The book Why Nations Fail makes the argument that sustained societal prosperity is only possible when economic and political institutions are inclusive instead of extractive. It’s a little long-winded, but the historical accounts of the rise and fall of the Roman Republic and the Venetian city-state in particular are fascinating.
Both societies entered eras of strong growth and prosperity when they allowed larger parts of its citizens to partake in political and economic life. This glory phase lasted for generations, but eventually the elite sought to protect entrenched power and privilege and turned inclusive institutions back to being extractive. Thus began the decline and eventually demise of their success.
This is a drastic simplification and there is much more to both stories, but it got me thinking about just how fragile the commercial freedoms for software developers I listed yesterday are. There are many forces and elites working to turn this wonderland of prosperity and innovation into another wasteland. Here are some of the threats as I perceive them:
- Patents and trolls: When you can be shaken down at any time for bullshit patents, the risk of starting something new rises. Only elites with big protective patent portfolios and huge legal war chests are safe.
- Censorship and regulation: It’s easy to point at China and shudder at their explicit, heavy-handed shutdown of services, but there have been plenty “Why Won’t Someone Please Think Of The Children” campaigns elsewhere too. It usually starts with something like porn, and then everyone else is next.
- Net neutrality: Imagine if you had to enter separate agreements with every ISP in the world to get full-speed access to all your potential customers. Only the established elite would be able to navigate such shark-infested waters.
- The rise of app stores: When you’re at the mercy of the arbitrary whims of an elite landowner, you’re at constant risk of eviction or expropriation. This on top of, in classic extractionist style, working for free two days out of the week (30% cut).
If history is any guide, the amazing freedom and the prosperity we celebrate is easy to take for granted—right up until it’s gone. Progress often begets regression. The dark ages of commercial freedom is never more than a few elite power grabs away.
Matt B
on 14 Nov 12Along the same topic, “Twilight of the Elites” by Chris Hayes is really good.
Matt Lee
on 14 Nov 12These freedoms impact software users too. Software freedom is important for all users of computers.
kyle
on 14 Nov 12Similar topic, but covering more ground, Non-Zero is similarly fascinating read. Highly recommended.
Robert
on 14 Nov 12I have worked as a licensed healthcare practitioner for many years.
It sucks. It is what leads doctors to practice defensively and creates tons of waste in the system.
It leads to the ordering of procedures, tests, and treatments that the doctor knows is bullshit but knows at the same time he has to cover his ass lest some patient, lawyer, or licensing board decides you are not using best practices as defined 20 years prior.
In the software and tech world we do have a lot of freedom which is why I love this space.
Could you imagine having to answer to some regulatory board because your app wasn’t coded to their self defined best practices and it was done in the name of “protecting the consumer?”
A7r
on 14 Nov 12I was thinking about this recently. Is it possible the Internet has reached “peak freedom”?
How do you fight against app stores, for instance, when they meet the needs of almost every user and developer?
I used to take it for granted that the pendulum would eventually swing the other way (back to decentralized power and user freedom) , but I’m not so sure. I hope it does!
Rian
on 14 Nov 12You might want to add the ITU to that list https://www.whatistheitu.org/
machbio
on 14 Nov 12I can think of the google story of android.. the rise of android was because of the google’s openess .. and its demise will be in google trying to control the android world..
David Neal
on 14 Nov 12I’m optimistic that small companies / developers will be safe. I’ve lived tech from punch cards to client server, to apps. The big boys over develop and over protect their software, trying to be every thing to every one. They draw attention to themselves to try and sell their version of one size fits all complicated software. Mean while the little guys quietly develop the best stuff below radar. If you want to keep doing what you love, stay focused and don’t sell out.
Nate Abele
on 14 Nov 12Couldn’t agree more! Industry laws and regulations almost always favor the large, entrenched players who can afford compliance, and eliminate new possibilities and ideas.
Two related thoughts from other people:
“When they want your money, they say jobs; when they want your freedom, they say children.” — Dennis Kucinich
“Corruptissima republica plurimae leges. [The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.]” — Tacitus, the Annals ca. AD 69
ecbp
on 14 Nov 12I think history shows @David Neal is right. Small and robust survive, even in times of general regression when the entrenched parties aggressively protect their turf. I think the best defense against all of the threats David lists is to stay small, stay off the radar. As good ol’ George Romney said ‘there’s nothing as vulnerable as entrenched success.’
Simon
on 14 Nov 12About “Net neutrality”, & “The rise of app stores”, those subjects are widely mistaken.
Some people take those as examples to create new laws and regulations. They should not.
When creating a service an entrepreneur should be completely free to define the rules he wants. The customer is free to subscribe or not.
Apple has some shitty & dumb restrictions on their store, but anyway it is their thing they are in charge of it (and globally it is great). If you don’t like the app store, maybe you should just go for an android or whatever phone.
It is the same for the internet providers, they should be free to restrict any type of data, bandwidth allocation is actually THEIR JOB.
And you as a customer are free to choose the internet provider you want.
Anonymous Coward
on 14 Nov 12Good things are good. We need more of those. Bad things are bad. We should have less of those.
No patents protect the biggest bullies. So too do lots of useless patents.
No standardization is completely allowed but cripples the little guy. You don’t like an app store? Build your own hardware/OS/whatever.
Have your own hypertext markup language too. And pay for your own wires to connect everything.
The tradeoffs are the non-obvious bit—the only bit that matters, really.
Also, when looking for historical examples, maybe take a more balanced look.
Have ‘extractive’ societies ever prospered? Certainly. Do the most worrying power grabs come from the ‘elite’? Not at all clear.
So - yeah, good is good and bad is bad. We should keep an eye on that.
Kyle
on 14 Nov 12I am always surprised when people post about Internet freedom and then describe “Net Neutrality” as a positive thing. Once you open the door to regulation of how service is provided, it is naive to think it will stop there. You are handing over your freedom to the people who are in the business of taking freedom away.
That said, I would support a limited regulatory authority if the problem the “Net Neutrality” proponents warn us about was a widespread problem. But currently it is not.
It seems to me the best course of action is to maintain the status quo. In the future, if this becomes an issue, then we can revisit the idea and come up with a good solution, not the everyone loses strategy of handing Internet delivery over to a bureaucracy.
brion
on 14 Nov 12These videos will sum it up—enjoy ;) Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1U1Jzdghjk Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4fWQnguR1E&feature=relmfu
Jason Stoddard
on 14 Nov 12Quigley defines a civilization as “a producing society with an instrument of expansion [and inclusion].” A civilization’s decline is not inevitable but occurs when its instrument of expansion is transformed into an institution—that is, when social arrangements that meet real social needs are transformed into social institutions serving their own purposes regardless of real social needs.
It’s happening right in front of us. Today. And our neighbors beg for more of it.
Meanwhile, Congressman Ron Paul delivers his final floor speech to the US House of Representatives.
Towards the Remnant…
Anonymous Coward
on 14 Nov 12Really? Ok name a few that have avoided decline. We could use the examples.
OR, when decline begins, institutions become more concerned with surviving. Shocker that.
Anonymous Coward
on 14 Nov 12One might even argue that is is a characteristic of ‘great’ civilizations or societies that have risen or proved moderately resilient to have strong and institutions that can be self-concerned and weather periods of decline.
There are plenty of societies without such things - more akin to what people sometimes suggest as some type of utopian ideal - that did not fare well.
Chris Bruno
on 14 Nov 12@Matt Lee: Software freedom as defined by GPL isnt freedom at all. Its forcing copyleft on everyone. While I agree end users should be able to copy & modify software for their own use, this does not mean they can share the work with others freely without commentating the creators., unless the creators agree.
Mike Langford
on 16 Nov 12I agree with all your points except the app store challenge. While I agree that a gate keeper app store model left unchecked by viable competition is a problem I don’t look at the 30% cut (as is the case of the Apple App Stores) as working two days for free.
Developers should see the app store in the same light at a product manufacturer sees a retail store chain. You are selling your product to Apple for a certain wholesale price and they are going to mark it up by 42% so they can take their 30% cut of the end retail price.
I know this isn’t they way we think of it because when you set your price via Apple you are setting the retail price and that 30% cut looks huge. But that’s retail.
Ben Mauer
on 16 Nov 12David, I appreciate these concepts of inclusive vs extractive institutions, and I think that way of looking at things helps us evaluate things like app stores and net neutrality from a vantage of long term sustainability.
I think there’s a middle way between some of the libertarian flavored comments you’ve gotten and something like the GPL. The real issue is who owns our most vital institutions, the ones tha should be most inclusive? Do we as developers own then? Do we as a society own them? Freedom is both ec
Ben Mauer
on 16 Nov 12Freedom is both social and economic. It is both the potential to act and the actual power to act.
We won’t have real freedom until we have both a democratic say in the major institutions that shape our lives and an economic stake in them.
To my mind, the cooperative business model is one way to build competitive businesses that are inclusive and non-extractive.
ehvjlgkd
on 20 Nov 121
This discussion is closed.