net neutrality, but the immediate following aside is completely irrelevant. The huge flaw in the second paragraph is that it confuses arrangements between content provider and consumer with the role of the traffic carrier in the middle. Nobody is saying YouTube can't charge more for streaming high-definition content, for example. The point is that it is not the business of the man-in-the-middle, the internet carrier, to get involved in that (or any other arrangement). Packets are packets; if you want to charge more for the volume of packets, that's fine, but make no distinctions about the content of a packet.

I have always been a free-market, low-regulation kind of guy (you might call that a traditional regulatory conservative) . But traditional conservatives would  generally recognize the need for a level of regulation in natural monopolies, and most particularly in utilities. The internet backbone is very much a utility--it carries a commodity that most people use on a daily basis. It is very appropriate that is be subjected to a minimal level of regulation

All the more so in the case of the internet, where most of the development costs were borne by the DoD and universities, not by the private carriers that now benefit from this wonderful invention of the "commons".

It's frustrating that elite professional journalists, and their editors (New York Times) could make such elementary mistakes.

At Snopes, a Quest to Debunk Misinformation Online - NYTimes.com

At Snopes, a Quest to Debunk Misinformation Online - NYTimes.com

Wikipedia Is A Teaching Opportunity

My kids are forever complaining about how teachers won't let them cite Wikipedia as a source for reports. Now I do understand, kids would like to use Wikipedia, and nothing else. It was much the same when I was a young student--teachers would make us use at least three sources, only one of which could be an encyclopedia. But we were allowed to use an encyclopedia. Many teachers are completely banning Wikipedia. Their rationalization? It's not authoritative, "anybody" can edit Wikipedia.

They are SO missing a great teaching opportunity. There is so much to think about with Wikipedia. It is fundamentally an astounding collaborative intellectual achievement. It is remarkably resilient. And it contains articles on topical and pop-culture subjects that would just never be found in a traditional encyclopedia. Oh, and the fact that "anybody can edit"--this is often a feature, not a bug[1], because it lets errors get corrected, and quickly.

Dissing Wikipedia--especially when not having a full command of the facts[2]--takes a toll on credibility. Sorta like exaggerating the dangers of drugs and alcohol[3]--in my book, it's always a long-term mistake to mis-represent your subject for the short-term benefit of "winning" a debate.

If any teachers out there are interested in this topic, I might be up for collaborating on creating curiculum for a seminar or unit on Wikipedia.

NOTES

[1] This very link is an example of the kind of topical thing that Wikipedia is indispensable for documenting. (Ironically note that this link it not to Wikipedia, but an extremely edgy offshoot of it...which would make for a supplementary lesson in the Wikipedia curriculum, and just points out how rich the subject is...

[2] Just to pick one...as it has developed, Wikipedia has put more and more limitations around the "anybody can edit" policy.

[3] In no way should this be interpreted as a blithe, laissez-faire skepticism that drugs and alcohol are bad. No debate, they bad. My point is that their badness more often manifests in the longer-term, so exaggerating their negative effects in the short-term torpedoes one's credibility, particularly with an audience--teens--that is, for well-established reasons, especially prone to the bias of over-weighting short-term evidence.

Is Google's Search Quality Being Eroded by SEO?

When Google first appeared on the scene, it was almost magical. That was over a decade ago, back when the home screen was even plainer than now, back before Gmail, and it said "BETA" in big letters, but it sure didn't feel like beta. More often, now, though, all the top results I get are eCommerce sites. I really have to dig and refine to get useful information.

Facebook vs LinkedIn

I thought Facebook would eat LinkedIn's lunch. Then I changed my mind--they seem to be serving two very different purposes, even in cases where their audiences do overlap. LinkedIn is strictly business, while Facebook of course is more social. So a lot of professionals, such as myself, have no interest at all in having our colleagues and professional acquaintances as Facebook friends. I think this is really helping keep LinkedIn going.

But it also seems like a barrier that Facebook could easily overcome. They just need to implement a strong typing of a Friend, where the choices are business vs personal. Posts would only be visible to Business Friends via an explicit opt-in approach.

Re: NYT planning to charge for web access

Interesting. They have been through this so many times. I do think it is probably the right business move. I agree with the hybrid part. Per article charges are a loser. I think they should offer an all-you-can-eat model for $50-100 / year, and a limited but reasonably high number of articles per month for $5/month or $35/year.