Economist debate on sharing

The Economist has just launched a debate between me and Andrew Keen — and you — on the proposition that society benefits when we share information online.” Here is my opening statement; follow the link for Andrew’s and the discussion:

* * *

We are sharing for good reason—not because we are insane, exhibitionistic, or drunk. We are sharing because, at last, we can, and we find benefit in it. Sharing is a social and generous act: it connects us, it establishes and improves relationships, it builds trust, it disarms strangers and stigmas, it fosters the wisdom of the crowd, it enables collaboration, and it empowers us to find, form and act as publics of our own making.

For individuals, sharing is a choice; that is the essence of privacy. Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, told me that before the net, we had “privacy through obscurity”. We had little chance to be public because we had little access to the tools of publicness: the press, the stage, the broadcast tower (their proprietors were last century’s 1%). Today, we have the opportunity to create, share and connect, and 845m people choose to do so on Facebook alone. Mr Zuckerberg says he is not changing their nature; he is enabling it.

I shared my prostate cancer—and, thus, my malfunctioning penis—online. Nothing bad came of this, only good: information, support from friends (who could not have known had I not been public) and the opportunity to inspire other men to be tested. Let me emphasise: that was my choice; no one should be forced to publicise their life.

But imagine if we did feel free to share our health data. Think of the correlations and possibly causes and cures we could find. Why don’t we? We fear losing insurance (though insurers already demand our data) or jobs (that is a matter of discrimination to handle legislatively).

Most of all, we fear stigma—though in this day and age why should anyone be ashamed of being sick? In the tension between secrecy and openness, these are the kinds of benefits we should be considering, balancing them with the risks as we adapt society’s norms to new realities and new opportunities.

Our institutions should share for different reasons. The wise company is opening up to build direct relationships with customers, to inoculate itself against the dreaded viral meme, and even to collaborate on the creation of products (see Local Motors’ cars, designed with customers).

Government must learn to share its work and knowledge with its citizens. It must become open by default and secret by necessity (and there are necessary secrets in relation to security, diplomacy, criminal investigations and citizens’ privacy). Today, government is instead secret by default and open by force (that of the journalist or the leaker).

If WikiLeaks has taught us nothing else, it is that no secret is safe and that too much government information has been classified as secret (consider the role of leaks in the Tunisian uprising and the subsequent Arab spring).

Openness is proving to be profoundly disruptive. When we share what we pay for goods, we ruin price opacity and retailers’ margins. When we share our frustration with government, we can start revolutions. This is why institutions—news, media, corporate, government, academic—often resist the draw of openness and fear its impact. And that is why we are seeing a sudden rise in efforts to regulate our greatest tool of publicness, the net, under the guises of piracy, privacy, security and decency.

Too much of the conversation about sharing today revolves around risks—risks to privacy (which does need protection, and it has many new protectors) and risks to intellectual property (though media companies need to learn that controlling scarcity will become an increasingly difficult business model to execute). We also need to have a discussion about the benefits of sharing and the tools that enable it, so we can protect their potential.

  • http://keypulp.com Joe

    Keep preaching it, Mr. Jarvis. I’m always glad to hear you pushing this stance on TWiG and this is a great elucidation of your position. As for corporations, I’m reminded of Evernote’s frequent data disclosures via CEO Phil Libin at places like Le Web. They are always open about their data and use it to evangelize the frequent superiority of freemium over both free and paid-only models.

  • http://www.johnsutton.us John Sutton

    So well said, and thank you so much for saying it. I couldn’t agree more.

  • http://laurelrusswurm.wordpress.com/ Laurel L. Russwurm

    Sharing your health information can loose insurance and jobs. And depending on what the illness is, can certainly bring stigmatization.

    Good job. Now I look forward to following the debate.

  • http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk Angela Phillips

    Funny isn’t it that, in a socialised medical system, like the one we have in the UK, it is perfectly possible for data to be shared without any breech of individual privacy. That sort of sharing is a genuine benefit to everyone involved. Sharing simply in order to provide the new media giants (Google and Facebook) with personal information which they can then profit from – is a very different matter. This so called “free” model is in no way altruistic. It doesn’t care whether you benefit from what you share. Its only aim is to transfer income from the audience to the corporate giants. And on the way it just happens to starve most of the creative people who might once have made a living from the work of creation. So lets not be sentimental about its great social benefits.

  • http://josephratliff.com/blog JosephRatliff

    I think the important part here is we CAN share, where we weren’t able to before… that’s not saying we HAVE to share.

    That’s why I favor Jeff’s side of this debate, it’s a choice… until it isn’t a choice, I’m in.