I am halfway through reading Read Write Own and I can confidently say that you want to read this book. If you're already a believer in this "next era of the internet" (like I am) it will make you a true believer. And if you're not a believer, maybe it will make you one. Or not. Either way, I am thoroughly enjoying it.

One chapter that will be particularly interesting to all of you is the one where Dixon makes a comparison between the internet and cities. Cities, he argues, work because of a delicate interplay between public and private interests. And the private side works because, among other things, we have the rule of law and the construct of ownership.

If I own an asset, like a piece of real estate, I'm only going to be confident to invest in it if I know that someone won't take it away from me (or dramatically change the rules on me), which is why if this prerequisite doesn't exist, you typically see a lack of investment.

The same is true on the internet. But currently, the dominant form of networks are centralized corporate networks. In city terms, you can think of these like an amusement park. Once you enter through the gates, you're in their world. You could maybe rent some space, but at the end of the day, the owner makes the rules. And if they don't like what you're doing, they can remove you.

It's a pretty stark contrast when you think of it in these terms, which is why it's hard not to feel compelled when you consider that similar dynamics are playing out on the internet right now. Cities thrive because we have rules, ownership, and the freedom to innovate on top of the foundations laid by government.

So I'm all for making the internet more like our most successful cities.

I watched the BlackBerry movie the other week and right away I thought, "whoa, is Jim Balsillie really like that?" Supposedly, kind of. Either way, it was a good movie that naturally ended with the fall of BlackBerry, with Balsillie not getting an NHL team, and with Mike Lazaridis dismissing the first iPhone as a toy. "Who wants to use a phone without a keyboard?"

We all know these stories. In fact, they feel trite in retrospect. There's Blockbuster, Kodak, and countless others. But these moments are clearly a lot harder to identify in the moment. And today, at least for me, it feels like this moment for crypto and blockchains.

It's easy to dismiss this space. Among other things, a blockchain is an objectively worse database. They're slower than today's alternatives. They require more computing power. There's no customer service when something goes wrong. And, it generally costs a lot more to save new information to a blockchain (this cost is called a gas fee).

At the peak of the market in 2021, the average quarterly gas fee (cost per transaction) on the Ethereum network reached

As someone who collects NFT art, I now see a lot of AI-generated images. Usually I can tell when an image was generated by a computer, but sometimes it's hard to tell and I'm sure eventually I won't be able to tell. But if I'm being honest, today I find that I have a bias toward art that was created without any AI prompts. Maybe that changes in the future, or maybe it doesn't.

Either way, the marginal cost of producing new content, such as images and videos, has now gone down to zero as a result of AI tools. (Here are some of my crappy creations.) That means that, if you aren't already, you're soon going to be faced with a deluge of things created in this way. This will almost certainly become the dominant form of content that we consume.

I don't think that we need to be scared by this future, but I do agree with Ben Thompson and others that it's going to make authenticity and human-content more valuable. In other words, we're probably going to need to know what is digitally scarce and what is just another thing generated by AI. Thankfully we have a suitable technology for this: it's called a blockchain.

I am halfway through reading Read Write Own and I can confidently say that you want to read this book. If you're already a believer in this "next era of the internet" (like I am) it will make you a true believer. And if you're not a believer, maybe it will make you one. Or not. Either way, I am thoroughly enjoying it.

One chapter that will be particularly interesting to all of you is the one where Dixon makes a comparison between the internet and cities. Cities, he argues, work because of a delicate interplay between public and private interests. And the private side works because, among other things, we have the rule of law and the construct of ownership.

If I own an asset, like a piece of real estate, I'm only going to be confident to invest in it if I know that someone won't take it away from me (or dramatically change the rules on me), which is why if this prerequisite doesn't exist, you typically see a lack of investment.

The same is true on the internet. But currently, the dominant form of networks are centralized corporate networks. In city terms, you can think of these like an amusement park. Once you enter through the gates, you're in their world. You could maybe rent some space, but at the end of the day, the owner makes the rules. And if they don't like what you're doing, they can remove you.

It's a pretty stark contrast when you think of it in these terms, which is why it's hard not to feel compelled when you consider that similar dynamics are playing out on the internet right now. Cities thrive because we have rules, ownership, and the freedom to innovate on top of the foundations laid by government.

So I'm all for making the internet more like our most successful cities.

I watched the BlackBerry movie the other week and right away I thought, "whoa, is Jim Balsillie really like that?" Supposedly, kind of. Either way, it was a good movie that naturally ended with the fall of BlackBerry, with Balsillie not getting an NHL team, and with Mike Lazaridis dismissing the first iPhone as a toy. "Who wants to use a phone without a keyboard?"

We all know these stories. In fact, they feel trite in retrospect. There's Blockbuster, Kodak, and countless others. But these moments are clearly a lot harder to identify in the moment. And today, at least for me, it feels like this moment for crypto and blockchains.

It's easy to dismiss this space. Among other things, a blockchain is an objectively worse database. They're slower than today's alternatives. They require more computing power. There's no customer service when something goes wrong. And, it generally costs a lot more to save new information to a blockchain (this cost is called a gas fee).

At the peak of the market in 2021, the average quarterly gas fee (cost per transaction) on the Ethereum network reached

As someone who collects NFT art, I now see a lot of AI-generated images. Usually I can tell when an image was generated by a computer, but sometimes it's hard to tell and I'm sure eventually I won't be able to tell. But if I'm being honest, today I find that I have a bias toward art that was created without any AI prompts. Maybe that changes in the future, or maybe it doesn't.

Either way, the marginal cost of producing new content, such as images and videos, has now gone down to zero as a result of AI tools. (Here are some of my crappy creations.) That means that, if you aren't already, you're soon going to be faced with a deluge of things created in this way. This will almost certainly become the dominant form of content that we consume.

I don't think that we need to be scared by this future, but I do agree with Ben Thompson and others that it's going to make authenticity and human-content more valuable. In other words, we're probably going to need to know what is digitally scarce and what is just another thing generated by AI. Thankfully we have a suitable technology for this: it's called a blockchain.