WHO controls the internet? (And WHY we should probably care about the answer)

What a great question. It’s the subject of a new book out Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World (Jack Goldsmith, Tim Wu). Haven’t bought it yet, but is definitely there on my reading list -pushing to the top even.

Why is this such an important question? I’ve been thinking about it for a while now and really, if someone was to one day just “switch us off” – we’d be in a world catastrophe the same way that we’d be in a world catastrophe as if someone “switched off the lights” (ala energy crisis). Boing Boing has a good article on why we need alternative sources of bandwidth just like we need alternative sources of fuel.

Some people may disagree with me here but if you think about it, electricity (history link), only distributed to the masses a short while ago (just over 100 years or so – not a long time in our world’s history! ), has made the world what it is today. I’m writing about it right now in my thesis. A power outage of one hundredths of a second can cause millions of dollars and invaluable data loss for one organization. So, along with food, shelter, water, air… it seems like if we’re going to live in this world as know it, electricity is added to the list of basic human needs. We’d still be ‘alive’ – but living in absolute chaos.

But why the net?

Internet’ history – to the masses since the 1990s!! Insane how much the world has changed before my eyes in my 23 years of existence.

If someone was to ’shut us off’ – what would happen? I think that it’d be in some ways, very alike to the above: absolute chaos. Organizations’ productivity would halt and all of the financial markets etc.- the drivers of the economy would be in a crisis that overflow to every single person in this world – whether connected or not, will be affected – likely for the worst – unless you live in isolation and are completely self-sufficient.

But, my biggest concern – communication and democracy.

Perhaps this is all the utopia/dystopia books (Brave New World, Oryx and Crake, 1984, Handmaid’s Tale etc.) that I’ve read with shivers down my spine… What do they all have in common? To change a world for the better or the worse, you have to shut people up – destroy the language in which they communicate , destroy the networks.

If we can’t talk to each other, if we can’t get information, we’re invariably screwed.

Think about it: the scariest places in the world often have the tightest controls on communication flow. BBC isn’t allowed in Zimbabwe, Burma – cited as the “nuclear bomb of internet repression”, North Korea is “an internet black hole.” And China, lest we forget China – censors its internet so much that it’s no wonder why some Chinese don’t understand the human rights issues there – reporters are detained and sometimes killed and now, with the Olympics coming up, the world is in a fury because China just backed out on its deal to provide “complete freedom to report” – and is now allowing “sufficient access”. And umm.. well, quite often, American media censorship (do your own research on the topic – always good to question your sources!)

Let’s face it, when we’re muzzled, we’re in trouble.

Sure, we can ‘live’ without the internet, but in this globalized world – we need global communication and that’s the internet.

So, WHO controls the internet and who OWNS the internet? I don’t know the answer (yet), but I do know that WE CAN’T take the net for granted and NOT KNOW the answer to this elusive question.

Visualization of the various routes through a portion of the Internet. (wikicommons)

the buzz and the biz of social networking

The buzz… of course there’s a buzz around it and it’s been there for a while. Last year of undergrad I worked on a group project setting up a business plan. We pitched our web 2.0 WikiGlobe idea (to be honest, very similar to Mark Evan and co.s’ PlanetEye I was excited to see that). I remember pitching it to VCs (this was all for fun) in Nov 06 and then again in March 07 at the Wes Nicol National comp. – I actually rigged the Nov. one by first asking the people in my class who was on Facebook – only a handful at the time, but I told them to all lift their hands up when I asked the crowd (sneaky, i know;) Anyways, when we pitched the idea, of course, none of the VCs in the room had any idea what Facebook was and were shocked when they saw everyone’s hand go up (hahaha.. so clever of me!) Anyways, point being. I’d never have to explain anything about that now. It’s the rage.

But, the business. Oh right… money! How often have you ever clicked on an ad on Facebook. Exactly. Even with all that information on each of us, it’s a tough business out there selling advertisements, simply because it’s annoying for the users.

MIT Technology Review has a great (albeit long) read on the business behind it with interesting figures on online ad spending etc. Their point – we still haven’t cracked the code yet on how this business will exactly turn a profit, but we can’t stop. The people won’t stop moving into the web 2.0 world, so the advertisers will be there. The time to get creative on money making business models is now.

And maybe this is just the eco nut coming out but I’m fed up with the BUY BUY BUY!!! advertising. But I know the reality is our economy runs on me buying crap. But instead of meaningless, in your face ads, my personal view would be something similar to this:

Marc Canter has a few ideas. Canter, who cofounded ­MacroMedia, is now CEO of the company that produces the social-networking tool PeopleAggregator, which aims to allow communities, tools, search engines, and the rest of Web 2.0 to interconnect in one giant open mesh. He imagines ads of all kinds making up only about a third of revenue, with profits coming from a “long tail” of sources–from Craig’s List-style marketplaces to on-demand music downloads to branded apparel to ad-free premium services.

At least i get something out of it.

This was an interesting part of it though. Look at this graph. The black line in particular…

Hmm… you’re complaining that you’re not making any money and you’re investing in probably the most saturated of all markets in the world. Take a look outside! The balance of power will one day shift to the emerging economies and we’re playing a very egocentric game. Social networking is not just for the rich. It’s becoming a phenomenon around the world and no doubt, picking up speed..

But, then again.. do I really want our BUY BUY BUY! attitude crossing over to the emerging? Well, it already has I guess and there’ll be little stopping it.

When ‘going green’ isn’t such a good idea

I’m talking about green lawns.

Turns out that “US lawns are as big as New York state”.

A disturbing fact that goes with that, according to the EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency, nearly a third of all residential water use in the United States currently goes toward landscaping.

It’s all just part of our unsustainable suburb make-up. Who wants to have the weedy brownish lawn on the street next to all the perfectly manicured, bright green lawns?

Actually just saw a clip on BBC the other day about the problem of ‘going green’ in the middle of the desert. The sin city of all sin cities, Las Vegas, is now trying to curb its water use due to its longstanding drought, overconsumption, and depleting reservoir…. they actually have some pretty funny commercials about dwellers getting upset with the people who water their lawns (unfortunately can’t find it on youtube right now.. but it’s out there i’m sure.)

Thankfully, I never grew up with having to water the lawn, for a couple of reasons:

1. We were on limited water supply (well) – we’d watch our daily consumption quite regularly (i.e. don’t take a long shower, maximize dishwasher/laundry loads etc.

2. We mostly had moss on the front… haha (my parents won’t be happy with this post!) but seriously, looked like grass, it was green

I once had this conversation with a friend of a friend about starting businesses. He told me that he wanted to get into the landscaping business. I told him that what I think we need more of is ‘eco-landscaping’ - you know, choosing the right kind of plants that will require less watering, ones that have some kind of extra benefit (health, bug deterrent etc.). I thought he understood me and then he went “yeah, exactly… but I was thinking more about.. PONDS! Think about it, don’t people need more ponds?!?” I didn’t know what to say, and didn’t want to totally crush his business idea over beers, so just went, “ahhh… yeah…. ponds…. “

So, I think that we need to take a second look at what our ‘natural yard’ intake is on the resources. How often do you need to water it? Do you use pesticides? What other ways could you have a beautiful yard but use less resources? More rocks? More of a ‘wild flower’ look?

Most likely, it’ll save you time, save you energy, save you water, save you from pesticides and in general, it will take us one step closer to saving this planet.

sustainable + development + Acumen Fund + TED

Just watched another fabulous TED video and had to share…

Jacqueline Novogratz shares stories of how “patient capital” can bring sustainable jobs, goods, services — and dignity — to the world’s poorest.

She founded the Acumen Fund – a nonprofit that acts like a venture capital fund, investing in high risk businesses that serve a cause (high risk for other investors, but very serious in its approach to get results) in developing countries. Very interesting approach to tackling poverty…

I met Yasmina Zaidman, Acumen’s director of knowledge & communications (and writes most of the blogs over at the Acumen blog at the Net Impact Conference I went to last month. What a fantastic speaker as well.

Watch the video though, it’s great.

Moving forward (albeit painfully slowly…) on the thesis front. Wanted to bang my head against the wall more than a few times.. but that’s the joy of thesis writing, no?

Anyways, this topic touches heavily on my topic so, I leave you now with questions (not just about Acumen Fund and ‘patient capital’ but just sustainable development questions in general), no answers.. something just for pondering…

• this is ‘patient capital’ – which is needed for projects like this and doable in this case since it’s being funded by philanthropic dollars… but for everyone else who’s out there to make a buck, ventures are about growth growth growth… How can we tell people to ‘be patient’ when their investors are down their neck?
• sustainable development – the word in and of itself is oxymoronic… sustainable (circular) and development (linear)… not the first one to point this out, just an ongoing question in my head. Annie, from the Story of Stuff is bang on “you cannot live on a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely” – at the end of the day, no one is 100% sustainable – read the No Impact blog to see how hard it is even to try
• it seems like everyone who wants to help needs to go there (to a developing country) to understand first hand… if you don’t everyone else will tell you that you don’t understand ‘them’ – you’re less qualified to ‘help’ in that sense. What about the people who can’t get there? Plus, aren’t the environmentalists telling us to slow down on the travel? How can we make it easier to connect these two worlds virtually? Asking cause I think its about time I get myself out of the western world and see the world that the other 5 billion people see…

Well.. should probably start answering my own thesis questions…. so, back to work.

How would you make watermelons square?

Think about it for a second: if someone asked you to make this happen, what would you do?

A friend just passed on this post. (prob not new for some.. i think it’s been getting some press lately)

Not so much about the fruit.. but yes, interesting lessons indeed…

Amoral corporations, 25 years on.

The New York Times has an excellent write-up on the current situation in Bhopal India, where, 25 years ago there was a disastrous chemical spill at the Union Carbide plant killing thousands immediately and affecting hundreds of thousands more as time went on with poor cleanup.

The Bhopal-Union Carbide story is probably the #1 CSR story about what should not be done. It’s the case that probably every business student has gone through.

The saddest part is that 25 years later…. it’s still disastrous. Corporations are dodging responsibility. Governments are stalling, lying, and ineffective.

5 years after the disaster in 1989 – Union Carbide washed its hands clean of the cleanup by giving a meager half billion or so and pushing the responsibility to the local Government…. right.. the 2nd largest chemical company at the time (was sold for over 9 billion in 1999) hands over responsibility to a REGIONAL GOVERNMENT of a DEVELOPING COUNTRY.

Unsurprisingly, the government has failed at cleanup, failed at getting the money distributed (of which there wasn’t enough money allocated in the first place) and have failed at informing people about the true medical hazards still present on the site.

The controversial buyout of Union Carbide by The Dow Chemical Company in ‘99 now pushes the responsibility further and further away from the problem.

In the NYT article, the company’s response:

Dow, based in Michigan, says it bears no responsibility to clean up a mess it did not make. “As there was never any ownership, there is no responsibility and no liability — for the Bhopal tragedy or its aftermath,” Scot Wheeler, a company spokesman, said in an e-mail message.

Ownership. Yep, that tricky area of business that is not as easily understood… But how then, when Dow bought Union Carbide, did it not buy its liabilities? (I actually don’t know the legal implications of all this but it seems like buying=owning=responsibility=liabilities, no?)

At the end of the day, as the article so aptly puts it – the corporation is being left alone (at least by the gov’t) because it pretty much threatened the government with pulling out investments (which is so badly wanted in a fast growing country like India) – the CEO stated “in your efforts to ensure that we have the appropriate investment climate.” What a simple statement; what a big implication.

Some more background on The Dow Chemical Company:

• was the sole supplier of Agent Orange (that horrific chemical weapon used during the Vietnam war)
• responsible for 96 of the United States’ worst Superfund toxic waste

And something I found interesting while wikipedia-ing this company… their vision statement:

“To be the largest, most profitable, and most respected chemical company in the world“.

Right… you may get the first two, but you most definitely should never achieve the that last one.

Corporations can be amoral and this is a case in point. Here’s hoping that we, as society, don’t let atrocities like this occur again.

Another plea: My Plea for MTV

Ok… I’ve been meaning to write this one for a while, and finally, after spending about 10 min of my life watching Parental Control… I just had to finish it.

MTV, what the hell happened?

Were you always this bad???

That show above was probably the worst programming I’ve seen for a long time – granted I don’t watch a lot of tv and before you ask, I only continued watching it to make my case to finish with this blog. I’ve also watched about 10 min of Tiara Girls – in awe that someone actually lets this go to air…

Seriously? When did you forget about the music and decide to praise the snotty rich pre-teen/teen or the sad wannabe – complete with fake scripts and sad one liners? I remember loving MTV growing up for the videos and yes, the TWO reality shows (Road Rules & Real World) which was something new for the time!

The saddest part is that MTV is probably the most powerful station in the world for influencing young adults. Just think about how many marketers want to get their hands on the lucrative teen market and then think of MTV’s presence in dozens of countries around the world… (Finland too). And then look at what it decides to show…. Pathetic.

Granted, MTV has worked on various social issues and it has had an impact. It’s done a lot for getting the young to vote and its commercials often show issues like AIDS, safe sex, refugee camps etc.

But why hold those messages for the commercials? Why can’t they infuse those ‘real’ messages into the actual programming? Do they really think that their audience can’t handle it? That their audience is too stupid to understand those issues? Well here’s a thought… the station is partly responsible for dumbing down the generation. With all those marketing folks up there that know exactly how to manipulate… you think…you think that they could manipulate for the better at some point.

In any event, it’s about the music (or at least should be)

Music has and always will have extraordinary powers…. It has emotion; it communicates; it has the power to move people.

That’s my plea for MTV. You have incredible powers to make change happen. To tell people to give a damn.  To make people feel. To instill better values as a society.

Please, use your power and creativity to smarten up our generation… not dumb us down.