Socially responsible toasters?

Paula Graham — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:58:18 +0000

For most people, computers are just a bunch of glorified toasters. At best, they're an occasion to buy shiny gadgets. At worst, they're an electronic 'Big Brother'. But many people involved in technology production care about the world and feel there is a 'natural' fit between their ethical concerns and practices and those of the VCS. I don't meet so many people in the VCS who feels the same about socially-engaged technology producers, however.

Are technology activist concerns just a bunch of white-collar preoccupations irrelevant to a wider (and more sensible) world? Should anyone care about making technology production accountable to the communities which use it and, if so, what would that look like? Why should the UK government support corporate agendas at the expense of community-based technololgies and knowledge? Why do so many technology services by and for the VCS lock users into corporate IT frameworks?

What role does technology play in wider movements for social change?
How can techies work better with VCS organisations?
Does an under-resourced VCS still have a resonsibility to ensure that its technology use is socially responsible?
If the free software geeks have got it wrong, how do we work together to get it right?

Facilitator: Paula Graham http://www.fossbox.org.uk/

Paula Graham20081110

Paula Graham — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 10:24:45 +0000

Thing is, Chris, that model only works if you're primarily a commercial operation -- we're entirely VCS-based so it's hard to see which rich we'd be robbing from ;) It's also pretty unusual in commercial culture to be allowed to do this. I left my previous job in a marketing agency precisely because, despite promises to the contrary, they gradually began to take not only all my waking hours but half the ones I normally use to sleep.

On espmorgan's point: yes, I agree with your summation and these barriers are very real. What makes me weep is that almost all of them are external to free-software-world and therefore free software producers have absolutely no control over them.

a. 'negative compatibility issues' -- 99% of these are caused by proprietary companies who ensure that their file-types will be as difficult to convert as possible in order to promote artificial 'loyalty' and peripheral manufacturers who do not produce linux drivers or instructions - much less installation CDs for their kit. It's hard to see what Linux developers could do about this apart from promote an expanding Linux market share for the latter. As far as filetypes go, there's nothing whatsoever that free software can do besides fighting a rearguard to prevent companies like MS jockeying the rest of the world into accepting their crap as standard.

b. The newest versions of most of the really popular distros are already more user-friendly in most areas (and catching up fast in others) -- this is now mostly an issue of perception rather than reality

c. Free software clearly solves all sorts of problems -- just getting rid of the licensing nightmare is a massive plus in terms of the complexity of managing a network. Loads of really professional software for free? Simple, well-designed interfaces with lots of user in the design? And most of all, ***stuff that's designed to work together and where data can be exported and imported without needing third-party software or a team of migration experts not only across applications but across platforms*** -- What's not to like?

d&e. You don't reach critical mass overnight, someone has to be an 'early adopter', I think we're hovering on the edge of cultural breakthrough though.

I'm very aware of how much more constructive this debate has been than anything along these lines I've participated in before. OK it's probably still a minority of VCS techies but the difference between promoting Ubuntu now from 5 years ago is really making me feel hopeful.

dowdinsk[yyyy][mm][dd]

dowdinsk — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:15:51 +0000

Leonie asked, "...what would it take to enable (young?) innovators to have some additional resource to do some cool bottom up stuff - eg develop / adapt virtual world community software on web enabled technologies..."?

On a bit of a tangent, I'd suggest the FOSS community is part of something bigger, and from that larger community SiCamp (Social Innovation Camp) is worth watching. Dan blogs about it here. As another point of entry try this SiCamp project especially the 2nd video sequence - bear in mind if you do that some of the coders with the fancy MacBooks are running Ubuntu.
Its an example of bottom up development responding to need, as opposed to product development on a corporate model of market research, R&D for commercial gain, discounting to the CVS. Some of the participants at SiCamp came from the corporate sector (advertising/new media) so it can fit under the banner of Corporate Social responsibility too.
openeverything.net .takes the discussion around openness a stage further, the open data movement already having made significant steps towards democratisation of previously not-so-transparent.
Taken together does all of this scale?

(apologies if this has been covered in previous hotseats)

Steve, sdit.org.uk

chriswhitworth[yyyy][mm][dd]

chriswhitworth — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:24:37 +0000

I agree with your comments about the Robin Hood model being flawed- but it happens all the time in reality, in industry. At least it did everywhere I worked. We used "big business " resources to shore up our pet projects. Informally and unofficially usually, but I dont see it as fraud. The core stakeholder often sees spinout that benefits them financially, as well as keeping their employees at the top of the Maslow tree- self actualised or whatever.

And there is plenty of literature on this - from the old 3M stuff to much newer material on firms that encourage it- Google etc, as well as Virgin (allegedly).

On the last point, from espmorgan, is it purely ignorance? I use OpenOffice exclusively to create my work- and ths is via Firefox/Ubuntu, but teach at work in Office applications. And no-one knows. Unless I tell them (which I do). "But does it work, doesnt it crash, will it still print" are the reactions I get all the time. So, is the "big issue" actually education, countering the huge dinosaur of Microsoft and its marketing dept (which includes every end user as far as I can see). Should our role as converts/disciples/enthusiasts/missionaries be to get out there more and prosetylise?

And- could we even get grants for it (only kidding!)

espmorgan[yyyy][mm][dd]

espmorgan — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:12:17 +0000

This topic is really one about choice and change.

How easy is it to change the way we work?
How easy is it for organisations we support or provide services to change?

Going back to the Toaster analogy, if there was a choice between a 'normal' toaster and a 'socially responsible' (e.g. a green) toaster, many would chose the green one provided it was not a great deal more expensive.

But the analogy doesnt hold when it comes to technology. Changing your toaster has no exogenous effects whatsoever, and there is no overhead of any kind in making the change. Technology on the other hand is deeply embedded both in organisational processes and - as a shared cultural phenomenon - in every individuals' own psyche. As a result, advisors are unlikely to recommend major changes and clients are even less likely to want to adopt them. Barriers and obstacles to change are everywhere..

Nevertheless over time we can and do absorb many technological advances where the transition:

a) Does not involve 'losing' anything (i.e ones gains additional functionality and does not have negative compatibility issues)
b) Is easy for inexperienced people to learn and operate
c) Clearly solves a particular problem/opens a new experience
d) Reaches some kind of critical mass of cultural awareness
e) Is widely adopted and promoted by technology practitioners

I dont think this actually has anything to do with cost savings (although the kind of people that worry about cost savings may well use them as a killer argument provided everything else is in place). Nor has it really anything to do with socially responsbile/ethical angle. Nor does the willingess and ability to change have much to do with owenership structures..

For example, millions of staff within VCS organisations, businesses, and public sector bodies have managed to adopt the PC, email, the internet and (currently) even Web 2.0, yet have failed to make the ostensibly simpler switch from MS Office to OpenOffice, despite the fact that it is massively cheaper and more 'ethical'.

Where practicable, FLOSS has managed to get everywhere - most of the web runs on it for a start. It just hasnt made (many) inroads onto commonly used Desktop or Application software. Yet.

When this does change it will be because the technology is easy to adopt, extremely useful and works alongside and in addition to current technologies. It shouldn't need the political angle (and hasn't for the areas it has come to dominate)...

Paula Graham20081107

Paula Graham — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 13:57:38 +0000

Leonie - I'd love to do this (as you know, we've talked about it). I have a couple of groups interested in it but, of course, we'd need funding to deliver it properly. It's certainly something I have on the back burner.

Chris - I know many regard FLOSS as entirely altruistic but, of course, no-one's got any objection to earning a living! I think it's the shareholder model which is flawed -- we need sustainable models and that means people need to eat. I'm not sure about the Robin Hood model -- for one thing I don't imagine most paying clients would be happy about it. The usual model is that you develop something and make it available for free and only charge cost for distributing it. You pay your rent, food and clothing from billing time on customisation, support, training etc or subscriptions for delivering related services (such as Leonie is outlining) plus some grant money for development (if you can get it). I think many of us like the Co-op/Social Enterprise model for this kind of thing.

chriswhitworth[yyyy][mm][dd]

chriswhitworth — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 12:59:52 +0000

I think any non-free FOSS model is flawed. I havent researched this deeply but there are clear differences between the mental maps of employees and community participators- to treat the case simplistically. As soon as there is an income stream involved a different mindset takes over, and we could get back to the Microsoft Corporation attitude! The whole point of the FOSS core is that it operates under a paradigm of "fun", a hobby, an interest, a challenge, not a career- surely. So, the developers arent expecting income- or even costs?

Although- there are many businesses already living off it- LocustWorld being one I know of. These businesses seem to survive on a support model, without locking out the developer community. And I am aware of others that do "hijack" free code, bundle, change and distort it, then offer a package that isnt easy to duplicate. I wont bore everybody with the business references and theory- but, hope you get the point. So, perhaps the community is actually a spectrum, from "parasites", through symbiotes, to charitable gifters?

And maybe the "Robin Hood" model is the way forward. Using the rich to prop up the poor? If so, that provides resources as a "tax" on funded [rojects. If so, perhaps a way forward is to play the system- should we promote grant writing applications to create software for specific purposes, with some padding in to siphon off to support the community? Is it being done? If so, is the padding explicitly defined or hidden? Started a whole new theme here- or, is it commonplavce and I just dont know about it?

We live in interesting times!

Leonie Ramondt24120081106

Leonie Ramondt — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:47:38 +0000

I want to explore our mental models starting with the nhs metaphor to see if it generalises. When I go to see a doctor, i expect him to be my ally and co-investigator. Drugs are my last resort. I spend significant time searching out and testing information on how to stay well. This information is frequently not known by my doctor, who simply doesn't have time to keep up with the literature. I'm pretty pro-active in keeping healthy and he thankfully is happy to give me expert feedback when i ask for it. My experience with the nhs is that this philosophy is rare, you have to be pretty empowered to make the system work for you instead of being another number that does as its told. (and if you don't, you disappear off the books). What i want is for the ability to bring together the often informal knowledge and experience from "users" who are learning what works and find a framework to test it so that it becomes evidence based. This means that ordinary folks can have easy access to data and tools to help determine whether for example it is sugar sensitivity that causes their depression or obesity, and then have the wherewithal to try "potatoes instead of prozac". Instead of treading the old disempowered (paternalistic) paths of allopathic medicine or more seriously - supporting drug company vested interests.

So what empowering models might there be for the FOSS community? Monthly subscriptions allow game companies like Blizzard to hone their product ongoingly in response to and in collaboration with (in the main) their user population. I love that software keeps getting more agile in response to our skill and innovation with it. I think it is incredible that the FLOSS community does this for free. Low income does however restrict its agility- (being Porsche-less is one thing, homeless another ;o). So would it destroy things if we were happy to subscribe via a monthly fee - say for Google-doc-like cloud (remote server/ thin client) potentially mobile technology that is delivered by a social co-operative instead of a data mining company? (the developing world is better off jumping boxes altogether don't you think?). Is the web/ browser ubiquitous enough? If not yet, won't it be? And even... what would it take to enable (young?) innovators to have some additional resource to do some cool bottom up stuff - eg develop / adapt virtual world community software on web enabled technologies like game machines so all can have a community in their pocket, or bend guitar hero to become an actual music tutoring tool?

Paula Graham20081106

Paula Graham — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:52:00 +0000

I don't think small, frontline organisations should have to understand internal process debates within technology discourses but we, as providers, do, I think, have something of a duty to advise on all aspects of technology choices, including the socio-economic. If I go to a doctor to be treated, I don't want to be shunted around without being made aware of my choices. I don't need to understand the chemical constitution of a drug, but I do broadly want to know its implications -- both biological and social -- and not just be prescribed whatever the pushiest and best-resourced salesman managed to convince my GP about -- or something whose test information has been manipulated or concealed and which will cause my nose to turn green. I also expect those who manage the NHS to understand all these implications fully and to be able not only to advise me in my own best interest personally but also to ensure that the NHS overall is managed for the public good and not manipulated by business agendas. We (or the NHS) may not always deliver as we would like but we expect them to make their best efforts.

I think we owe our clients and users the same. We should not only advise our users in the best interests of their individual organisation (and, by the way, I will always advise people who have high levels of proprietary lock-in that they can't realistically migrate to FLOSS at this time) but also to understand the workings of the technology industries and the VCS to assist people who don't know much about technology to make good, rounded decisions in their own best interests and that of society as a whole and not those of any particular company or agency.

williamH[yyyy][mm][dd]

williamH — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:27:15 +0000

Ok one by one...

I don't know about jump through hoops. You have to register on our site, provide name address, charity ID etc; hardly onerous!

In terms of support, it's Microsoft so there tend to be a few people around that understand it. There are also online resources aplenty.

I think that the problem here is that this FOSS vs Microsoft debate is simply not relevant for the vast, vast majority of Civil Society organisations, that are trying to deliver on their mission and have enough on their plate without engaging in what they probably see as a fairly esoteric discussion.

Recent posts

Socially responsible toasters?

Paula Graham20081110

dowdinsk[yyyy][mm][dd]

chriswhitworth[yyyy][mm][dd]

espmorgan[yyyy][mm][dd]

Paula Graham20081107

chriswhitworth[yyyy][mm][dd]

Leonie Ramondt24120081106

Paula Graham20081106

williamH[yyyy][mm][dd]