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.
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.
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.
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.
Here's a cogent argument by Dror Poleg about how urban economics can be used to explain the evolution of Web3, and also why it's all a bit of a ponzi scheme, but that when it works, it works.
His argument revolves around ownership and participation. If you own real estate in a city, you could say that you are both a part owner of said city and a participant. You participate by virtue of living and/or doing other things there, but beyond that you also have a vested interest in the city doing well. Because if the city continues to do well and grow, there should be more demand for real estate, including yours, and that likely means your wealth will increase over time.
This same force could be said to apply when existing property owners oppose new development. It restricts supply and increases the value of people's existing "ownership" in a city. It's kind of like being a company and not issuing new shares so as to not dilute your existing shareholders.
This connection between ownership and participation is similarly a hallmark of Web3. In the world of crypto, users buy tokens (some fungible and some non-fungible) and those tokens provide access and rights to various things.
For example, owning tokens might allow you to vote on key decisions affecting the overall organization. And if the organization does well and continues to grow, all token holders should, in theory at least, see their wealth increase. More people will want those same tokens. Ownership and participation.
Web2 companies, on the other hand, do not typically offer this automatic connection between ownership and participation. That is, of course, unless you're a shareholder. If you're just a regular user of a platform like Instagram (which I am), but you don't own any shares in Meta (I do not), then you're only a participant.
If you happen to be a widely followed influencer then you can certainly benefit indirectly from the platform, but you do not benefit from any sort of direct ownership in the organization. Pretty much everything accrues to the house.
In fact, you also don't own your followers, from which you derive your indirect benefit. Not to pick on Meta, but if Meta decided that your content was suddenly inappropriate for the platform, perhaps too salacious, then it could choose to close you down and your indirect benefits.
This, of course, is one of the great promises of crypto and Web3. If you're a part owner and you have some say in the way things are being run, you can maybe avoid this kind of outcome. And if things really aren't working out, one should have the flexibility to take their followers and be extra salacious somewhere else.
We shall see if this is ultimately how Web3 plays out, but the connection between ownership and participation is an interesting one and, if things do end up working out as planned, maybe it can be harnessed to improve our cities. Because we know the problems: inequality, housing supply and affordability, and many others. The system is clearly far from perfect.
Here's a cogent argument by Dror Poleg about how urban economics can be used to explain the evolution of Web3, and also why it's all a bit of a ponzi scheme, but that when it works, it works.
His argument revolves around ownership and participation. If you own real estate in a city, you could say that you are both a part owner of said city and a participant. You participate by virtue of living and/or doing other things there, but beyond that you also have a vested interest in the city doing well. Because if the city continues to do well and grow, there should be more demand for real estate, including yours, and that likely means your wealth will increase over time.
This same force could be said to apply when existing property owners oppose new development. It restricts supply and increases the value of people's existing "ownership" in a city. It's kind of like being a company and not issuing new shares so as to not dilute your existing shareholders.
This connection between ownership and participation is similarly a hallmark of Web3. In the world of crypto, users buy tokens (some fungible and some non-fungible) and those tokens provide access and rights to various things.
For example, owning tokens might allow you to vote on key decisions affecting the overall organization. And if the organization does well and continues to grow, all token holders should, in theory at least, see their wealth increase. More people will want those same tokens. Ownership and participation.
Web2 companies, on the other hand, do not typically offer this automatic connection between ownership and participation. That is, of course, unless you're a shareholder. If you're just a regular user of a platform like Instagram (which I am), but you don't own any shares in Meta (I do not), then you're only a participant.
If you happen to be a widely followed influencer then you can certainly benefit indirectly from the platform, but you do not benefit from any sort of direct ownership in the organization. Pretty much everything accrues to the house.
In fact, you also don't own your followers, from which you derive your indirect benefit. Not to pick on Meta, but if Meta decided that your content was suddenly inappropriate for the platform, perhaps too salacious, then it could choose to close you down and your indirect benefits.
This, of course, is one of the great promises of crypto and Web3. If you're a part owner and you have some say in the way things are being run, you can maybe avoid this kind of outcome. And if things really aren't working out, one should have the flexibility to take their followers and be extra salacious somewhere else.
We shall see if this is ultimately how Web3 plays out, but the connection between ownership and participation is an interesting one and, if things do end up working out as planned, maybe it can be harnessed to improve our cities. Because we know the problems: inequality, housing supply and affordability, and many others. The system is clearly far from perfect.
