The Infrastructure Dynamic

I just posted Rupert Murdoch vs. The Web, over at Linux Journal. In it I suggest that the Murdoch story (played mostly as Bing vs Google) is a red herring, and that the real challenge is to free the Web and ourselves from dependencies from giant companies I liken to volcanoes:

We’re Pompeians, Krakatoans, Montserratans, building cities and tilling farms on the slopes of active volcanoes. Always suckers for stories, we’d rather take sides in wars between competing volcanoes than build civilization on more flat and solid ground where there’s room enough for everybody.

Google and Bing are both volcanoes. Both grace the Web’s landscape with lots of fresh and fertile ground. They are good to have in many ways. But they are not the Earth below. They are not what gives us gravity.

I think one problem here is a disconnect between belief systems about markets, and the stories that arise from them.

One system believes a free market is Your Choice of Captor. In this camp I put both the make-it/take-it mentality (where “winners” are rewarded and “losers” punished) of the Wall Street Journal (which a few months ago looked upon the regulated duopolies for Internet access as the “free market” at work) and those who see business (or corporations, or capitalism, or all three) as a problem and look to government — another monopoly — for remedy from these evils in the marketplace. In other words, I lump both the left and the right in here, along with the conflicts between them.

The other system sees markets as settings for human activity: the locations, both real and virtual, where people and their organizations meet to do business, make culture, and build civilization. Here I put nearly everybody who contributed the structural agreements that made the Internet possible, and who truly understand what it is and how it works, even if they can’t all agree on what metaphors to use for it. I also include all who have contributed, and continue to contribute, to the free and open code bases with which we are building out our networked world. While political beliefs among members of this system may sort somewhere along the right-vs.-left axis, what they do to build the world is orthogonal to that axis. That’s one big reason why that work escapes notice.

The distinction I see here aligns well with Virginia Postrel‘s contrast between “stasists” and “dynamists”. The difference is that much of what gets done to make the networked world (and to support its dynamism) isn’t “dynamic” in the active and dramatic sense of the word — except in its second-order effects. For example, SMTP and IMAP are not dynamic. (Being mannerly technical agreements, protocols don’t do that.) But on those protocols (and related ones) email happened, and the world hasn’t been the same since.

With that distinction in mind, I suggest that too much oxygen suckage is wasted on “wars” between the stasists (some of whom are also into the superficially dynamistic attention-suck of vendor sports — here’s an oldie but goodie that still makes my point), and not enough on constructive work done by geeks and entrepreneurs who quietly build the original and useful stuff that serves as solid infrastructure on which countless public goods (including wealth creation beyond measure) can be generated.

We have the same problem in most net neutrality arguments. The right hates it, the left loves it. One looks to protect the “free market” of phone and cable companies (currently a Your-Choice-of-Captor system) while the other looks to government (meet your new captor) for relief. When in fact the whole thing has happened all along within what Bob Frankston calls The Regultorium.

The primary dynamism of the Internet — what gave us the Net in the first place, and what holds the most promise in the long run — doesn’t just come from those parties, and can’t be found in the arguments they’re having. It comes from low-box-office geekery that supports enormous new business opportunities (along with many public benefits, with or without business).

It’ll take time to see this, I guess. Just hope we don’t drown in lava in the meantime.

Bonus red herring: A lot of news really isn’t.



13 responses to “The Infrastructure Dynamic”

  1. The loudest voices in this argument all seem to be a little off base on how Google actually interacts with the origin site. Danny Sullivan: Would Someone Please Explain To News Corp How Google Works? (Maybe News Corp. is getting their Google technology briefings from MSFT?)

    What I really don’t get is why the same thing won’t happen to the WSJ as happened to Thomas Friedman: the top results for their stories are now blogs about how bogus they are.

    I like your point about search engines. Most of my Google use is to find a page that has already passed through my browser before. If I had things set up to do a better job of indexing, caching, and local searching, I could do without the big engine most of the time.

  2. I think it’s very important to recognize the role of the current crappy state of security in enabling the spread of silos to blight the landscape. It’s possible to build a secure OS, one that never has to trust an application to only do what it says on the tin, but to date we don’t have any in the PC sphere of operation.

    Because of this, filtering, and putting things behind firewalls, and in safe silos will continue to be the way we cope with this for a long time to come.

    As I said, it doesn’t HAVE to be this way. We don’t HAVE to live with computers that constantly get infected, etc… but everyone seems convinced that things are acceptable, and so effectively, it is.

    –Mike–

    PS: If you actually want a secure OS, you have to read about Capability Based Security, and then start building your own.

  3. Was wondering why I would care what search I used as long as I got the answer I wanted. Seems more about knowing what to put into the search box. …well that was before I saw “Fare and Balanced Murdock” was involved.

  4. Your larger point about the importance of a free and open Net vs Choice-of-Captors doesn’t get anywhere near enough attention. We’re sliding into “b” without even noticing how much of “a” has already been lost. The attitude seems to be, “Who cares? I wasn’t using those rights anyway.”

    One small example: I was on one of my rare visits to youtube to find an Attenborough clip. Once I played it, I was offended and disgusted to see a flashy video ad at the beginning. (Google’s level of contribution to Attenborough’s work and the web might be worth a small text ad to the side.) So I go to search for a way to adblock this new nuisance.

    Oddly enough, no useful results. Just stuff about neat new uses of video for marketing. I figured Greasemonkey would have something, went straight there, and it was the first result on a within-site search. Thousands of downloads. That type of greasemonkey result normally does appear quite high up in google searches.

    Whether or not Google wants to hinder searches for ways to remove its ads is kind of minor. But the fact that results can disappear from searches — and down the most effective memory hole ever — without any oversight or recourse is anything but minor. And we’ve handed that over without even noticing (much) that it’s gone.

  5. @mrgardon: The answer you want, or the answer Google wants you to get? How would you know that you aren’t getting the best answer?

    You (or some people) might think we who are concerned about this belong to the tin-hat brigade, but we think the historical evidence is pretty persuasive: It usually happens that concentration of power is rapidly followed by misuse of that power. Maybe Google and Yahoo are not yet doing anything undesirable with their search services, but it probably is only a matter of time until they do. (I intentionally left Microsoft out of that statement because, although I don’t know what it is, I expect that Microsoft already is doing something undesirable with its search service.)

    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

  6. One problem with what you’re advocating is that 99.8% of people who theoretically have the knowhow to build an “open” search engine have low self-esteem, confidence issues, an allergy towards sunlight and are fairly socially challenged. This means that instead of taking an initiative (like RMS and Linus did) their time is spent almost entirely in their own minds, looking for a way out and finding none. Until someone starts training these gifted people on how to become socially comfortable, technology will advance at the slow pace we’re all accustomed to.

  7. In a capitalist economy there are two ways to make money. One is by producing a superior product that people want so that they freely come to you and spend their money. The other is by blocking people from escaping from a product you control. Therefore, capital can be use profitably for (1) creating attractive products or by (2) creating barriers that block competitors. As the concentration of capital reaches its obscene proportions, as in the case of Newscorp and Microsoft, the opportunities for innovation become fewer and such companies have no alternative but to erect walls that control consumers. To call this free-market capitalism is ridiculous. It is decidedly not free, particularly for the consumer. Concentrated oligopoly capitalism eventually becomes an evil that can only be controlled by the government or by enlightened consumers. Perhaps Americans will need more European-style regulation. A hundred years ago giant monopolies were destroying the American economy, are we there again?

  8. In a capitalist economy there are two ways to make money. One is by producing a superior product that people want so that they freely come to you and spend their money. The other is by blocking people from escaping from a product you control. Therefore, capital can be use profitably for (1) creating attractive products or by (2) creating barriers that block competitors. As the concentration of capital reaches its obscene proportions, as in the case of Newscorp and Microsoft, the opportunities for innovation become fewer and such companies have no alternative but to erect walls that control consumers. To call this free-market capitalism is ridiculous. It is decidedly not free, particularly for the consumer. Concentrated oligopoly capitalism eventually becomes an evil that can only be controlled by the government or by enlightened consumers. Perhaps Americans will need more European-style regulation. A hundred years ago giant monopolies were destroying the American economy, are we there again?

  9. In a capitalist economy there are two ways to make money. One is by producing a superior product that people want so that they freely come to you and spend their money. The other is by blocking people from escaping from a product you control. Therefore, capital can be use profitably for (1) creating attractive products or by (2) creating barriers that block competitors. As the concentration of capital reaches its obscene proportions, as in the case of Newscorp and Microsoft, the opportunities for innovation become fewer and such companies have no alternative but to erect walls that control consumers. To call this free-market capitalism is ridiculous. It is decidedly not free, particularly for the consumer. Concentrated oligopoly capitalism eventually becomes an evil that can only be controlled by the government or by enlightened consumers. Perhaps Americans will need more European-style regulation. There do seem to be some enlightened consumers out there. A hundred years ago giant monopolies were destroying the American economy, are we there again?

  10. I find more and more that people have very sensible things to say which need saying because they have noticed major problems with the way things are done, but they end up saying them in very tortured ways because they have to fit them into our dominant myth structure.

    Specifically, people always seem to start whatever they want to say about changing the system by using the word “market” in some way that stretches the meaning so far it starts to shred. That allows whatever subversive thing they’re trying to say to seem safe and within bounds, because whatever it is, it’s some manifestation of a “market”, so it’s OK and unthreatening. Unfortunately, in trying to fit their ideas into the notion of “market”, they tend also to end up obscuring and distorting their ideas’ basic strengths. This tendency is stronger in the US than anywhere else.

    So for instance, we have the venerable “marketplace of ideas”. There is no marketplace of ideas. The way ideas spread, are adopted, and so on does not resemble a marketplace or a market much at all. Similarly, the small-scale activity that creates most of the stuff on the internet, from open source software production to blogging to messing about on social websites to who knows what all, mostly isn’t a market in any way shape or form. It involves more co-operation than competition for the most part, it doesn’t involve scarcity or opportunity costs in any normal sense, most stuff on it is free. You can call it one, but the analogy is vague, strained and highly misleading.

    This is a good article. But if the author were to go back to it, rip out nearly every reference to the term “market” or “marketplace” and figure out what he actually means and say that instead, I’d be willing to bet the result would be far better–clearer, stronger, more coherent.

  11. Rufus,

    You might be interested in what we wrote in The Cluetrain Manifesto about misleading uses of the word “market.”

    Start reading under “First things last” here.

  12. I never really took any of these things into consideration to be honest.. Not that it’s something it simply never occurred to me. I’ve picked up a lot from this article and will be looking into it quite a bit more, hopefully I’ll be able to add a bit more insight into this discussion next time!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *