Biella Coleman: The Future of the Internet Depends on its Past
A few weeks ago, NYU hosted an interesting event about the future of the Internet, appropriately tittled The Futures of the Internet, the video of which is now available here. One of the panelists was Jonathan Zittrain (who recently wrote an important new book bearing the same name as the event) and during the talk he provided a few ideas about how geeks and developers can help secure the Future of the Internet. While I agree with a lot in fact most of his assessments about the state and fate of the Internet as he lays out in his book and his talks, his characterization of geek/hacker/developer politics is not one of them.
Basically, one of Zittrain’s claims is that developers are not doing enough to save the Future of the Internet and it is their rampant, Atlas-like libertarianism, which is, in part, to blame (first made 37:20 minutes into the video for those who want to listen to the actual comments). They have little-to-no political consciousness, are too cool to care about the fine print and they don’t care about the broader politics of the the Internet because they assume that they can just hack around any sort of barrier and impediment.
While we can, without a doubt, identify a strain of libertarianism among hackers, it is by no means representative of all of geekdom and in fact, is becoming more and more a worn out 1990s stereotype/clich as time passes than an accurate representation of what is a far more variegated set of ethics and practices among hackers (and I will soon publish an article on this topic).
It also completely fails to capture the ethical spirit as well as sociological, and political workings of one of the most important strains of hacking free and open source software which not only powers most of our (open) Internet but which in fact has provided a pretty hefty ethical backbone by which to conceptualize one of the ways we should think about the fight for the future of the Internet.
Ok, time for a rant now 
Geeks not only designed the Internet, an indisputably revolutionary medium, but also implemented, and continue to maintain it, and then in their copious spare time, also engage in fighting back the political, legal and corporate encroachment which threatens to limit the very revolutionary nature of the Internet (as Chris Kelty’s new book on Free Software argues). If these acts by geeks are not enough political action, then maybe the development of not just one, but multiple entirely open and free alternatives to the only two proprietary operating systems that exist today might be a political act that would satisfy? Many would agree that even simply using a free operating system is a political act. It would be better to claim that individuals, lawyers and other political actors are not doing enough to save the Future of the Internet, rather than imploring the already overtaxed geeks to set aside everything that they are already doing to do something even more.
(end rant)
It also seems that when it comes to political questions related to the Internet, net neutrality being the hot topic now, or fighting restrictive and problematic laws like the DMCA, one of the only groups of people (outside of lawyers and librarians) to actually understand and dissect the fine print (and geeks actually are pretty attuned to and like to dissect the fine legal print), to protest these unsavory laws, and to support the organizations who are doing something about it (like the EFF), are geeks and hackers. While many geeks are not necessarily keen on conceptualizing their labor in traditional political terms, or aligning their technical projects with a political affiliation, and yes would rather just be writing good code, they do fight for their productive freedom and this productive freedom just happens to relate to most questions and concerns related to an open, accessible, and tweakable Internet, built by the geeks, lest we forget
What was perhaps most surprising was that he also seemed to think that geeks and developers have not turned to “apprenticeship,” nor policies and procedure to coordinate their development projects, unlike Wikipedia, which he considers a shining example that geeks should look towards as a beacon of policy that geeks should consider emulating in their projects (comments made answering my question). He clearly has not been hanging out with any Debian developers in the last 10 years nor has he gone through their New Maintainer Process 
In other words, he seems to think they are allergic to regulation due to their accentuated libertarianism, or are against structure because of their anarchism, neither which is remotely true. I think I found this characterization most ironic and problematic for before Wikipedia was even an entry on a Wiki, projects like Debian (and most other F/OSS projects) were transforming and changing to integrate normative procedures and policies that allowed a group of people to work together, scale, grow and deal with crises’. No, they don’t have the Wikipedia badge system, but that system is emblematic of Wikipedia’s own transformation into integrating its own normative procedures and policies for working together, not an example of an idealized policy system that other projects are too primitive to have evolved into yet.
About one hour into the talk when questions opened up, I objected to his characterization, but given his answer back to me, I did not make much of a dent in his thinking. Another lawyer Tim Wu (who also wrote a wonderful book on the Internet) chimed in to give me some props and also made a good point that even if geeks are the only groups of people who would storm AT&T and know intimately about the importance of net neutrality, there is a lot of room for thinking about how to strengthen and improve the tactics and politics among geeks and developers so that we can ensure the type of open and generative Internet and set of technologies we value.
As part of thinking and rethinking new strategies, it is as key to acknowledge and honor the past. In this regard, free software development has been pivotal both in terms of providing software (and making it is an important political act as is choosing to use free software over propriety software) and a set of important set of ideas that a lot of lawyers like Yochai Benkler and Lawrence Lessig have run with to make some important political claims of their own.
So despite my rant above, which was a rant and thus exaggerates things to some degree, I do think there is much more that geeks and non-geeks can do, such as help translate these uber-geeky issues into less geeky terms (and actually this is already being done by some geeks as the work of Jelena Karanovic has shown, or translate the technical issues into new domains as the uber-geek Karl Fogel is doing with question copyright but first lets give credit where credit it due and recognize that labor is political
Geeks not only designed the Internet, an indisputably revolutionary medium, but also implemented, and continue to maintain it, and then in their copious spare time, also engage in fighting back the political, legal and corporate encroachment which threatens to limit the very revolutionary nature of the Internet (as Chris Kelty’s new book on Free Software argues). If these acts by geeks are not enough political action, then maybe the development of not just one, but multiple entirely open and free alternatives to the only two proprietary operating systems that exist today might be a political act that would satisfy? Many would agree that even simply using a free operating system is a political act. It would be better to claim that individuals, lawyers and other political actors are not doing enough to save the Future of the Internet, rather than imploring the already overtaxed geeks to set aside everything that they are already doing to do something even more.
(end rant)
It also seems that when it comes to political questions related to the Internet, net neutrality being the hot topic now, or fighting restrictive and problematic laws like the DMCA, one of the only groups of people (outside of lawyers and librarians) to actually understand and dissect the fine print (and geeks actually are pretty attuned to and like to dissect the fine legal print), to protest these unsavory laws, and to support the organizations who are doing something about it (like the EFF), are geeks and hackers. While many geeks are not necessarily keen on conceptualizing their labor in traditional political terms, or aligning their technical projects with a political affiliation, and yes would rather just be writing good code, they do fight for their productive freedom and this productive freedom just happens to relate to most questions and concerns related to an open, accessible, and tweakable Internet, built by the geeks, lest we forget
What was perhaps most surprising was that he also seemed to think that geeks and developers have not turned to “apprenticeship,” nor policies and procedure to coordinate their development projects, unlike Wikipedia, which he considers a shining example that geeks should look towards as a beacon of policy that geeks should consider emulating in their projects (comments made answering my question). He clearly has not been hanging out with any Debian developers in the last 10 years nor has he gone through their New Maintainer Process
In other words, he seems to think they are allergic to regulation due to their accentuated libertarianism, or are against structure because of their anarchism, neither which is remotely true. I think I found this characterization most ironic and problematic for before Wikipedia was even an entry on a Wiki, projects like Debian (and most other F/OSS projects) were transforming and changing to integrate normative procedures and policies that allowed a group of people to work together, scale, grow and deal with crises’. No, they don’t have the Wikipedia badge system, but that system is emblematic of Wikipedia’s own transformation into integrating its own normative procedures and policies for working together, not an example of an idealized policy system that other projects are too primitive to have evolved into yet.
About one hour into the talk when questions opened up, I objected to his characterization, but given his answer back to me, I did not make much of a dent in his thinking. Another lawyer Tim Wu (who also wrote a wonderful book on the Internet) chimed in to give me some props and also made a good point that even if geeks are the only groups of people who would storm AT&T and know intimately about the importance of net neutrality, there is a lot of room for thinking about how to strengthen and improve the tactics and politics among geeks and developers so that we can ensure the type of open and generative Internet and set of technologies we value.
As part of thinking and rethinking new strategies, it is as key to acknowledge and honor the past. In this regard, free software development has been pivotal both in terms of providing software (and making it is an important political act as is choosing to use free software over propriety software) and a set of important set of ideas that a lot of lawyers like Yochai Benkler and Lawrence Lessig have run with to make some important political claims of their own.
So despite my rant above, which was a rant and thus exaggerates things to some degree, I do think there is much more that geeks and non-geeks can do, such as help translate these uber-geeky issues into less geeky terms (and actually this is already being done by some geeks as the work of Jelena Karanovic has shown, or translate the technical issues into new domains as the uber-geek Karl Fogel is doing with question copyright but first lets give credit where credit it due and recognize that labor is political
I just bought 5 copies of the 
I've been critical of the almost abusive terms in the user agreements of most user-harvesting-based services (sometimes called Web 2.0) for a while now. There are quite a few services that I simply won't use because their owners want me, all my web "content" (whether explicitly posted to their site or not), my first born child, or similar. There are even more sites where I'm careful not to put much beyond the bare minimum and try to make sure that I keep backups of nearly all of it. Usually that means keeping a copy of the input, as getting my data back out of most sites is a pig. So far, when 
I am 10 000 metres above sea level, on my way from Melbourne to
Wellington. I am looking back at a very enjoyable week of
conferencing, with 
(Disclaimer: I work for 
Inspired mostly by 
Last night I sat down and hacked a bit more on my 
It still needs a fair amount of work, the layout of the labels on the left
is clearly sub-optimal and I'd like to have a marker on the satellite
image to precisely locate you, but apart from that it's coming together
nicely.
NP: Storm, Heather Nova
On Monday I was at a 
Like most things, the scale of decisions that have to be made by a person
or organisation fall across a wide spectrum. At one end, you've got the
fine-detail work: lines of code, individual config settings, IP addresses,
that sort of thing. This is crucial work, because it's this detail that
ultimately produces saleable results. Travelling all the way to the other
end, there's the "big picture" decisions: the "visionary" stuff. What
market segment will we target? What will we do (in large-scale terms)
to get there?
I am convinced that individuals naturally gravitate towards one end of this
spectrum or the other, depending on their psychology. While people usually
can work at all scales, they have a "most comfortable" point where they
work the most naturally. The further away from this point they are pushed,
the less comfortable and effective they are.
No level of thinking is better or worse than the other; they're just
different. While "large scale thinker" and "small scale thinker"
could be taken as being insulting, I certainly don't mean it that way.
I should point out that "Strategy" isn't (just) about setting goals. A
strategist isn't someone who comes out with grand pronouncements like "By
the end of next year this company should be providing telecommunications
services to 20% of the Fortune 500" without knowing how to get there.
That's not a strategist, that's a poor-quality management consultant.
People whose only skill is making vague pronouncements should just be taken
out and shot. They're not doing anything useful for anyone.
A strategist is someone who is good at planning the goal of "20%
of the Fortune 500". They're thinking about the big picture issues,
without getting bogged down in the minutiae. A tactician, given the job of
planning something at the macro scale, will chase some good idea down an
intricately detailed rabbit hole, and miss the other dozen or so large
issues that need to be considered. The strategist's planning needs to stop
at a certain level and let other people take on the detail work.
Conversely, a good tactician can focus on the individual details
without getting distracted by the big picture. A strategist put into a
tactical role will miss all the important minutiae because they're working
out how their little part fits into the big picture, instead of working out
how to make their little part work, in and of itself.
It's important, for individual happiness, to try and work out what level
you're most comfortable thinking at, and then trying to find a job that
puts you there. It's almost as important to make sure that the people who
are working at the more and less detail levels around you are equally
comfortable.
Take, for example, the micromanager. We've all either been there ourselves
or have heard multiple stories on the subject. I think the micromanager is
nothing more than a person who wants to work at a smaller scale than they're
being forced to by their organisational rank. Since they can't do
the detail work any more, their only outlet is working vicariously through
their subordinates. Voila! Instant micromanagement.
An even more painful case of micromanagement would be when the subordinate
wants to think at a larger scale than the superior. In that case, the
subordinate will naturally be thinking large scale, and will miss the
details. To the small scale thinking superior, that is incompetence, and
will naturally be dealt with by more micromanagement. In reality, both
parties are incompetent at their jobs, and they should really swap roles,
so that everyone is in their element.
It would be nice if companies stopped thinking hierarchically in this way
-- that a more "senior" person has to think at larger levels. Just because
you've been somewhere longer (or have been working in an industry longer, or
got higher marks, or whatever), it doesn't mean that you're more of a
strategist. This is probably the Peter Principle restated: people get
promoted to a level where they just can't comfortably think at the necessary
scale any more. If instead people were put into a planning hierarchy based
on their natural scale of thinking, we'd all be a lot better off. There'd
be a lot less power games, though, which makes me think it's not going to
happen any time soon.
A business, at whatever size it might be, needs an appropriate mix of
strategists and tacticians. A really small business (1-10 people) can get
away without needing large scale thinkers, in the same way that a really
small boat can get away without needing a rudder or pilot. If a really
small boat gets itself into trouble, everyone on board can grab an oar or
bucket and help get the boat out it's predicament -- it's small and nimble
enough to be able to do that.
As the company expands, though, it's important to make sure you've got some
strategists around. If you don't have anyone to keep an eye out for
problems and plan around them, your small-to-medium sized boat is likely to
have a hole punched in it by a submerged rock. Even if somebody on board
happens to notice the rock before you actually hit it, once you get to a
certain size you can't physically stop or turn the boat in time.
If you don't understand the growth issues in the company, you might not
even realise that you're no longer the nimble and low-inertia dinghy until
you're up to your knees in sea water.
Although an obvious solution to this problem might be to say that all
businesses should be small and nimble ones, it's as impractical as saying
that all boats should be dinghies. A fleet of dinghies isn't going to be
able to support the worldwide sea freight market, and a fleet of small
companies doesn't have the necessary resources on hand to take on the big
projects that are so often needed. Also, a dinghy is at risk of being
swamped by one freak wave, while a larger ship can weather significant
storms without going under.
Regardless of the size of the business, there always needs to be a good
supply of tacticians. A boat (of whatever size) full of people who are all
looking out for rocks isn't going to go anywhere, because nobody's making
the thing move. Similarly, a company full of strategists isn't
going to be doing any of the day-to-day work that actually earns money, and
no money means no company.
The single most important thing, though, is be self-aware enough to know
what sort of person you are, and try to find something that lets you work at
the level you're most comfortable at. Otherwise you're just setting
yourself up for unhappiness.
We got home from our week in Arizona late last night. We decided to drive
non-stop yesterday, and get home in a day, rather than split it over two days
like we did getting there. It ended up taking around 15 hours (we had an
unexpected delay at Lost Hills because we found a stray dog (we initially
thought it to be injured to boot) and Sarah was trying to get hold of some
local animal control people to do something about it), otherwise it'd have
taken closer to 14 hours.
The drive to Phoenix was pretty uneventful. We took our time leaving
Mountain View on Sunday (we had an early Thanksgiving dinner with all of our
neighbours on Saturday night), and decided to call it a night at Cabazon. For
about the same price that we stayed in a crappy motel 
So, I've been off blogging for almost three months now -- from about mid-August to now. It's been kind of guilt-ridden, and it's also been kind of a relief. Being a B-list blogebrity is a direful burden, and having some time away was restful and relaxing and energizing. But now I'm ready to come back!
One of the reasons that I haven't been blogging is that once you fall behind, it's really hard to catch up. So I've decided to not do the entire task at once. Instead, I'm just going to start a page on my 