“The Tragedy of the Commons” is a famous work by Garret Hardin. Published in 1968 by Science magazine, it offers concepts that are often referenced today without acknowledgement of where the philosophical credit is due. The article’s message is inherently relevant to modern life, and often referenced by academics and professionals.

Hardin is extolled for his concise analysis of what he calls the “tragedy of the commons”, the namesake of the article. When reading this work, it is important to keep in mind that is was written forty years ago. While the examples Hardin provides may be outdated, they are still surprisingly germane.

Hardin explains that “no technical solution” to a problem is, in fact, an acceptable solution. As people are faced with diminishing resources and a growing population, the race will be forced to make decisions as to what is truly finite. He argues that man needs to explicitly realize the difference between commeasurable wants versus needs. Sometimes this process relies on solutions that are solved by changing thinking processes rather than cyclically looking for practical solutions.Using his well-known example of a shepherd faced with the ethical question of personal versus common benefit when given the freedom to choose, Hardin explains the “tragedy of commons.” When faced with the option of benefitting from personal gain versus common gain, it is proven that a person will opt for personal gain – out of fear that all other people will choose the same option and therefore exploit him.

Hardin writes, “This is the rationale reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons…Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited.”

Hardin’s unfortunate truth is that “Freedom of commons brings ruin to all.”

His examples relate to modern day scenarios. Hardin uses The National Parks system as an example of a good that will be ruined with freedom. He advises that if kept free to all visitors, the parks will be exploited and deteriorate. Remember, his writing was done in the 1960s. Today’s his suggestion has been implemented, as many National Parks do require entrance fees. Mt. Rainier National Park is an example of such a park. Visitors can pay an entrance fee or purchase an annual pass to gain admittance.

He also uses the example of pollution as something that can be ruined for everyone due to a small number of the population. To me, this brings up the notion of, “Well, he’s already littering, why shouldn’t I?”

 Hardin mentions incentive programs as a means to end problems such as pollution. “The tragedy of commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated.”

This is similar to e-waste programs today. The book Displacing Place compiled by Sharon Kleinman discusses the need for regulated programs in order to curtail the toxic destruction of the environment – an inherent result of e-waste. Some states, such as Massachusetts, have banned e-waste from landfills, requiring consumers to find a recycling plant. Some governments offer tax breaks for those who donate their gently-used computers to local schools. In Maine, it is mandated that producers must finance and take-back or recycle used products that consumers bring in. In California, an advance recovery fee is collected at the time of purchase, to fund recycle programs. Programs such as Cell Phones for Soldiers take the proceeds from donated cell phones to purchase calling cards for American troops. This is an incentive for consumers to do something good by donating their e-waste.

Hardin’s theory is referenced by Clay Shirky in the book Here Comes Everybody. He describes the tragedy of the commons as, “The minute one of the other shepherds keeps his sheep out in the pasture an hour longer than necessary, the only power you have is to retaliate by doing the same” (p. 52).

He uses the example of road maintenance to illustrate the tragedy of the commons and why taxes are mandatory: People would avoid paying taxes if they assumed their neighbors were already taking care of paying for the roadways.

In relation to MCDM, Shirky draws a connection between the tragedy of the commons and digital technology. He believes that new media will alleviate the tragedy, as it is now easier for like-minded, trustworthy people to form groups – thus eliminating any black sheep rule breakers. The transaction costs that once prevented the formation of such cohesive groups have lowered dramatically, thanks to digital technology. He writes that “Now that group-forming has gone from hard to ridiculously easy, we are seeing an explosion of experiments with new groups and new kinds of groups” (p 54). The Internet and mobile phones are now tools for collective action.

Key issue: Who is responsible for e-waste management?

Following is a review of the most salient information from Chapter 5 of the book Displacing Place, edited by Sharon Kleinman. It is written by Julie Newman and titled “Displacing Place with Obsolete Information and Communication Technologies.” The focus is on e-waste management.

 Author’s Main Point: Waste-management needs to be considered as part of the life-cycle of a product. When e-waste gets thrown away, the “away” should be considered.

“Until waste production is recognized as a cultural component of a system, the current trend of consumption will continue to displace the center of responsibility from the producer to the disposer. .. [Therefore,] We need to develop a consumer model that favors environmental and human health in all places.” (p. 87)

The U.S. lags behind Europe in e-waste disposal programs:

-          European countries place the disposal responsibility on producers

o   required to take back e-waste products

o   encouraged to limit the amount of toxins used

o   required to use recycled/nonhazardous packaging

-          Foreign car manufacturers are making their products easier to disassemble and recycle at the end of the life cycle

“’Transferring responsibility for waste to the producer is one of the best ways to force changes “upstream.”’” (p. 84)

There is no federally mandated regulation for the disposal of ITCs. Several states have come up with their own programs:

-          California: An advance recovery fee is collected at time of purchase, to fund recycle programs

-          Maine: Producers must finance and take-back/recycle used products

-          Massachusetts: banned CRTs from landfills; consumers must find a recycle program

Government Role:

-          Purchase greener electronics for government use

-          Properly manage obsolete electronics

-          Offer tax breaks for those who donate used electronics to schools

 Manufacturing Solutions for Greener ITC’s in the future:

-          Incorporate fewer toxic materials

-          Utilize recycled materials

-          Improve energy efficiency

-          Use minimal packaging

-          Offer take-back options & display eco-friendly certification

-          Today: Phone carriers post information about disposal programs on their Web sites

-          Amazon sends a cell phone disposal bag with shipments, in partnership with Cell Phones for Soldiers

Discussion:

How many cell phones have you owned in your life?

(Today’s teens will own approximately 35 cell phones in their life; a new one every two years.)

How have you disposed of them?  (Mine are collected in a drawer!)

After viewing Brian’s presentation, I was inspired to embrace a minimalistic design as well. I enjoyed his presentation because it was more of a conversation aided by interesting visuals that structured his lecture.

I was also influenced by a recent power point presentation at work. The slides were incredibly text heavy and the screens had the “bells and whistles” of rotating text transitions. The speaker was so excited by the rotating slide that she developed that she stopped taking audience questions and had everyone watch how cool the slide was.

After the influence of these external factors, I outlined the topics I wanted to discuss and plugged in the pieces. I was nervous at the lack of text – meaning that I couldn’t just rely on reading my presentation and that I actually had to remember what to talk about.

My first take at presenting was definitely the least smooth, but it improved as I went along. By the end of my third presentation I felt relaxed and conversational; my confidence in my knowledge grew and I was able to speak freely and honestly. Presenting actually turned-out to be a lot more fun than I had expected.

My advice to subsequent presenters is to plan a logical outline and use minimalistic slides that remind you of the outline and don’t bore the audience. The slides will provide the framework to guide your discussion around, and as you present you will more-naturally recall what topics/examples to share with the class – as opposed to strictly reading “verbose” slide text. I would also suggest that presenters know their topic well, so they can tailor the discussion to the audience and questions that may arise. When faced with a question you don’t know the answer to, it works well to admit that you don’t have an answer, but that you can tie the question back to an area that you DO know about. An un-answerable question is also a good opportunity to engage the rest of the group in finding an answer.

Overall, it turned out to be a pretty fun experience to create a non-traditional presentation.

The recent article on the stock market news Web site Seeking Alpha, “The Wireless Application Marketplace: Apple, Google, Microsoft and RIMM” by Option Dragon, offers a look at the emergence of wireless application marketplaces.

With the huge success of Apple’s iPhone App Store, other industry leaders are rushing to get a share of the market. Google, T-Mobile, Microsoft and RIMM (Blackberry) are debuting their own versions of application marketplaces. The significance of these new marketplaces is that they support the notion of open software development for cell phones.

Google and T-Mobile work under the Open Handset Alliance and T-Mobile is offering the services on any of its handsets (unlike AT&T’s dependence on the iPhone for its cut of the application marketplace). And, despite being notoriously closed, Microsoft is launching Skymarket for its Windows Mobile 7.

These signs signify that mobile technology is indeed the future of computing. A couple of questions can be asked:

1.       With the movement toward open software and loosened cellular controls, what does this mean for Microsoft?

2.       With so many conflicts of interest between these companies (as the author describes), does this foreshadow an aggregated marketplace for the future?

The Harvard Business Review article “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave” by Joseph L. Bower and Clayton M. Christensen is one of the most useful articles I’ve read pertaining to the rise of successful new technologies. Despite being written in 1995, the material is just as relevant today as it was 14 years ago.

Several take-aways can be gained from the article. One key learning is the overall importance of technology executives knowing how their market operates. The most successful response to new technology is not an inherent one. While it is safe to stay close to a company’s tried and true products, this is where corporate downfall often happens. Rather than keeping an eye out for emerging trends and technologies, companies often listen to their customers who simply like what they already have. From this, companies believe that customers don’t want new technologies. However, when a new technology is introduced that more efficiently meets market demand, customers will follow.

Although Bower and Christensen focused their article on the disk drive industry, modern examples came to mind as I read. I found similarities between the creation of Apple’s iPhone, Google’s G-phone and Microsoft’s Zune and X-box when reading. The authors state that “the leading, established companies have consistently led the industry in developing and adopting new technologies that their customers demanded – even when those technologies required completely different technological competencies and manufacturing capabilities from the ones the companies had” (p. 45). These modern examples identify companies that have diverged from their initial specialties to stay current with trends and demand.

The discussion of hard-disk-drives evolving to become “smaller size and low-cost” was also evocative of current technology. It mirrors the development of technologies such as cell phones and computers which continue to become more compact and more affordable.

I also saw similarities between the article and the technology adoption cycle followed by Tom Standage in “The Victorian Internet.” When sound was added to the telegraph process, consumers were skeptical and thought it was a superfluous addition to a tool that already met their needs. Bower and Christensen describe the same concept: “As a rule, mainstream customers are unwilling to use a disruptive product in applications they [already] know and understand” (p. 45). From this, it can be taken-away that customers are not always right and don’t necessarily know what they want!

I found it very interesting to read the authors’ ideas on not listening to customers when looking to enter new markets. The authors note the importance of listening to techies, not financial managers, when making innovative decisions. It makes sense for such businesses to turn to start-ups for insights and outside perspectives. If successful, the corporation can acquire the start-up. Overall, the most important take-away is summarized with: “For the corporation to live, it must be willing to see business units die” (p. 53). The sink or swim factor is placed on a company’s ability to remain agile and malleable with market trends and new innovations – in contrast to strict adherence to past successes.

Last night’s class flew by. Being our final class, there was a lot of ground to cover. Here are some of the highlights of what I enjoyed:

The discussion of Disney’s Wall-e movie and the use of copyrighted material was interesting. I have yet to see the film, but I can understand Kathy’s frustration that Louis Armstrong’s works did not have to be credited, despite being used throughout the movie and essentially helping Disney to make money.

The topic of copyright duration is a tricky one, unlike the topic of whether or not professional journalists and amateurs should receive equal access to things. Unlike author Scott Gant, I believe that there needs to be some distinction between professionals and non- in order to filter the masses.  Just as filters are needed to help people wade through the mass of information now available, there needs to be some way to sort through the emerging masses of journalists.

This segues into our on-going discussions of whether people will create if they are not paid to do so. Clearly, people are proving that they are willing to create despite not being paid. And, as we also discussed, getting people to produce for free may best be achieved by breaking tasks into small parts and having people who enjoy each task be the ones to work on it. This is a mechanism employed by Mechanical Turk. If tasks are broken into small enough bits, there is likely to be someone who wants to work on the bits voluntarily.

What a treat I had on August 4^th! I wasn’t expecting to be selected to ask three questions of famed digital media expert Howard Rheingold. That was very exciting; and I hadn’t used Skype before, so that was fun as well.

I checked out MartinLutherKing.org, as Rheingold suggested. “A modern day plastic god” is what that site calls King. It is interesting to see the ways in which people choose to produce content. This exemplifies the need for people to learn/teach internet literacy and critical thinking. Rheingold noted the importance of teaching kids to question authority at a young age – which seemed humorous, but actually holds a substantial amount of validity.

I also visited Snopes.com at his recommendation. It is a site dedicated to deciphering urban legends. Rheingold mentioned it as a site to help with accountability and determining fact from fiction.

I was also unfamiliar with Google Scholar. So, like the aforementioned site, I checked it out as well. It is a site that lists academic articles or journals that have recently featured a topic that users are searching for.

In our group discussion recaps, it was mentioned that everyone should create a Creative Commons license. That seems like a good idea, simply to get everyone familiar with the service.

Our discussions of social production made me think about some concerns that people may have with starting a personal blog: 1) Is there a safety concern in sharing one’s real name and identity?  2) Do people have time to sustain a personal blog? If one foresees themself blogging sporadically, and not on a regular basis, is it worth starting a site? It seems one should be dedicated to maintaining their site regularly in order to develop a following and strong reputation. A friend of mine in NY posts things to her blog at least five times per day.  3) Do people really want to take the time to share their personal anecdotes with the world? Some aspects are appealing, others not.

While reading chapters 7, 10, 11, and 13 of Media Economics, I found many similarities to other readings. Chapter 10 touches on pricing structures that are resonant of Anderson’s “Free! Why $0.00 is the Future of Business” discussions of the subscription model, and the concept of free and cross-subsidy methods used by Gillette. Chapter 11 covers advertising and cites that in some instances ads are “30-second dramas that out-entertain the regular programming” (p. 248). This relates to instances in The Long Tail: “Americans continued to watch more and more television, even as the ad load went up. Since they continued to give their attention despite getting less content, why not exploit that?” (p. 165).

However, I found the majority of cross-relevant topics to be in chapters 7 and 13 (government intervention and public goods). The introduction to chapter 7 alone offers enough grounds for abundant cross-evaluations:

Page 141 of Media Economics introduces that “’The Theory of the Firm’ assumes that the objective of companies is profit maximization.” This assumption is disputed by the many readings and discussions we have had about people having motivations other than money.

While companies may work for profit maximization, they now have to compete with individuals who work for other reasons; the Internet and availability of tools has enabled everyone to become a producer. As Benkler notes in The Wealth of Networks, “…hundreds of independent producers of information, acting for reasons ranging from hobby and fun to work and sales, produce information,… most of them without thinking or planning on serving you in particular” (p. 33). He also states that there are increasing instances of “individuals sharing what they themselves made in social, rather than market patterns” (p. 26). Along the same lines, Anderson’s The Long Tail cites examples of voluntary creation: “Wikipedia authors tend to be enthusiastically involved, liberated, and motivated by the opportunity to improve public understanding of some subject they know and love…” (p. 73). On page 63, Anderson concisely notes, “the word ‘amateur’ derives from the Latin amator, ‘lover,’ from amare, ‘to love,’” proving that people who are not considered experts will produce based on their passions – not just monetary incentives. Entrepreneur T.A. McCann has a presentation slide dedicated to the model that people act based on a full spectrum of emotional (personal and peer) and financial (direct and indirect) rewards.

Guest speaker Mike Culver, Web Services Evangelist at Amazon, brought up some interesting discussion topics including outsourcing methods that have been introduced with the emergence of the Internet. Mechanical Turk allows anonymous people to do work for one another. The tasks are typically things that people can do, but computers cannot (like distinguish a chair from a table in a photograph). Other examples include AvWeb.com aiding in the search for Steve Fossett, Prosper.com for person to person lending, and CastingWords.com for human transcriptions from audio to text.

These cheap, quick services offer frictionless transactions with close to zero costs, and sometimes create opportunities for additional income. However, they are usually not satisfactory in situations requiring person-to-person relationships and personal interaction. This caveat resounds with the article “How Not to Build an Online Market: The Sociology of Market Microstructure” which acknowledges the static need for human interaction despite technological advancements.

Also similar to past discussions was Culver’s identification of TurkerNation (apparently now defunct) which holds participants accountable as Turkers share their experiences. The importance of reputation has resurfaced throughout the course.

We also viewed a speech by Malcolm Gladwell in which he tells the story of Howard Moskowitz. We learned that people want personalization via choices. Some good lines were “To a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish” and “The mind knows not what the tongue wants.”

We evaluated K.E. Himma’s article “Information and Intellectual Property Protection: Evaluating the Claim that Information Wants to be Free” as it compares to Yochai Benkler’s The Wealth of Networks. Himma believes created goods are not common goods because they did not exist without the author creating them; to think otherwise disregards the creator. Benkler believes information should be free. The answer rests on the meaning of the words “information,” “should,” and “free.” There is a lot of leeway in the statement.

T.A. McCann was an informative speaker – particularly regarding the online content he covered.  I was able to usurp some of his attention during the Q &A session and learn about his start-ups, competition factors, and protocol for businesses “stealing” ideas. It was all very interesting. It is clear that he is a salesman, and proficient in selling himself and his ideas – and in being a winner.

Web 2.0 was architected for user participation and most sites haven’t taken advantage of this yet. In the future, the Web will move toward an even more active audience of “participants” rather than “users.” People who participate do so for emotional (personal & peer) and/or financial rewards (direct or indirect).

A reoccurring theme was the underlying importance of reputation. T.A. touched on it when he spoke about credibility being measurable via transparency. The site Craig’s List offers no control of user credibility whereas eBay extends a reasonable amount of control. Reviews, credits, and screening processes are all means by which credibility can be conveyed. Reputation was also discussed in conversations about online media and journalists.

The article “Willingness to Pay for Online News: An Empirical Study of the Viability of the Subscription Model” covers one of my favorite topics of interest. The trend of the disintegration of traditional news media is both intriguing and scary to follow. I see at least one article a day about newspapers closing, conducting lay-offs, journalists voluntarily “getting out,” or papers being absorbed and joining forces with others in order to establish a stronger conglomerate.

The session wth T.A. was useful and the small groups were a good way to share ideas in-depth.