Are designers of social engagement anti-social?

I remember very clearly a day in April 1992 when I was walking in my adoptive city of New York and thinking about my native city of Los Angeles, which was at that moment roiling with the violence known as the Rodney King Riots.  I couldn’t help but wonder whether or not copycat or sympathetic riots might flare up in New York, but the prevailing calm made me think about the contrasts in the design of these two cities  and how those differences might have played a role in race relations.  Los Angelenos, of course, live in their cars, and one of the flaws with traveling autonomously around suburban sprawl is that segregation becomes absolute. To be blunt, L.A. has rich and middle-class white parts of town, and poor and working-class, black and latino parts of town; and there is no central transportation flow that forces people of different races to coexist at least for the duration of a commute.  This is an important contrast with a place like New York City, where the six-figure executive will ride elbow-elbow on the subway with the janitor; and this kind of systemically imposed interaction is of course the type of benefit urban planners aim for in their proposed designs.

New York Times OpEd by Allison Arieff, points to a contradiction between the use of urbanist lingo by tech giants to describe the virtual world and that industry’s general effect on the real city of San Francisco thus far.  As others have reported, companies like Facebook and Google are famously insular with elaborate, luxury campuses that obviate any need, let alone desire, to leave the office and patronize a local food shop, or more importantly, just be around people who don’t work for Facebook and Google.  San Franciscans have scoffed at the Facebook shuttles that ferry employees to work complete with wi-fi and comfy seating, while “regular residents” take public transportation.  And there’s nothing wrong with these company perks per se, but to echo what Areiff is saying with regard to tech companies now moving into the cities, there is certainly something odd about engineers of “social engagement and connectivity,” who choose not to engage with actual people.

“Tech tenants now fill 22 percent of all occupied office space in San Francisco — and represented a whopping 61 percent of all office leasing in the city last year. But they might as well have stayed in their suburban corporate settings for all the interacting they do with the outside world. The oft-referred-to “serendipitous encounters” that supposedly drive the engine of innovation tend to happen only with others who work for the same company. Which is weird.”

Read the full article at The New York Times.

End Piracy? As if…

Think back to January 18, 2012, the day Internet companies led a blackout (it was more gray really) of  their websites in protest against the dreaded SOPA & PIPA bills.  On that day, Google backed a petition with a slogan that sounded so reasonable.  It said, End Piracy, Not Liberty.  It was classically effective because they could count on anyone who wasn’t paying close attention to the issue — and that would be nearly everybody — to think the message makes sense, that of course, companies like Google want to end piracy as long as the methods don’t threaten liberty.  Who wouldn’t agree with that?

Screen Shot 2013-12-17 at 1.16.28 PM

Of course, Google had no intention of doing a damn thing about piracy, and they knew that millions of people who clicked on that petition two years ago wouldn’t be paying attention to the matter by the morning of January 20th.  And since that day, which has been treated as the web industry’s Alamo and Yorktown in one, Google and friends have steadily promoted piracy, which I believe is the opposite of ending it.  So, I guess what I’m saying is that headline, which drew millions of pavlovian clicks, was unalloyed bullshit.  As mentioned a couple of posts ago, a Google search on the term “movie piracy,” takes you to what is now the top result only because Google wants it to be the top result.  I refer you to the earlier post, but this link will take you to an article written in support of  an anti-copyright, libertarian, Koch-funded organization that just happens to be wonderful for Google’s bottom line.  I don’t care if you hate copyright, this is just a tiny example of how dangerous it can be to have one company presume to “organize the world’s information.”  To serve whom exactly?

Beastie Boys Sue GoldieBlox

I have to admit to feeling a measure of sympathy for Debbie Sterling, CEO of GoldieBlox, who now finds her company at the receiving end of a suit by The Beastie Boys for acting with “oppression, fraud, & malice” in the misuse of the band’s song “Girls.”  Why the sympathy?  Because I watched Sterling’s TED talk in which she relates the story of her pursuit of an engineering degree and the founding of the GoldieBlox brand, and I think two things:  1) the world needs entrepreneurs with her sensibilities; and 2) somebody has given her some really bad  advice.

The probability that GoldieBlox actively endeavored to use legal controversy itself as a marketing tool is very high.  After all, on the same day the Beastie Boys made inquiry into the use of their song, GoldieBlox filed for declaratory and injunctive relief predicated on a claim of fair use of “Girls” as a parody.  It’s almost as though some lawyers had already prepared the filing in anticipation of a dispute.  Ya think?  Then, the EFF and Techdirt come out smug as ever, wagging fingers at The Beastie Boys and declaring the obviousness of fair use in this case despite the fact that there is rarely anything obvious about fair use, and particularly when a work is used in the form of advertising.  Meanwhile, most professional editorials and general comments from the public tended to favor the Beastie Boys, demonstrating to GoldieBlox that there really is such a thing as bad publicity, and so the company re-released the same video sans “Girls” and also issued a rather cloying apology, saying effectively, “Gosh, we’re sorry, we’re just a fledgling company, please don’t hurt us. We love you!”

Despite what was looking like a PR fiasco, the suit now facing GoldieBlox is at least partly based on the premise that the company’s use of both the song “Girls” and the Beastie Boys name contributed to a significant increase in sales.  After all, if drawing the foul was a tactical PR move, then that’s trading on the Beasties as a brand in addition to using their song without permission.  It will be interesting to see where this leads, but I am sorry to see a business that appears to be founded on some good ideas make such a dumb mistake.  I don’t think GoldieBlox has a leg to stand on with its fair use claim, and if they decide to fight that particular battle, I suspect Ms. Sterling is going to begin to wonder how she got quite so far away and so quickly from the business she meant to be running.  After all, she isn’t in the parody business, which has a lot to do with why this approach is so likely to backfire.

ADDENDUM:  WTF?  I refer you to the Trichordist reporting that Goolge Books lawyer Daralyn Durie is representing GoldieBlox in this, which is some high-octane legal muscle for a tiny little startup.  As indicated above, did Debbie Sterling really mean to get into the “copyfight” business? Because this is her life now.  Ah well.  I’m sure there’s another woman engineer out there interested in inspiring young girls to pursue math and science.