Google “Contributor” Makes No Sense

OK, now I’m baffled.  Am I completely lost?

Google has announced a cunning new idea, Google Contributor, which is a “tip jar” application.

You pay a subscription (via Google) and then you get less advertising on your screen.  (Google was paid to put the adverts there, of course, so you are paying them to not bother you.)

On the face of it, I just don’t understand how this can work.

First of all, I already don’t see the ads, because I use aggressive client filters.  (Search for ‘ad blocking’ and check out Ghostery.)

I know this is bad for the current business model of the Web, but tough.  Once you deliver the data to me, I can display it any way I want.  You can’t build your business on me looking at your bone-headed advertising.

Second, why do you need Google?  Why can’t you run your own ‘tip jar’?  OK, I see how small mom and pop web site might benefit from some ‘tip jar’ services, but really, its not that hard.  So how will Google be better?

Finally, the whole thing feels like extortion.  If you don’t pay me, I’m going to bombard you with ads (and track you).  Really?  How is that good for the content site?  Google may not care, but I don’t want to tell my customers, “pay up or Google will pester you”.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Hayase On “Cryptocurrencies For Economic Self-determination”

Coindesk published an interesting essay by Nozomi Hayase, which is a revealing recitation of a “Bitcoin Narrative”.

The central theme in this story is “cryptocurrencies for economic self-determination.” He cites different cases, who share only an enthusiasm for Bitcoin as a means to advance their own underdog case.

He then tells a story about “trust”, which actually seems synonymous with “authority”.

“Bitcoin’s decentralized trust eliminates the need for any centralized authority and brings the source of legitimacy in the realm of finance back to individuals.”

”By choosing to abide with algorithmic consensus, we participate in creating a society based on our trust in ourselves and our fellows.”

This is actually a brilliantly clear statement of this central theme in this story: some how computers and “our fellows” are more trustworthy than conventional authorities.

I have made clear before that this is a naïve and fundamentally flawed conception of “trust”. But cultural narratives are more about who we want to be than logic.

Hayase continues to laud the ease with which Bitcoin flows across all borders and limits. To the degree that this is true, it is the most dangerous feature for many reasons. He extols the alleged value of Bitcoin for remittances, and blasts the current system which is allegedly run by profiteering “monopolies”. No mention of money laundering or the problems created by “hot money”.

He then bangs the drum for Bitcoin as “the bank-less and government-less currency of the oppressed.” Notably, this is seen as a populist response to “in places where governments tightly control the currency and hyper-inflate hard earned work and value through harsh austerity and money printing.” He’s thinking of Argentina, Iceland, Spain. Places where unfettered financial movements crashed the economy.

Hayase winds up with a rousing, if logically confused, call for the marginalized to escape “systems of Western financial hegemony”, and to empower the “unbanked” and those “underbanked” “due to radical currency debasement as well as a lack of small business investment capital and high transfer fees”.

“The time has come for us to reclaim the power of self-determination and build our common future through this flow of networked trust.”

Wow!

Full marks for stating the arguments clearly.

I’m not going to debate these points in detail, though they are riddled with errors and flawed assumptions.  (For example:  Bitcoin is usually described as “trustless”.  Hayase more correctly describes it as “networked trust”.  This is a huge difference.)

Most of these concepts are not new, but apparently Bitcoin has been a catalyst to state and act out particular combinations. It is particularly interesting to find complaints about “Western hegemony” tied to solutions involving unfettered capitalism. Phew!

There are several points I will make.

First, he completely equates “blockchain”, “cryptocurrency”, and “Bitcoin”. As I have pointed out many times, there can be, and are, many cryptocurrencies. Many of the populist cases he cites (Lakota, Argentina) have seen the rise of their own “national” cryptocurrencies. He does not consider this, and implicitly accepts a global “gold standard” Bitcoin as the correct solution. If the goal is self-determination, then your own cryptocurrency seems arguably better than Bitcoin.

Second, this “power to the people” narrative is only one of at least three different “stories” about Bitcoin.

There is, and always has been, enthusiastic adoption by extralegal enterprises including drugs and arms trafficing, stolen property markets, and increasingly cyber extortion. This offshore “pirate” theme is in no way interested in or good for the poor and powerless. If Bitcoin ended up replacing the “tyranny” of Western Union or the central bank of Argentina with systems run by international mafias it would not really be a step forward.

The other major theme is revolutionizing conventional finance, for example through micropayments, point of sale consumer commerce, and blockchain-based financial instruments. This “disruption” theme attracts venture capitalists and joint ventures by banks and other institutions. These folks need to stay right with the law, and indeed benefit from solid regulation. Ordinary consumers will not be satisfied with a dark net, and legitimate banks care about both stability and reputation.

I note that the original Bitcoin community was “miners”, who have their own universe of concerns about exchange rates and technical arms races. These topics are fading for most Bitcoinistas as “mining” has become capital intensive professional operations (and, ironically, increasingly opaque and centralized).

These alternative “narratives” all call upon Bitcoin and/or blockchains as the technical foundation, but have rather different goals and requirements. Tension is quite apparent at Bitcoin and other meetings, especially around the emerging application of conventional financial regulations.

In a sense, this is a sign of the growth and maturation of Bitcoin: communities fragment as they grow larger, and cryptocurrency is useful for many purposes.

I also think it is time to stop thinking of “the Bitcoin community” or “Bitcoin users” as if they are a single, coherent group. Clearly, there are multiple “stories” being told and acted out by Bitcoin, and increasingly by variations of blockchain technology.

Book Review: Beautiful You by Chuck Palahniuk

Beautiful You by Chuck Palahniuk

Palhniuk writes really strange, dark, twisted stories that somehow appeal to me in ways I can’t really explain or justify. I’ve commented on earlier works (Doomed (2013), Damned (2011), and others), and Beautiful You is certainly in the same vein.

These books are funny, but only if you get by the horror. They might be satire, except they are so over the top weird that it is impossible to say they represent any real thing.

Beautiful You is a very strange tale about sexual excess taken to the point that it isn’t even sexy. It could be read as a slashing satire of consumerism and capitalism and celebrity, except that would be taking it far too seriously. This might be allegory, though I’m not sure what the point is, exactly.

The plot makes no sense, the technology described is absurd.  I don’t detect much morality or even ideology.

The only thing that makes sense is some of the characters and their efforts to make it in a difficult world. Amid all the icky, violent, and absurd difficulties, we sympathize and identify with the people here.

Oh, wait. Now I see why I like it.

Not for the faint of heart, but a really good read. If you can deal with it.

---

 

1. Chuck Palahniuk, Beautiful You, New York, Doubleday, 2014.

Bitcoin Startups Break No New Ground

This story is settling in to a pretty boring drumbeat.  What is Bitcoin really useful for?  (Besides extra-legal commerce.)

There is a continuing rain of startups, touting their “innovative” ideas, which aren’t really new, and mostly are pretty similar to each other.  Considering that we have been doing the “money” thing for a long time, with a lot of intense interest, it’s not too surprising if Bitcoin is recapitulating rather than inventing these uses.

Case in point, startups announced at DEMO this week, reported by Daniel Cawrey in Coindesk.

These were:

• Obsidian – financial engineering to stabilize BTC pricing
• SmartContract – yet another executable contract thing, relies on external ‘oracle’ services and data streams such as GPS
• Pavilion – escrow services, replaces current services from, say e-bay
• HelloBit– cross border money movement, AKA remittances, AKA money laundering

The first is one of many, and is of little concern to ordinary users.  The second is one of many, none of which have demonstrated success, and all of which have deep, fundamental problems.  The third is one of many, and certainly is not needed by regular customers who already get this service from the conventional system. Merchants may like it, but customers won’t care.  The last is yet another stab at cross border transfers, though not aimed at the unbanked.  The business model described in the article almost certainly requires FINCEN compliance in the US, so it may be limited to Latin America for now.

Overall, nothing really new, not even new to Bitcoin.

It’s still the flavor of the month, but it’s getting stale fast.

And we’re all waiting for someone to actually build a successful company.

“Anti Lonelinesss” Bowl And Other Design Winners

This week I had a glance at the winners of the A’ Design Award & Competition.

Lot’s of interesting things.  As usual, many, many iterations on a “chair”, which I would think is a solved problem.  Of course, as often, many of the designs would need signage so mortals can tell they are supposed to sit on it.

One stood out, apparently being deliberately designed not to be inscrutable, but to be actively hostile (the “Icicle Chair”). “[W]hat would happen if the secure and lovely part that you are rely become a violent and insecure elements? This is the feeling that I want to show .”  Yoiks!

Icicle Chair by Ali Alavi

 

The one that most caught my eye is truly sad: the Anti-Loneliness Ramen Bowl by Daisuke Nagatomo and Minnie Jan.

Anti-Loneliness Ramen Bowl – by Daisuke Nagatomo & Minnie Jan

This is so sad on so many levels!

First, the entire inspiration is quite human, a lonely person eating along.  And it may be natural to browse a mobile device while eating alone, so the technical development is plausible.

However, this does not actually address the “loneliness”, in fact, just the opposite.  This bowl only works if you are alone–it is a Loneliness Bowl.  At best, this is a sad surrender to eating alone, and at worst it actively encourages it.

I also note a number of technical deficiencies.  The slot for the device is certainly at an awkward angle, and not at all convenient for touching the screen — a critical deficiency, I would think.

The slot is inflexible and only one size.  Not only does it hold only one kind of mobile phone, by now even the next model of that phone probably does not fit.  Oops!  Really bad design on that point.

Rosetta Settles In For Amazing Ride Around The Sun

With the dramatic and more-eventful-than-hoped Philae landing over for now and probably for ever, Rosetta continues with its ground breaking science from orbit.  For another year!

This is so cool!

The orbiter will ride with the comet as it swings by the sun (closest approach next August), observing the explosion of activity as the comet is warmed, spewing gas and dust.

This process has never been observed from so close and for so long.  We should learn a lot about comets.

Stay tuned.

Four image NAVCAM mosaic comprising images of Comet 67P/C-G taken on 17 November. Credits: ESA/Rosetta/NAVCAM – CC BY-SA IGO 3.0

Patricia Marx on Emotional Support Animals

Patricia Marx has been at it again!  I loved her piece on “outsourcing” yourself last year, and now she has investigated “Emotional Support Animals”, which seems to be a scam exploiting the laws supporting legitimate service animals.

This is a critical point:  animals who provide critical services for humans are rightly given legal access to public places. They are also trained and certified. “Emotional Support Animals” do not have most of those rights, and are certified only by companies selling certifications.

As is her style, she dug in with either old fashioned investigative reporting or maybe enthnographic participant observation. Or possibly performance art.  If there is any difference between these things.

She reports how simple it is to get a letter (you just buy one) and a certificate (you just buy one).  Are we getting the picture?

She explains that most merchants and facilities are very careful not to harass people with disabilities about their animals, which can lead to serious fines.  So, when presented with a letter saying an animal is needed for emotional support, most will let it go rather than risk violating the ADA (which basically doesn’t apply).

All this is edifying, but, of course, no where near enough for Ms. Marx.

She had to try it out in Manhattan. With her support snake. Turtle.  Turkey!  Alpaca.  Pig.  The Turkey rode a bus to lunch in a restaurant. The Alpaca was let on a train and a museum.The Pig flew to and from Boston.

The author takes an alpaca to the drugstore. There’s a lot of confusion about what emotional-support animals can legally do.

In general, the animals were not happy, and this wasn’t really good for them.

Plus, it was an abuse of an important law and service that really helps people. And fake, untrained “support” animals give people poor expectations about wonderful real assistants.

So, it’s not really a harmless scam, is it?

But the article is also awfully funny.

As it happens, I had a dream recently about having a support animal–an assistive Grizzly Bear.  It would certainly give me emotional support, cause nobody would mess with me while I have my bear with me!

---

 

Patricia Marx, Pets Allowed: Why are so many animals now in places where they shouldn’t be?, in The New Yorker. 2014, Conde Nast: New York. p. 36-41.

Book Review: “The Peripheral” by William Gibson

The Peripheral by William Gibson

The latest from perennial favorite Gibson. Since Neuromancer (1984), he’s been blowing our minds with visions of technological futures so amazing they disappear into the memetic background of technoculture.

This story elaborates the possibilities of drones and avatars, run by various forms of telepresence. And nanoassemblers (and disassemblers-ouch!). And 3D printing. Crazy automated trading. Active camoflauge.  And some wild tattoo art, as well.

Lots and lots of fashion and design, good, bad, and violently ugly, lovingly and lavishly described. One of Gibson’s trademarks.

The story is gripping and we really worry about the characters as they get sucked into dark and dangerous doings, escalating uncontrollably with powers only vaguely suspected. Yer basic Gibson stuff.

Wonderful and wondrous.

As in Neuromancer and his other stories, the mere facts don’t get in the way of his imagination. I sincerely doubt that telepresence can work this way. Latency, don’t you know. But he describes how we want the technology to work, and even if we can’t quite get there, we’ll do everything we can to get close.

---

1. William Gibson, The Peripheral, New York, G P Putnam’s Sons, 2014.

NYU HackBit Disappoints

So the Hacker League in NYC did “HackBit: Bitcoin Student Hackathon“, to celebrate “ideas and innovations around bitcoin”.

The results were less than astounding.

First place was “To The Moon”, a space invaders like  “game that pays out Shatoshis for points scored”.  First of all, “To The Moon” is a slogan/meme for Dogecoin, so what’s the deal here?  And second, how is this innovative?  In game coins?  Kind of been done.  A lot.

Second place was “BitRec” “an add-on to merchant POS systems that allows individuals to use bitcoins and track receipts.”  I’m not sure what that is exactly, but it doesn’t sound very new and certainly doesn’t require Bitcoin.  (I’m confident Apple Pay and competitors will have this feature.)

Third place was “Bitquant” “automatically trades BTC/USD currency pairs, ’nuff said”.  Well, not really ’nuff for me to grok what I would want this for, and certainly not a particularly important use for Bitcoin.

So, overall, pretty hacky and not in any way “innovative”.  Worse, these ideas don’t need Bitcoin per se.

Certainly not a “New Generation of Bitcoin Apps“.

NPR Cover Poor Design Of Wearables

NPR had a segment on wearable computing, in particular how unsuccessful the designs have been as things “everyone” wants to wear.

In particular, the story notes perception that the designs suffer from skewed design teams. In particular, all male design teams have produced wearables that are unattractive to women. This is probably true of most tech gadgets, but really hurts products that are supposed to be worn as clothing or jewelry.

The story quotes Maddy Maxey to comment that ‘excluding people from a design creates “micro-inequities,” sending the message that a device “isn’t something that you’re meant to have.”‘

I would agree with these points, but I would go farther. The design teams really ought to include people who are not rich, young, techies. Most ‘cool’ tech, including wearables, is so far divorced from most people’s lives that it really does send the message that you are not meant to have it. Does a working mother need her watch to monitor her exercise (as if she gets any)? Does a elder care worker need fancy jewelry to let her know her phone is ringing—when her phone is right there? Does anyone other that a big deal master of the universe need custom printed headphones?  Does a kid working at a fast foot place need a ring to let him buy stuff with a swipe?

The piece also interviewed Isabelle Olsson of Google, who is apparently responsible for Google Glass looking the way it does. She talks about “beauty and comfort”, and diversity in design (i.e., including rich, young women as well as men). But nothing here about safety, privacy, or any consideration of whether the product is good for people.

I still say Google Glass is still evil.

And I’m still waiting for wearables worth wearing.