doc searls – intention economy
huge to doc searls intention economy – perhaps we don’t run for things so much – perhaps we don’t hold so many offices – perhaps we don’t spend our time securing credentials et al – perhaps they just happen as we do things that matter
i think it was ch 21 that just sounded like our vision of redefining public ed. very resonating.
some of the resonating comments in his book:
The Intention Economy will require both a free Internet and free customers. Whatever legal folks can do to make both happen (including staying out of the way) will be a Good Thing.
I think the incentives need to come from customers—patients—working to maximize their own health, with their own devices and services.
To live is to move. [and we aren’t moving if we spend our days proving things – not to mention – things aren’t provable. no?]
I dropped the idea that I was an expert, whose job it was to fill the little heads with my expertise, and began to explore how I could remove those obstacles that prevented the inherent genius of children from gathering itself.
The Internet is a commons with the characteristics of a worldwide city.
Conversation is a profound act of humanity.
But history will move a lot faster now, because everybody and everything is far more networked. Life in the city is bound to get a lot more interesting. There’s no way around it. The choice is to dance or die.
These were the kinds of conversations people have been having since they started to talk. Social. Based on intersecting interests. Open to many resolutions. Essentially unpredictable. Spoken from the center of the self.
That imbalance between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots,’ as in any walk of life, leads the ‘haves’ to take advantage, and the ‘have nots’ to rebel against this in whatever way they can. Or (more often) they just don’t engage as they might in a more balanced and equitable relationship. – sounds like ed
That imbalance between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have nots,’ as in any walk of life, leads the ‘haves’ to take advantage, and the ‘have nots’ to rebel against this in whatever way they can. Or (more often) they just don’t engage as they might in a more balanced and equitable relationship. – ed..
We need to manage our relationships. Not each other.
We will have our own ways of exposing our own core competencies, and we will be in full control of them.
This ability for you to have it and share it out, is going to transform our industry, over the next ten years. There is going to be this tectonic shift, as everything sort of re-shapes and re-centers itself around people, around individuals, and around the mountains of data that they have … Everybody talks about “big data.” This isn’t big data. This is going to be the era of small data, of my data.
In his book, Doc references Jerry Michalski (of jerry’s brain) for his work with REX [Relationship Economy eXpedition].
book links to amazon
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/dsearls/status/673320342073442304
While The Cluetrain Manifesto is best known for its 95 theses (especially its first, “Markets are conversations”), the clue that matters most is this one, which runs above the whole list:
we are not seats or eyeballs or end users or consumers.
we are human beings and our reach exceeds your grasp. deal with it.
feb 2016 – the internet of me
Cluetrain was — and still is — about the Internet and how it blows up business as usual by giving us all new powers.
In other words, it has always been about the Internet of Me.
Industry won with scale: through mass manufacture, mass marketing, mass distribution, mass media, and mass ‘agreements’ we were all forced to sign. …in 1943, the law professor Friedrich Kessler called these non-agreements ‘contracts of adhesion’, because they force one side to adhere while the other can do what it pleases, including changing the terms on a whim, with no recourse for the other party.
The Internet of Me is about me, not my data. It’s about what I do, not what I have, or the ones and zeros that comprise it.
Our lives, jobs, wishes, hopes, relationships, possessions and activities cannot and should not be reduced to the data involved, even as we are mindful of it. What matters is how our lives are networked, and how we control what happens across the network that connects us all. Control is the issue. Agency is the issue. If we focus on those, more than just the data involved, we’ll finally get to the true Internet of Me. If we focus only on data, we’ll be reducing our lives to the digital equivalent of atoms and molecules.
we still don’t have a fully developed and common understanding of how to keep our lives and digital possessions private,
ps in the open ness
In Kevin Kelly’s perfect metaphor, ‘the Internet is a copy machine’.
all code and the machinery that contains it reposes in some physical space, but the design of systems and networks no longer require that we know where that is. Unless we want to control it. Then the controls need to be on our devices, which are extensions of ourselves. Personal devices are critically important for the Internet of Me.
To be fair, companies don’t know what to do yet because customers and users (not necessarily the same thing — there’s a Venn overlap there) haven’t showed up as fully independent, autonomous and respectable participants in the marketplace.
i’d replace marketplace with world.. because perhaps when people do show up.. marketplace/company/customer ness will be irrelevant
What do see as the barriers or issues holding back the shift in control to individuals?
I see two big ones.
The first is inventions that mother necessity: tools that are so obviously useful that people demand them. We have a lot that are conceptually right, but I don’t see any yet that demand use — at least not to a degree that the meme takes off, the app or whatever goes viral and everybody says ‘damn, that’s a great thing’. I think there are a few promising contenders, but nothing breakthrough yet. But it will happen.
indeed.. begs being deep/simple/open enough
The second is money to fund development of those inventions. Very little has been invested so far.
perhaps … if they are brave enough.. y combinators basic income experiment.. and/or the billions going toward refugee camps..
What matters is what we invent for individuals. That’s it. After that, nature will take care of the rest.
What we need next are better ways for demand and supply to inform and connect.
The result will be the intention economy, which will work far better for demand and supply than the attention economy we have today, simply because there will be so many more and better ways to inform and connect, in both directions.
I’m sure if we zero-base the intention economy in our new all-digital world, it is unlikely that we’ll invent any of the media we have today.
The fact is, we are now in a digital world as well as an analog one. That alone rewrites the future in a huge way.
In the past we put up with being annoyed and yelled at by advertising. And now we’re putting up with being spied on and guessed at, personally, as well. But we don’t have to put up with any of it any more.
sans b – what if our thinking about security, voting, measuring exchanges, contracts, property…is what’s getting in the way. what if they are (could/should be) irrelevant (gupta roadblock law). we have the means now – so why don’t we use tech to coordinate/regroup/re self organize us.. rather than making b more efficient…
There is a limit to what one can know about somebody if selling them shit is all you want to do with the information.
Nothing makes lying to ones self easier than having lots of numbers to do it with.
thinking of homo faber article
So I have a hunch about what comes next. Let’s call it a theory, meaning it can proved right or wrong.
Here it is: we are not in a “post-truth” era. Instead, we are at the very beginning of a post-marketing era: one in which connected individuals in markets do more for their suppliers than marketing alone has ever been able to do.
That’s because the Internet we know today has only been around since 1995, when commercial activity started to explode on it. “Big data” has only been around since 2012. Most of adtech as we know it today is much newer. But it’s still just another form of direct marketing, which is descended from junk mail and a cousin of spam.
The simple and vexing fact of the matter is that the Net is too radically new and different to be sensibly understood using any of the old media.
Two key differences are personal connection and personal agency. The Internet graces all of us with the former, and we’ve barely begun to take advantage of the latter.
perhaps hosting-life-bits.. using tech/mech to as useful tool rather than as using/compromising us..
Neither were possible in any of the old media.
What comes after that, I don’t know — though I have worked hard for the last ten years to make good things happen for people and their economy in this new world. And some of it actually is happening.
let’s try a nother way..
Doc Searls (@dsearls) tweeted at 7:34 AM – 13 Apr 2017 :
Just tightened up my liveblog of the @datasociety thing yesterday on 1999.io https://t.co/Ho1YiY2vIg(http://twitter.com/dsearls/status/852515342958170115?s=17)
Wolfie Christl (@WolfieChristl) tweeted at 1:55 PM – 23 Mar 2018 :
The image shows what’s going on behind the scenes when you visit https://t.co/mDYeDiBXck or other websites. This simply has to stop.
‘Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica problems are nothing compared to what’s coming for all of online publishing’ by @dsearls: https://t.co/BIkSwyw0ajhttps://t.co/7WYEalZdiI (http://twitter.com/WolfieChristl/status/977272603038633985?s=17)
doc’s post: http://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2018/03/23/nothing/
And here’s what happens when I turn off “Block Trackers and Content”:
adds more.. whoa
What will happen when the Times, the New Yorker and other pubs own up to the simple fact that they are just as guilty as Facebook of leaking its readers data to countless parties unknown, for—in many if not most cases—for God knows what purposes besides “interest-based” advertising?
Every time an ad loads on a website, the site sends the visitor’s IP address (indicating physical location), the URL they are looking at, and details about their device, to hundreds -often thousands- of companies. Here is a graphic that shows the process.
This is the easiest fix in the world, but so far it’s nearly unthinkable because we’ve been defaulted for more than twenty years to an asymmetric power relationship between people and publishers called client-server. I’ve been told that client-server was chosen as the name for this relationship because “slave-master” didn’t sound so good; ..t
It doesn’t have to be that way. Beneath the Web, the Net’s TCP/IP-based architecture—the gravity that holds us all together in cyberspace—remains no less peer-to-peer and end-to-end than it was in the first place.
Meaning we don’t need to be slaves or cattle. We can be human. In legal terms, we can operate, as first parties rather than second ones. In other words, the sites of the world can agree to our terms, rather than the other way around.
Doc Searls (@dsearls) tweeted at 6:59 AM – 21 Apr 2018 :
My thoughts on self-sovereign identity (#SSI): https://t.co/6zR4zRsFCo & speaking @ @kuppingercole’s #EIC2018: https://t.co/VHcErug9DQ HTs 2 @NZN @NicoleAMaines @Kim_Cameron & all Earth’s free & independent souls. “The time has come to humanize identity in the networked world…” (http://twitter.com/dsearls/status/987677157567713280?s=17)
Knowing people by name has many advantages for administrative systems, but also presents problems in the networked world for both those systems and human beings. Requiring “an ID” for every person puts operational and cognitive overhead on both
In the natural world, a boundless variety of business interactions only require that the business know who they encounter is human, trustworthy, and worth the time and effort..t
business/interactions in natural world..? let’s try undisturbed ecosystem via intention sans business ness ie: all the data that never really needed to be collected… and so we have inspectors of inspectors et al.. too much.. aka: B and b
in today’s networked world, we need approaches to identity that start with human agency, and are modeled on the way each of us operates in the natural world.. t..
We should be able to disclose and express our distinctions, choices, requirements and existing relationships with ease—and with anonymity as the defaulted social state until we decide otherwise..t
I just published “For privacy we need tech more than policy” https://t.co/1euvWU462I
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/dsearls/status/1021832766068064256
Nature and the Internet both came without privacy.
The difference is that we’ve invented privacy tech in the natural world, starting with clothing and shelter, and we haven’t yet done the same in the digital world.
In the natural world, we also have long-established norms for signaling what’s private, what isn’t, and how to respect both. Laws have grown up around those norms as well. But let’s be clear: the tech and the norms came first.
Yet for some reason many of us see personal privacy as a grace of policy. It’s like, “The answer is policy. What is the question?”
What they both miss is that we need what we might call big personal. We can only get that with with personal tech gives each of us power not just resist encroachments by others, but to have agency.
None are yet as private as they should be, but making them fully private is the job of tech.
What matters most to us online is agency, not data.
We can’t get *there (id, pay, own) if all we’re thinking about is data.
we can get beyond *there if we focus on self-talk as data
let’s invent the tech we need first..t
ie: to listen to all the voices.. everyday.. and facil that.. as it could be..