- The Future of the Internet: Five Years Later
In 2008, The Future of the Internet called attention to a “sea change” in the way consumer devices interact with the Internet. “The future is not one of generative PCs attached to a generative network,” the book warns; “it is instead one of sterile appliances tethered to a network of control.” In response to the security threats posed by malicious third-party code, increasing numbers of users will likely gravitate towards gadgets “tethered” by continuous communication between product and vendor. And this proliferation of tethered computing—the “appliancization” of PCs—will deal a serious blow to the principles of generativity and free expression that drove the early Internet.
Since the publication of The Future of the Internet, the ethos of strict appliancization has taken a new turn. In 2011, Professor Zittrain wrote an update on the book’s message: “at the time of the book’s drafting, the alternatives seemed stark: the “sterile” iPhone that ran only Apple’s software on the one hand, and the chaotic PC that ran anything ending in .exe on the other. The iPhone’s openness to outside code beginning in ’08 changed all that. It became what I call “contingently generative” — it runs outside code after approval (and then until it doesn’t).” This trend towards contingently generative models continues into the present day, and represents a shift similar in many respects to the one The Future of the Internet predicted.
Jon Brodkin and Peter Bright’s Ars Technica op-ed on the Microsoft Metro app store offers some valuable commentary on a big development in this “sea change.” The article recognizes that “Microsoft is imitating Apple in one very bad way, by limiting the distribution of Metro applications to a Microsoft-controlled app store… by bringing Windows to tablets, Microsoft could strike a blow for openness in a market dominated by a closed system. Instead, Microsoft is bringing the same restrictions found on iPads to both Windows tablets and PCs.” As forecasted by The Future of the Internet, devices that only run approved code are gaining popularity. Metro, the curated user interface that has found its way onto Microsoft’s tablets and PCs (in the case of the PCs, alongside a fully-functional desktop mode capable of side-loading non-Windows Store applications), won’t run applications from outside the Windows Store. Moreover, the apps available through the Store are subject to a bevy of restrictions on content. With these restrictions on installable applications come the restrictions on generativity that The Future of the Internet anticipated: “lock down the device, and network censorship and control can be extraordinarily reinforced.” And, as the Ars Technica piece observes, the Windows Store’s rules would exclude critically-acclaimed content like the video game Elder Scrolls: Skyrim, simply for its PEGI 18/ESRB M rating. It isn’t hard to extrapolate, as Brodkin and Bright do, that these rules could give rise to debacles similar to Apple’s (repealed) ban of a satire app developed by a Pulitzer Prize winner.
Though the Windows Store’s restrictions resemble Apple’s policies in many ways, there is a crucial difference: Metro-running Windows 8 products are designed as PC replacements, rather than sui generis devices like the iPad. And since Windows desktops have long been preferred gaming platforms, the theoretical exclusion of content like Skyrim from the Windows Store makes Windows 8’s emphasis on the Metro interface particularly jarring.
With Metro, Microsoft has made a decisive move towards contingent generativity. Brodkin and Bright note that “there are security benefits to a closed app store model, particularly for less tech-savvy users who may not understand all the dangers on the Web. There are also, arguably, convenience benefits; end-users can be reasonably confident that the apps they download will work correctly and be at least marginally useful…But while these security and convenience benefits might be enough to justify the existence of a curated app store, they don’t justify the decision to make that store the only option for all users. Informed users should be allowed to install applications from wherever they want.” Brodkin and Bright prefer a system like Gatekeeper, a fixture in newer versions of Apple’s OS X, from Mountain Lion forward. Gatekeeper gives users the choice to restrict their operating system to App Store apps and outside apps that have been signed with Apple-issued Developer IDs, or open up the device to all programs, whether or not they’ve been vetted by Apple. The “Future of the Internet” Blog is fairly enthusiastic about Gatekeeper: about a year ago, a post here suggested that “the middle ground of allowing non-App Store signed code may represent the best of both worlds.” But we were quick to warn that Gatekeeper strikes a tenuous balance: “one small tweak — lose that Control-click for sideloading — and OS X could fully merge with iOS, both in functionality and in security methods.” Metro’s riff on content control could be just that sort of tweak—especially given recent speculation that Microsoft may dump desktop mode in Windows 9, leaving only Metro.
Moreover, a contingently generative business model like the Windows Store’s carries some ethical implications that, while not damning, are certainly worth examining. Distribution systems like the Windows Store, Apple’s App Store, and the Android Market receive 30% of the sales revenue from applications sold in their stores (in the Windows Store, this cut drops to 20% after an app reaches $25,000 USD in revenue). Further restrictions on side-loading in new operating systems would drive a great deal of business towards big companies’ proprietary marketplaces—and with that traffic would come big payouts. With the uptick in store traffic that tighter gatekeeping would engender, it’s easy to imagine the equilibrium of Mac’s OS X Gatekeeper being forsaken for more restrictive, and more lucrative, operating systems. To analogize, a la The Future of the Internet: when the company that makes your computer requires you to install programs through their official store, it isn’t so different from the company that makes your toaster forcing you to buy from their bakery—and taking a cut out of every bread purchase you make.
Even though Windows 8 PC users can still make use of a fully-functioning desktop operating system, Microsoft’s failure to include a side-loading option for the heavily-emphasized Metro interface—particularly in devices marketed as PC replacements—is a step in the wrong direction. It’s also an indication that the seas are changing in the way The Future of the Internet predicted. Given that Android’s more open approach to outside applications[1] still leaves the Android Market increasingly economically viable, Ars Technica is right to voice its disappointment in xenophobic operating systems like iOS and Metro.
- Ben Sobel, Kendra Albert, and JZ
- Rock star RA wanted
I’m seeking a full-time one-year rock star research associate to engage with a variety of projects and classes, with a broad opportunity to immerse in cyberlaw and Internet topics. Blurb below, with more information on how to apply at <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/getinvolved/jzra>. …JZ
–
Professor Jonathan Zittrain of Harvard Law School, the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, seeks a full-time research associate in Cambridge, MA for a period of one year, beginning no sooner than June 1, 2013.
This position requires the ability to absorb large amounts of written and other media materials from various sources (including but not restricted to: original sources, scholarly articles, news articles/blogs, interviews, databases) in a short amount of time, critically analyze that material and render it forward. This could take the form of prep materials for panels, conferences and presentations; article outlines; fact checking materials; original article or paper drafts; slide decks or other digested forms. The research assistant should be prepared to help prepare materials for class sessions and syllabi, lead discussions and work with project managers to accomplish research-related goals.
Research is often self-directed with little outside guidance beyond broad outlines and themes (though occasional targeted research assignment for a specific fact or image can be expected, and feedback is provided), so the ability to quickly critically appraise sources and identify interesting, relevant and original paths is essential. Wide-ranging interests and the ability to work on almost any issue or topic that arises is a plus, as is an ability to ramp up quickly on unfamiliar fields or topic areas. Excellent writing and editorial skills with an attention to detail are also required.
This job is an ideal opportunity for those interested in future graduate school or law school studies, whether currently admitted or still applying to such programs.
Over the course of the year, a motivated individual will sharpen and focus his or her research agenda and make valuable contributions (in his or her own name) to the field of cyberlaw and beyond, while being exposed to interesting thinkers in academia, industry, and government. A research associate in this position will work very closely with Professor Jonathan Zittrain and his team, assisting in a variety of research areas, e.g. ubiquitous human computing, mesh networking, and cybersecurity, as well as on topics around access to knowledge and open scholarly publishing under the auspices of the Harvard Law School Library.
The position will not start before June 1, 2013. As with all Berkman staff positions, this is a term position, ending June 30, 2014.
- F-T: Don’t sue over tweets
I just published a short piece in the F-T in the wake of legal threats against users who tweeted or retweeted a link to a BBC report of child abuse that turned out to be wrong. Here’s the full text –
Those who didn’t see the false child abuse accusations against Lord Alistair McAlpine on an ill-considered BBC documentary may have instead heard about them through social media. This week, London’s Metropolitan Police suggested they might file charges against those Twitter users who sullied the reputation of the retired Conservative politician by knowingly repeating the lie that he was a child abuser. But the police may be less fearsome to the average BBC-linking tweeter than Lord McAlpine himself. Read more »
- Taking More than Candy from a Baby
Update – 10/17/2012: The parties involved in the lawsuit – Speak for Yourself and SCS/PRC reached a settlement, allowing the app to remain in the Android and iOS app stores. More at the Nieder family blog.
Original Post:
Generativity hasn’t had a poster child — until now.
Meet Maya, a four-year-old child who could lose her ability to speak with the elimination of an app from the iOS App Store.
As detailed in the Nieder family’s original blog post on the subject, Maya uses Speak for Yourself (SfY), an iPad app that serves as an “augmentative and alternative communication” (AAC) device. Before finding SfY, Maya had tried multiple AAC devices, but hadn’t found one that worked for her. Read more »
- “Unabomber manifesto tied to tech news headlines”
When you see the headline “Powerful ‘Flame’ cyberweapon tied to popular Angry Birds game,” does it cause you to think that there is actually some connnection between the recently discovered malware Flame and Angry Birds? That would be entirely reasonable, but wrong. Read more »
December 28th, 2009 at 9:42 am (#)
As you say: the easier it gets for citizens to contact representatives, the less impact their missives are likely to have. If a Congressperson wants to know how their constituents feel about a certain issue, they know where the opinion polling companies (and their state university social scientists) are…
December 28th, 2009 at 10:27 am (#)
How about “wrong crowd-sourcing”?
December 28th, 2009 at 10:47 am (#)
how about “appstro-turfing” ?!
December 28th, 2009 at 11:28 am (#)
It may be inevitable that we go this way, especially if citizen to government communication happens mostly online. Digg fails for the very same reason: with the right amount of incentive, any topic can rise or fall at someone else’s whim. That said, perhaps there are some creative ways to combat trolls and griefers (that’s what I consider GHRR to be in this case)? Without passing unnecessary laws?
December 28th, 2009 at 1:14 pm (#)
Have to agree with Ian on this one: a local MP aide explained to me that they do not take into account e-mails, unless they sounded really personnal (including spelling mistakes); I don’t think we are a Amazon truk away from being massively astroturfed, and I have to assume most decision are already based on similar kind of influence—I mean, that certainly wasn’t informed opinion— but laundering the effort through FarmVille could make political advertising far more effective: you can target easy to influence groups with message as non-sensical as the one you quote, hope friends who received the same message talk about it in the way you want, and have cores of supporters who won’t be sensitive to reasonnable arguments, all without a historical political base. No need to lobby when you can be the most powerful spin in two weeks.
December 28th, 2009 at 1:35 pm (#)
“short emails become meaningless noise in Congressional offices.”
My understanding is that this is already true, and has been true for a long time (basically as soon as email spam was invented).
“we probably need a better name for this phenomenon than ubiquitous human computing. Any ideas”
I thought “ubiquitous human computing” was JZ’s way of rebranding the topic so that he could talk about the issues to his target audience without being immediately dismissed out of hand. It’s not like he’s about to embrace a phrase like “digital sharecropping”!
http://www.culturekitchen.com/categories/digital_sharecropping
December 30th, 2009 at 10:19 pm (#)
[...] Dec 30th, 2009 by Jon Stahl Lean Improvement Initiative Without TechnologyProcess improvement first, IT implementation second. Heckyeah!UW Grad Student to Launch New Olympia SiteCitizens of Farmville, petition your (real) representatives! :: The Future of the Internet — ̷… [...]
January 12th, 2010 at 6:01 am (#)
…making it easy for already-concerned citizens to contact their reps is okay, but giving some external reward to people who may be totally disinterested is not. These fine lines will become important…
One instance where we seem to come CLOSE to agreeing, is that “these fine lines” are ALREADY important.
Yours’, at least in this instance seems to preclude, also at least in this instance, that it is not feasible the “already-concerned citizens” of which you speak, might not actually agree with the message that they are CHOOSING of their own free will, to both disseminate, AND profit from.
It seems as if you address humanity as entirely devoid of the capacity to reason from a moral base, and further considering the invariable fallout of their correlated decision making; as if the choice between making a decision between the same ends, somehow nullifies it’s effects, owing to the prospect of more immediate and shared agendas, whether they be financial or otherwise.
This is not to say I would accuse you, or any reasonable person of circling Kantian ideals 24/7. (Which is also to say, one post does not a lifetime projection, and or personal historical thesis make)
Perhaps this is all just a metaphorical knee-jerk reaction to the circumstances surrounding the structure, instead of the structure itself. I have no desire to pretend to be beyond the grasp of politicking, and thus, have no intention of taking anyone to task on such a matter, if that should be the case.
Though it does seem reasonable to me to bring to bear that the circumstance behind an employer harassing it’s employees whether through a third party, or not, seems as if altogether different than presenting an opportunity to tie personal advancement, and political choice, in conjunction with a semi-mindless game; no matter the political ends; the former seems at least to me to smack of coercion; no pun intended.
You might do well to consider that it is also not outside the realm of possibility that such a “platform” could be utilized for political agendas that you might find less obnoxious, assumptions provided. Personally, (why not) I wouldn’t mind throwing in my hat to see the Farmville platform utilized to encourage legislators, via their constituents, to instigate more sustainable agricultural practices, such as no till farming, more efficient water usage, etc., however, as noted in previous comments, and from personal experience, such means of communicating with politicians is not as effective as other means of influence. This is not to say that such a scenario still might have some purpose in educating though.
Finally, at least SOME offering is being made to compensate people for their time. It’s not as if the circumstance will mean, even if the sole purpose for doing said work is financial gain, that the intended prospect(s) will march off to save the Union, as was the case during what some still call the Civil War, or laboring for pennies on the dollar, as with Amazon Turk. (Then again, as one of my Professors who helped broker one of the Nike deals in Indonesia reported to us, “Hey, wait a minute, lines for those jobs were out, the door, down the street, and around the block; Nike was paying 50 times more than was possible to secure employment elsewhere with the same skill set, if jobs in that region could be secured at all; even if it wasn’t near enough to keep a senior citizen here in cat food)
This seems to be the point where our “liberal sensitivities,” assumptions further provided, begin to fall sway, and the winks and the nods start rolling out; a bit like watching a women’s studies major attempt to shift from invoking Rawls to a good Ronald Reagan impression, when the subject of pornography, and or prostitution comes up; but I fear digression.
After some consideration, and on to perhaps what is a slice of the bigger picture, maybe what is truly scary about digital sharecropping, and the like, is precisely that said “volunteers,” are not at their corporeal wits end. It would be one thing to rationalize the process as an attempt to seek a reputation for excellence in a chosen field, but that doesn’t explain, day in, day out, dedication. Perhaps it’s the day in day out toil to contribute toward an end that is managed in terms of social recognition, for fear of the masses getting wind of their worth, and the extent to which, they are not being proportionately financially rewarded, combined with a cleverly inculcated fear of risk AND profit, that has so many people striving to not think of at least some portion of their activity as immediately serving other’s gains; i.e., it feels free, ergo, it must be.
January 12th, 2010 at 6:14 am (#)
Note to Self: 3 AM blog responses might be hazardous to thine writing.
I had meant to say as the last sentence to the eighth paragraph words to the effect of: “…might not still have some purpose in educating though”
Instead of what I did.
Apologies for any confusion.
And yes, I was alluding to “people’s” jobs in the final paragraph.
Cheers-
January 14th, 2010 at 8:49 pm (#)
[...] Child Safety & Online Technologies” (executive summary), OL. Oppenheimer, Eilsabeth, “Citizens of Farmville,” The Future of the Internet Blog, OL. Singel, Ryan, “Rogue Marketers Can Mine Your Info on [...]