Innovation Under Austerity: Discussion

In some respects, the Q&A section of the video identifies useful points of further discussion. But because the speech was given to what is obviously a "home town crowd," some important objections are not raised, as Mike Nelson suggests in his comments. One useful place to begin is with those objections, which I leave others to state below.

The analysis I offered in this talk is undeniably only a first draft. Many areas I touch upon remain to be filled in. There are basic questions about which I have tried an approach in the talk, where other approaches are also evident. The nature of the immediate situation is apparent, and so (at least to me) is the nature of the Free World's experience, which seems relevant. How to explain the bearing of the latter on the former, however, is not quite so evident, despite my effort here. I look forward to your suggestions.

-- EbenMoglen - 20 Oct 2012

If ~12:00 in speaks to you, please join my and Elvira's (very nascent) conversation over at GoogleNoAppleYes.

-- MatthewCollins - 25 Oct 2012

In your speech (~10:25-11:10) you discuss how the individuals involved in the creation of the internet made it easy to read (through such innovations as the browser and apache) but not easy to write. Was this a conscious and voluntary decision? If so, what was the rationale behind it?

You then mention that Zuckerberg made the internet easy to write and ultimately created social harm. But was making the internet easy to write a cause of this social harm, or just a means to an unfortunate end? Wouldn't it be possible that an easily writable internet could create substantial social good, much like the way in which accessible free software that anyone could “write” or use could have profound impacts around the world? I believe you touch on this between 12:00 & 13:00, but could you please expand on this further?

-- ConradJohnson - 31 Oct 2012