Who's In Charge?

PC Forum's theme is nominally about users, but it feels like the presenters choose TO work on Maggie's Farm.

"She talks to all the servants about man and God and law
but everybody knows she's the brains behind Pa"
- Bob Dylan, Maggie's Farm

Each is just playing the role of Pa and hoping you don't ask to meet their wives (yes, every presenter so far has been male and every representative of the fledgling companies being spotlighted - about a dozen - in the breakout sessions was male... apparently on Tuesday there will be 2 females of the about 40 presented, not including Esther, of course).

The panelists (except for Scott Mitic, who's doing some great work with Congress, among others, to keep the big credit agencies honest) are all on about man and god and law and the goodness of how all your data is going to empower to do.... what? Shop?

That's not what this is about, although it is some of what the 'net is about. Ultimately, it is a new implementation not only of commerce, but of our connection. And to reduce my being "in charge" to, well, what I am able to charge on my Amex is missing the point. A very big point, too.

A letdown from Sunday night

After an enlightening evening with Pierre Omidyar and some provocative discussion around the Paradox of Choice, this morning we're presented a bleak future of "the internet as advertising device."

These guys are all on about how great it is that everything is tracked and can't users manage all this crap... one person suggested that after staying at a hotel for almost a year straight, they still didn't say "welcome back, kotter" when he showed up! Then he said he liked going to the Hyatt because they welcomed him back each week.

For me, I don't really care if they remember me from time to time... and more to the point, it misses the fundamental difference between the internet as we know and love it and the RW: in life, I can choose to be anonymous. On the 'net, I can never be fully anonymous. This means that data collected - and the use of the data collected - is fundamentally different.

I can choose, tonight, to take a bus or taxi, check into a motel, use a pseudonym and pay cash. There is no analogous situation on the 'net where I can do that. Nowhere.

So as my freedom of choice as to my anonymity is foreclosed, there should be differences in how the information of my actions is collected and how it can be used. I liked one question from Steven Levy of Newsweek, particularly: "What are each of you going to do if the government comes to you and asks for the information you're collecting?" To which they all said: "it depends on how the question is asked." So, in a roundabout way, they all answered Steven's question! So in neither gender nor guts was there a Judith Miller on the panel...

Well, this is all disconcerting because at heart I am a "glass half full" kind of guy when it comes to technology. Like Omidyar, I believe in the fundamental goodness of people - although I also believe in the fundamental badness of centralized authority. So I am a bit miffed that the notion of "users in charge" means we're simply "in charge" of seeing more targeted adverts based on the history we're forced to contribute to people who run sites that run the 'net.

There is more to this topic than came out today. Maybe this afternoon will be better. And then there's Bill Joy in the morning... even if he's still on his "technology will be the death of us yet" kick it will be more thought-provoking than the panels this morning.

Simply talking to us common folk about how good life will be isn't enough. And although the paradox of choice says I may not be happy with having this choice, I choose to be finished with today's sessions....

"She's 68 but says she's 54
I ain't gonnna work for Maggie's Ma, no more..."

Technorati Tags: Collaboration