Beware of geeks bearing gifts(aralbalkan.com)
aralbalkan.com
Beware of geeks bearing gifts
http://aralbalkan.com/notes/beware-of-geeks-bearing-gifts/
74 comments
You cannot use Coke as an example. They have a strategy that can aptly be described as "profits before people". They've hired terrorist groups to kill workers who've done nothing but try to organize a union to have enough money to feed their children.
http://killercoke.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola http://colombiajournal.org/colombia73.htm
It's like saying that the mining companies in Virgina have done nothing but help the people in that region, forgetting of course, the Battle of Blair Mountain, or the wages, or the treatment, or the pollution.
Some companies actually care. But Coke does not. It will never. You speak about the solution to a problem being motivated by profit and that is exactly what the unions were, a problem that was solved by the need to profit.
Some companies need to be stopped. To be taken down. Not because they produce a bad product, but because they are to far detached from "the human condition", and therefore see people as simply an obstacle to their profits.
http://killercoke.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola http://colombiajournal.org/colombia73.htm
It's like saying that the mining companies in Virgina have done nothing but help the people in that region, forgetting of course, the Battle of Blair Mountain, or the wages, or the treatment, or the pollution.
Some companies actually care. But Coke does not. It will never. You speak about the solution to a problem being motivated by profit and that is exactly what the unions were, a problem that was solved by the need to profit.
Some companies need to be stopped. To be taken down. Not because they produce a bad product, but because they are to far detached from "the human condition", and therefore see people as simply an obstacle to their profits.
Hey pearkes, your reply was intelligent and thought provoking. You've made a valid point, provided sources and had a structurally well set out argument. But I just can't help myself to try and preserve the English language and point out the faux-pas I see when intelligent people comment. Please don't use 'then' when the correct word is 'than'. It shits me to no end. I really hope that was a typo and if it is, do excuse me. If not, don't take my comment as malice, please take it on board. I love to see a great comment become bulletproof/immutable, without dissenters picking holes in it because of bad grammar. Sorry if I've gone a bit overboard with your comment over one word! It really just is a compulsion of mine to keep 'then' and 'than' pure! Kudos to you otherwise though.
HA! I literally caught myself doing this yesterday.[1] It's a terrible habit. My mother would agree and give you a high five. :)
[1] https://twitter.com/pearkes/status/369868903456862208
[1] https://twitter.com/pearkes/status/369868903456862208
In other words, they have permission to make mistakes, because we have lower expectations of them? If that's the case, you're doing us all a disservice by telling us they're not evil after all.
No, I think I may not be making myself clear.
Good regulatory structures, like we've been trying to develop alongside the emergence of the free market as "the way", are important, along with the consumer being keenly aware of where there product comes from, the morale implications of buying such a product, and so on.
However, it's hard to debate that the undeniable force of a humans desire to move _themselves_ forward (or their company, for the sake of themselves) has taken us up and to the right in situations like these.
Good regulatory structures, like we've been trying to develop alongside the emergence of the free market as "the way", are important, along with the consumer being keenly aware of where there product comes from, the morale implications of buying such a product, and so on.
However, it's hard to debate that the undeniable force of a humans desire to move _themselves_ forward (or their company, for the sake of themselves) has taken us up and to the right in situations like these.
> (or their company, for the sake of themselves)
But not their governments? Isn't "America is number 1" still a profit motive?
But not their governments? Isn't "America is number 1" still a profit motive?
Funnily enough, Coke are already draining the wells of villages that do have them.
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2006/mar/19/business.india1
Yea, let me clear – I'm not saying a huge multi-national corporation is squeaky clean because of one positive thing they've done.
The point I was trying to make is that the motivation of said company may not be to "save the world", but the results (and the impressive efficiency of attaining them) may do a lot of good, even if indirectly.
The point I was trying to make is that the motivation of said company may not be to "save the world", but the results (and the impressive efficiency of attaining them) may do a lot of good, even if indirectly.
Efficiency is not the only thing that matters though. As drcongo pointed out Coke is very efficiently depleting the normal aquifers that native farmers rely on in their quest to build a market for their product.
Now if we consider that Coke is a luxury when compared to a necessity like water for drinking and irrigation, we should conclude that a luxury that precludes a necessity is superfluous and should be prohibited. That includes prohibiting "efficient businesses" when their actions to earn profits negatively impact the basic level of life.
Now if we consider that Coke is a luxury when compared to a necessity like water for drinking and irrigation, we should conclude that a luxury that precludes a necessity is superfluous and should be prohibited. That includes prohibiting "efficient businesses" when their actions to earn profits negatively impact the basic level of life.
If Coca Cola is depleting a shared resource, then there is an unpriced negative externality. The solution is for the government to transfer some of the gains from the new more efficient system to those worse off under the new equilibrium.
This can be accomplished by taxing the corporation for its use of the aquifers, and transferring the payments directly to those that lost use of their wells.
The end result is that everyone ends up with more wealth than they had under the old system.
This can be accomplished by taxing the corporation for its use of the aquifers, and transferring the payments directly to those that lost use of their wells.
The end result is that everyone ends up with more wealth than they had under the old system.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. ~~ Adam Smith
Positive results occur only when those companies are well-regulated, else exploitation is the most probable outcome. If companies companies can exploit and make more money, they will usually go ahead with that.
It's the same thing Pepsi is accused of as well:
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2011/pepsipositivewater.ht...
"Pepsico, one of the largest food and beverage companies in the world, has begun claiming that it has achieved "positive water balance" in India, that it is "Giving Back MORE WATER Than We Take".
Wonderful as it may sound, Pepsico's claims of achieving "positive water balance" simply do not add up."
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2011/pepsipositivewater.ht...
"Pepsico, one of the largest food and beverage companies in the world, has begun claiming that it has achieved "positive water balance" in India, that it is "Giving Back MORE WATER Than We Take".
Wonderful as it may sound, Pepsico's claims of achieving "positive water balance" simply do not add up."
Here is a TED talk from Melinda French Gates talking about exactly this:
http://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_french_gates_what_nonprofit...
Here's one thing about "complementary services".
"Smart companies try to commoditize their products' complements." http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
Yes, Google and Facebook have their agenda, but that's their object, to make an internet connection as a commodity as possible.
In the same way auto companies want a gas station in every corner (and the opposite, gas companies want cars to be popular)
"Smart companies try to commoditize their products' complements." http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLetterV.html
Yes, Google and Facebook have their agenda, but that's their object, to make an internet connection as a commodity as possible.
In the same way auto companies want a gas station in every corner (and the opposite, gas companies want cars to be popular)
Life is not zero-sum. Just because big corporations gain, doesn't mean you have to lose.
And please, stop with the slavery metaphor. It's offensive. There are actual slaves in Africa that would love the serfdom of targeted ads.
And please, stop with the slavery metaphor. It's offensive. There are actual slaves in Africa that would love the serfdom of targeted ads.
When the internet is being used as a "right" or commodity like food and your digital persona, which you don't "own", is being used to profit someone else, and your "right" to it is revoked if you choose to "own" it, the metaphor is apt.
No, it's not apt at all. When your digital self allows for your physical self to be whipped, starved, or forced to mate in the name of profit, it will be apt.
Sure, it's not all rainbows and unicorns. But let's not weaken our arguments with ludicrous hyperbole.
Sure, it's not all rainbows and unicorns. But let's not weaken our arguments with ludicrous hyperbole.
It's not considering that everyone's privacy is being violated. You have no rights if it's in digital form. Your speech is monitored. You are physically removed from a country because of a misunderstood tweet. [An example : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312].
The threats of violence and detention against your will by nation states are real, and having Google and other tech companies being complicit is scary. Why are they complicit? Because of the same threats of violence.
We are slaves. Maybe not whipped, maybe not starved, but threatened, poisoned and our children's children are in debt slavery because of the rainbows and unicorns we think is just around the corner if we borrow a little bit more. And by the sweat of their brow will we pay for the NSA / GCHQ, the wars and such like.
The threats of violence and detention against your will by nation states are real, and having Google and other tech companies being complicit is scary. Why are they complicit? Because of the same threats of violence.
We are slaves. Maybe not whipped, maybe not starved, but threatened, poisoned and our children's children are in debt slavery because of the rainbows and unicorns we think is just around the corner if we borrow a little bit more. And by the sweat of their brow will we pay for the NSA / GCHQ, the wars and such like.
On one side: people as literal property, with no rights. They and their children are treated no better than intelligent cattle, and their continued survival is a function of their current economic worth.
On the other hand: a private company offers you a free service which if you may voluntarily opt-in to. If you so choose, they will use to collect information of value to try and sell you stuff. You may then choose, or not, to engage with those advertisements. In many cases, there are trivial options to hinder or reduce this tracking, including options provided by the companies themselves.
It is certainly hyperbole, and succeeds only in (a) demeaning further those millions of people trapped in real slavery, and (b) weakening any arguments on the negative aspects of internet surveillance.
On the other hand: a private company offers you a free service which if you may voluntarily opt-in to. If you so choose, they will use to collect information of value to try and sell you stuff. You may then choose, or not, to engage with those advertisements. In many cases, there are trivial options to hinder or reduce this tracking, including options provided by the companies themselves.
It is certainly hyperbole, and succeeds only in (a) demeaning further those millions of people trapped in real slavery, and (b) weakening any arguments on the negative aspects of internet surveillance.
I think there are more slaves coming in through San Francisco and Seattle to the US.
Help! My digital self has been enslaved by corporate missionaries and forced to drink coke. Can we calm down on the emotive metaphors a little so I can see the actual point?
The take home I got was to question Facebook and Google's motives.
Loon and Android (or a free alternative) could make for a pretty sweet peer to peer alternative Internet.
Perhaps an alternative would be to bounce signals off of other satellites.
http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/edn-moments/4404759/Pro...
Loon and Android (or a free alternative) could make for a pretty sweet peer to peer alternative Internet.
Perhaps an alternative would be to bounce signals off of other satellites.
http://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/edn-moments/4404759/Pro...
We shouldn't be relying on for-profit companies to provide a service as basic (in today's modern world) and powerful (education, health, etc) as internet access... because they have nefarious motives in mind.
Instead we should be relying on our governments, who have our interests in mind and whose primary job is to protect our rights. ... ..
um...
oops
never mind
Instead we should be relying on our governments, who have our interests in mind and whose primary job is to protect our rights. ... ..
um...
oops
never mind
In Africa it's a hard proposition to find a government that definitively has less nefarious motives than Google...
When you elect anarchists, it's hardly surprising that the government stops functioning.
I agree, but we have never done so.
So clearly the Internet (nee ARPANET) should live free of government interference.
Sounds about as logical as "get the government out of my medicare".
Sounds about as logical as "get the government out of my medicare".
I really hope nobody takes this guys post seriously. For the one situation that I am personally familiar with, Western companies taking an interest in Indian villages has been a great boon to the locals.
There are many idealists in the West that don't understand what the impact is of even simple things that they take for granted. If a man provides fresh drinking water to a remote Indian village, and if the water comes in bottles with advertisements for products, it might seem evil to this guy, but actually, from the point of view of the villager, its still an unambiguously good thing.
Nobody at the bottom of the Pyramid cares whether or not they have to log into Google in order to access their free online classes from EdX, Udacity, Khan academy etc. They are just thankful to have that access, which they did not have in the past.
And beyond that, its not like they cannot create a profile with Google and then ignore it, and connect to the Internet outside of Google products. Its not like Google blocks access to other search engines, or to other competing services. You still have access to the Internet.
Also, its not even clear that you HAVE to make a Google ID to access Loon internet.
This poster should try some other mechanism ... some non-corporate mechanism, and try to bring some benefits to India. If he succeeds, then I will support his model.
I certainly won't withdraw support from Google over his bullshit blog post which has zero touch with reality.
There are many idealists in the West that don't understand what the impact is of even simple things that they take for granted. If a man provides fresh drinking water to a remote Indian village, and if the water comes in bottles with advertisements for products, it might seem evil to this guy, but actually, from the point of view of the villager, its still an unambiguously good thing.
Nobody at the bottom of the Pyramid cares whether or not they have to log into Google in order to access their free online classes from EdX, Udacity, Khan academy etc. They are just thankful to have that access, which they did not have in the past.
And beyond that, its not like they cannot create a profile with Google and then ignore it, and connect to the Internet outside of Google products. Its not like Google blocks access to other search engines, or to other competing services. You still have access to the Internet.
Also, its not even clear that you HAVE to make a Google ID to access Loon internet.
This poster should try some other mechanism ... some non-corporate mechanism, and try to bring some benefits to India. If he succeeds, then I will support his model.
I certainly won't withdraw support from Google over his bullshit blog post which has zero touch with reality.
People who assume that the developing world is some kind of ad-free utopia are also in for a rude shock if they actually visit it for long enough to realize the only painted buildings in many villages are decorated with the branding of a mobile phone service provider, the fridges are all supplied by beverage companies and even the crummiest of market stalls are decorated with sponsored bunting. I don't think they'll be too upset if Bollywood banners follow them round the web and some analyst working with anonymised data sees an surge in searches for Hinduism.
Frankly, if anyone loses from adequate speed internet in remote locations in the underdeveloped world, it's Western corporations that aren't very good at targeting their ad spend...
Frankly, if anyone loses from adequate speed internet in remote locations in the underdeveloped world, it's Western corporations that aren't very good at targeting their ad spend...
Google wants to wire-up Africa because they know that a certain percentage will use their services (it's hard to completely avoid Google on the internet). So what? The entire argument rests on the premise that profit does not align with public good. That's just completely wrong.
Remember that both Google and Facebook are publicly‐traded transnational corporations that are legally mandated to act in the best interests of their shareholders.
This is a huge misconception. The idea that corporations should maximize shareholder value above all else is very modern and likely came from Jack Welch. The truth is that there is no enforceable legal mandate for corporations or their officers to maximize profits.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-sharehol...
This is a huge misconception. The idea that corporations should maximize shareholder value above all else is very modern and likely came from Jack Welch. The truth is that there is no enforceable legal mandate for corporations or their officers to maximize profits.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/corpgov/2012/06/26/the-sharehol...
That blog is an extremely shallow ad for a book. Is there some new development that invalidates Dodge v Ford Motor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company
From the linked wikipedia article:
Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn’t that interesting.
Dodge is often misread or mistaught as setting a legal rule of shareholder wealth maximization. This was not and is not the law. Shareholder wealth maximization is a standard of conduct for officers and directors, not a legal mandate. The business judgment rule [which was also upheld in this decision] protects many decisions that deviate from this standard. This is one reading of Dodge. If this is all the case is about, however, it isn’t that interesting.
That was an excellent article, thanks for sharing. I'm looking forward to getting a copy of the author's book - it sounds fascinating.
The attempt to compare being shown ads to being a slave is the most offensive thing I have read in months.
Aral should be ashamed of himself. He should publicly apologise.
Aral should be ashamed of himself. He should publicly apologise.
Providing internet access is not the same as locking somebody into their cloud services.
There is such a thing as win win in business. Yes, Google benefits if more people are on the internet, because of the network effect - more people searching, more stuff to be found, and, yes, more potential advertising space. It's useful even without lock in.
There is such a thing as win win in business. Yes, Google benefits if more people are on the internet, because of the network effect - more people searching, more stuff to be found, and, yes, more potential advertising space. It's useful even without lock in.
Depends on the implementation, though; if you need to create and sign in with a $foo account to use the sponsored-by-$foo internet connection, it's not lock-in per se, but has some of the same effects.
That kind of thing would indeed be questionable, but it didn't sound to me as if Google wanted to implement it that way. From their history it also seems unlikely (ie giving away Android).
The last paragraph:
"Yes, of course everyone deserves access to the Internet. But they deserve access to an open Internet where they can own their Digital Selves..."
Does everyone actually deserve internet access? Is that an inalienable human right? If people want something of value, they have to provide value in return. If Google and Facebook see value in the people's data, then they are willing to give them "free" internet. It is a choice to give those corporations your data in exchange for their services.
Saying that people deserve something can be dangerous. Who provides these things that we all deserve? If there's no economic incentive, why would someone spend the money to provide goods and services for other people?
Does everyone actually deserve internet access? Is that an inalienable human right? If people want something of value, they have to provide value in return. If Google and Facebook see value in the people's data, then they are willing to give them "free" internet. It is a choice to give those corporations your data in exchange for their services.
Saying that people deserve something can be dangerous. Who provides these things that we all deserve? If there's no economic incentive, why would someone spend the money to provide goods and services for other people?
There are hundreds (thousands?) of years of discussion on positive versus negative rights, and not everyone is convinced either way. It doesn't seem particularly fruitful to open that can of worms here.
These days you can't hardly swing a "Coexist" bumper sticker without hitting someone claiming that X, Y, and/or Z are inalienable human rights.
> Google and Facebook want to give everyone access to the Internet because they need more raw materials. More data.
The first sentence seems basically true, but the second, and the general gist of the article, is off-base. Both companies make money, on aggregate, when there are more people using the internet. Google gets more searches, more youtube views. Facebook gets more, and more active, members. Both are monetizable eyeballs without needing any fancy data extraction.
Do we really need to posit some nefarious lust for "your data!!1" here? I don't see the need; the simpler hypothesis has enough explanatory power.
Do we really need to posit some nefarious lust for "your data!!1" here? I don't see the need; the simpler hypothesis has enough explanatory power.
Bah! Who cares who if Facebook or Google makes money if it's a net win for everyone. They make money but those using the service learn how to use the internet and a few learn more then that. Those few then figure out how to build their own ISP. It's a conversation and a conservation has to have two sides. This provides a reason for FB and Google to start the conversation. It's a rising tide that lifts everyones boats. Sure it's optimistic of me and maybe those that use FB's internet never rise above that but I doubt it and it's better than nothing.
Sorry, do we know that you'll only be able to get online if you only have a Google account? I haven't heard anything like that, and if, as I suspect, nothing hints that this will happen, then this is much gnashing of teeth about nothing.
If Google does require a Google account to get online, then, okay, it's not as selfless as before, but it's still internet access where people had none before. The possibility of accessing Wikipedia and Khan Academy is worth an inactive Google account, at least.
If Google does require a Google account to get online, then, okay, it's not as selfless as before, but it's still internet access where people had none before. The possibility of accessing Wikipedia and Khan Academy is worth an inactive Google account, at least.
What is a "Google Account"? It's a fuzzy thing - they track you and sell you without a log in or not.
Great, so completely free internet, with exactly as many strings attached as everyone else gets, even though they don't get theirs from Google. I don't see why people are complaining. Getting tracked is an issue completely orthogonal to the internet access Google is trying to give people.
You're telling me that you don't think every HTTP request could be tracked by Google? Someone not on Loon wouldn't have that.
Could Google provide free internet without tracking people?
Could Google provide free internet without tracking people?
I'm sure it's possible. I don't think NSA-style tracking of all requests would be in Google's best interest, as it wouldn't do wonders for their image.
They don't care about their image. They care if they get locked up if they don't comply.
Who is "they"? Google is an enormous organization that goes to great lengths to protect its image. As an organization, I think Google is more concerned with its image than jail.
But they could do this with other ISPs as well. The problem is the NSA.
I'd argue that Google-sponsored Internet is better than no Internet. Also I don't see any "digital enslavement" plans embedded in Google or Facebook initiative. Just giving those people Internet will be enough to benefit Google and Facebook hugely, as probably significant percent of newly connected will start using their services. They don't need to capture every single person, therefore they don't need to conspire to "enslave" anyone.
Yeah Microsoft gives windows to schools. Generous bastards.
They do that so students grow up knowing one operating system: Windows. Such students grow up, graduate, and then feel more comfortable using it in the workplace (and at home); it ends up being a net positive for Microsoft. If schools didn't receive free Windows licenses, such schools might end up using Ubuntu! Imagine how that would affect Microsoft's future profits and product adoption if the next generation of workers (especially those potential .NET programmers, CTOs, etc) were more familiar and comfortable with Linux!
No different than the program Apple had for American schools, if I am not mistaken.
Come now, we don't talk about the Apple machines in almost every American elementary school from kindergarten on. Surely these children won't be trained into using Apple systems; the real imprinting will occur 10 years later when they take high school keyboarding classes.
Did they ever give free copies to a retirement home?
There might be more than one reason for that...
[deleted]
Timeo danaos et dona ferentes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeo_Danaos_et_dona_ferentes
Part of my favorite passage from the Aeneid :); the literal translation is a little different from the English phrase that's become popular, but I've always thought it amazing that people from that time period had the same insights we get from very modern situations. (see: quis custodiet ipsos custodes, Catullan love poetry, etc - it's a shame more Roman literature doesn't survive).
I am pretty sure my internet service provider is already doing that. I don't see the difference. Did i miss something? They didn't say it's free.
What, your ISP already mines data about you and sells it? If I knew that about mine I would leave it ASAP.
They sell statistic data and have a "DNS failed" page with there "search engine". They also sell my phonenumber if i don't opt-out.
Can you back that up, or at least name that ISP?
Good luck if it's a state monopoly (mine is). Between bad internet and no internet, I chose bad internet.
It doesn't have to be that way. It may be that way at the moment but the internet was originally built to be fault-tolerant and decentralized, and we can provide that alternative to the corporate dominated net.
Even if a "neutral ISP" was providing the access, they could always partner with a Google or Facebook to produce the same result.
Arguably some Internet is better than no Internet but I don't think there is a complete solution until there is enough competition at the local access that a user can choose between a completely open pipe and Google like alternatives?
Arguably some Internet is better than no Internet but I don't think there is a complete solution until there is enough competition at the local access that a user can choose between a completely open pipe and Google like alternatives?
Even if Google restricts the access only to their products (and they don't), you are better off with "corporate-tainted" internet than without.
You've read "Who Owns The Future" too then?
TL;DR: trading Africa's third world problems for first world problems is a bad thing because targeted advertising.
This could better be said as beware of Content Providers in control of the Pipes.
Funny you should mention Coke. It turns out that these businesses desiring profits can pretty efficiently solve or make improvement to problems, like distribution, in places like Africa.[1]
Regardless of their motivation, either with balloons or wires, the deep pockets and ingenuity of Google and Facebook will connect people who aren't. And, they'll do it faster and more efficiently then government, charity.
Their "evil" desire for profits will benefit us, as Coke has, apparently.[2]
[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/25/coke-applie... (2012)
[2] It's obviously not all roses, with the health concerns, etc. Point is that they solved a problem motivated by profit, and now health organizations, etc. are able to learn from that, directly or just by watching. They're moving us in generally the right direction.