Introduction: In the beginning, the World Wide Web was an intimidating collection, interlinked yet unindexed. Clutter and confusion reigned. It was impossible to sift the valuable from the trashy, the reliable from the exploitative, and the true from the false. The Web was exciting and democratic -- to the point of anarchy . . . Then came Google. Google was clean. It was pure. It was simple. It accepted no money for ranking one page higher than another. And it offered what seemed to be neutral, democratic rankings: if one site was referred to more than another, it was deemed more relevant to users and would be listed above the rest. And so the biggest, if not the best, search engine was created. [The Googlization of Everything, Siva Vaidhyanathan, p. 1-2] We talk so much about platforms these days, it is easy to forget that they are still surrounded by the "world wide web" of home pages, personal blogs, news sites, oddball discussion spaces, corporate sites, games, porn, 404 error pages, file listings, and forgotten ephemera. Over the course of more than a decade, the kinds of encounters with information and people that were once scattered across the web have been largely gathered up by a small set of companies onto a handful of social media platforms. Today we are, by and large, speaking from platforms. In fact, when these platforms are compared with their less regulated counterparts, it is to Reddit or 4chan - big platforms compared with smaller ones, mainstream platforms compared with more marginal ones - not with the open web, not any more. [Custodians of the Internet, Tarleton Gillespie, p. 14-15] The whole [I]nternet thing was supposed to create the world’s best information resource in all of history . . . Everything would be made visible. And instead we’re living in this time of total opacity where you don’t know why you see the news you see. You don’t know if it’s the same news that someone else sees. You don’t know who made it be that way. You don’t know who’s paid to change what you see. Everything is totally obscure in a profound way that it never was before . . . It’s like, why would you go sign up for an evil hypnotist who’s explicitly saying that his whole purpose is to get you to do things that people have paid him to get you to do, but he won’t tell you who they are?” [Jaron Lanier quoted by Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2017] Facebook wants us to remain engaged with Facebook as deeply, and for as much time as possible. It captures our attention as the price of the service. But we gladly pay attention -- a lot of attention. We don't do that for frivolous reasons. Nonetheless, Facebook manipulates us. Every aspect of its design is meant to draw us back to the flow of images and emotions that constitute the News Feed on our Facebook pages . . . Facebook researchers have been trying toidentify and thus maximize exposure to the things that push us to be happier and minimize exposure to things that cause us anxiety or unhappiness. Much of what we encounter, including many of our responses and interactions, leads us to be sad, frustrated, angry, and exhausted. Yet we keep coming back. And we can't seem to quit. [Anti-social Media, Siva Vaidhyanathan, p. 33.] Compelling, human-sized stories fit the journalistic frame well, but they are orthogonal to the scale at which social media platforms process intervention.[Custodians of the Internet, Tarleton Gillespie, p. 142] We must learn to be digital citizens, and we can’t do that when we are herded by a big central digital service. You cannot read well without learning to write at least a little, and in the same way you cannot live well in a digital world without having learned to design such a world at least a little. [Jaron Lanier, Be a pioneer, delete Facebook] The Facebook business model is mass behavior modification for pay. And for those who are not giving Facebook money, the only — and I want to emphasize, the only, underlined and in bold and italics — reward they can get or positive feedback is just getting attention. [Jaron Lanier quoted by Maureen Dowd, NYT, 2017] The term 'platform' helps reveal how YouTube and others stage themselves for [end-users, advertisers, media producers and policymakers], allowing them to make a broadly progressive sales pitch while also eliding the tensions inherent in their service: between user-generated and commercially produced content, between cultivating community and serving up advertising, between intervening in the delivery of content and remaining neutral. In the process, it is offering up a trope by which others will come to understand and judge them. [Tarleton Gillespie, The Politics of Platforms, p.3.] 'Platform' has been deployed in both their populist appeals and their marketing pitches - sometimes as technical platforms, sometimes as platforms from which to speak, sometimes as platforms of opportunity. Whatever tensions exist in serving all of these constituencies are carefully elided. [ibid, Abstract] Farmers are asking the Copyright Office whether they are allowed to jailbreak their John Deere tractors. No, seriously. John Deere tractors are, fundamentally, giant, weird-looking computers, filled with complex software, and John Deere sees them, fundamentally, as "platforms" for offering "services." They want to be able to decide who offers services on their platform, so they use digital locks to stop farmers from changing the software on their devices . . . [Furthermore,] its a felony to jailbreak a car and read GM's diagnostics info without using the official GM diagnostic tool." [Information Doesn't Want to be Free, Cory Doctorow, Afterword to paperback edition, p. 166-167] Well, much of our practical ability to speak online depends on an infrastructure of digital communication—broadband companies, domain name registrars and registries, webhosting services, caching and security services, search engines, and social media companies. That infrastructure is owned and operated by private parties, not by the state. Thus, in most cases, the businesses that provide the digital infrastructure of free expression are not state actors bound by the First Amendment. If we want to protect the privacy and freedom of speech of digital speakers from overreaching by digital media companies, the First Amendment will not be our primary line of defense. Nor will the Fourth Amendment, or the rest of the Bill of Rights, for that matter. [Jack Balkin, The Political Economy of Freedom of Speech in the Second Gilded Age.] | Platform (n). [plat-fawrm] - A raised level surface on which people or things can stand for a better view or to be better seen.
- A raised structure at a railroad station that makes it easier for passengers to get on and off trains.
- A stabilized structure in the ocean for operating oil wells and wind turbines.
- A structure in space from which rockets or missiles may be launched.
- The declared policy of a political party or group. (The Republican platform.)
- A forum or place where one can voice one's views. (The New York Times gives columnists a platform for their views.)
- A book or essay that gives its author further opportunities to espouse his or her views. (Small Pieces Loosely Joined, gave Weinberger a platform for his views on the Internet.)
- A shoe with very thick soles. (Platform shoes.)
- A shared set of common automotive design, engineering, production efforts, and major components upon which can be built a variety of outwardly distinct vehicles. (Toyota platform.)
- A standard for hardware compatibility (The IBM PC Platform)
- A standard for software compatibility (The Windows Platform)
- A piece of hardware on which proprietary applications may be written (e.g., John Deere tractors, IOT devices)
- An application program interface (The Facebook API delivers services that support many applications.)
- An Internet site or service that enables users to connect with services and content offered by third parties.
- An Internet Web site on which multiple parties can gain value, e.g., where the users gain utility from posting information, where advertisers, political entities and other parties gain value from receiving, aggregating and selectively presenting information, and where the operators of the Web site can charge for providing, aggregating and presenting such information.
(Origin: plot, i.e., area of land, + form, or plan, hence ground-plan. Also, less commonly, from plot, i.e. conspiracy-plan. Derived from Notes on English Etymology by Walter William Skeat, 1901.) | Agenda Wednesday, September 5 Noon to 1:30 PM: Check in, lunch, swimming, meet fellow participants
1:30 to 3:30 PM: Session 1a: Extended Personal Introductions
3:30 to 4:00 PM: Break
4:00 to 5:30 PM, Session 1b: More Intros, also What do we know about platforms?
5:30 to 8:00 PM: Dinner
8:00 to 10:00 PM (or so), Session 2: Music, something awesome.
10:00 PM to Whenever: Whatever Thursday, September 6 7:00 to 8:30 AM: Breakfast
8:30 to 10:00 AM, Session 3a: Discussion
10:00 to 10:30: Break
10:30 AM to Noon, Session 3b: More Discussion
Noon to 2:00 PM: Lunch, swimming
2:00 to 3:30 PM, Session 4a: Yet more discussion
3:30 to 4:00 PM: Break
4:00 to 5:30, Session 4b: More discussion
5:30 to 8:00 PM: Dinner
8:00 to 10:00 PM, Session 5: Music, "The case for Internet Optimism," led by David Weinberger
10:00 PM to Whenever: Whatever Friday, September 7 7:00 to 8:30 AM: Breakfast
8:30 to 10:00 AM, Session 6a:Perspectives from John Holdren*, Wrap up talks.
10:00 to 10:30 AM: Break
10:30 AM to Noon, Session 6b: Summaries, Learnings, Action Items.
Noon to 2:00 PM: Lunch, swimming
2:00 PM-ish: Adjourn *John Holdren was President Obama's science advisor for all 8 years of the Obama administration and was the Chair of the Pugwash Council when it won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995. Music Hamilton de Holanda is the BigHook2018 musician in residence. Sponsors & Acknowledgements The BigHook community and isen.com, LLC gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation via Alberto Ibargüen, the generous ongoing support of Comcast via Jason Livingood and Afilias via Ram Mohan & Desiree Miloshevic, and the patient support of Google via Vint Cerf & Rick Whitt. We also give thanks to all the paying participants who helped make BigHook a continuing, sustainable success. Thanks also to - Chef Roland and his fine crew for the food
- Dewayne Hendricks for Internet and applications support
- James Vasile for the chat application
- Comcast & Jason Livingood for Internet connectivity
- Suzy Parker Elstob for being around when we need her
- Chad Crowe for the license to use his cartoon on the BH2018 swag bag.
- Paula Blumenthal, my wife
Fine Print: All of the above is on a best effort basis. I might fail to deliver on any of the above, so none of it is a promise, and no guarantees or warranties are implied. Here's my actual, real world promise: I'll do my best, and if things screw up or stuff happens that causes plans to change, I'll do my best to fix them and/or give as much notice as I practically can. In other words, if you don't expect the impossible, I'll do my best to deliver it. -- David I |
