July 27, 2008

TECHNOS QUARTERLY Winter 1997 Vol. 6 No. 4

Interview with Esther Dyson

By Mardell Raney

Esther Dyson is president and owner of EDventure Holdings, which focuses on emerging information technology worldwide and the emerging computer markets of Central and Eastern Europe. EDventure Holdings publishes the monthly newsletter, Release 1.0, manages EDventure Ventures (a venture capital fund), and sponsors the 20-year-old PC Forum, an annual conference for leaders in the computer/communications industry. Dyson is chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and served as a member of the U.S. National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council, where she co-chaired the Information Privacy and Intellectual Property subcommittee. The 1996 recipient of Hungary’s von Neumann Medal for “distinction in the dissemination of computer culture,” Dyson was named No. 12 in Upside’s Elite 100 and No. 23 in Russia’s Who’s Who in the Computer Market. A 1972 graduate in economics from Harvard, she worked on the Harvard Crimson and later as a reporter for Forbes. Dyson learned the dynamics of the computer and software business as a securities analyst for New Court Securities and Oppenheimer & Co. A resident of Manhattan, Dyson recently published her first book, Release 2.0: A Design for Living in the Digital Age, to help citizens and rulemakers think analytically and responsibly about the virtual and real worlds they are creating.

Early in your career you worked as a security analyst in New York in 1977. How did you know at this early stage that computers would become such a huge factor in business? And could you possibly envision what this technology might become or the impact it would have?

You know, I didn’t—and I still don’t—plan my career carefully. It was just the most interesting thing around. The people were smart. I was actually going to Wall Street and the thing happening there was the computer business. But I make no claims to having predicted everything.

But a lot of other people didn’t find it very interesting or important, which said something about your insight and understanding even then. And now your new book, Release 2.0, presents a much more humane and reader-friendly look at the digital world than one would expect, given your superior expertise and knowledge. You stress the necessity of personal responsibility and a proactive stance—not just letting the digital world happen to us. However, many people are frightened and intimidated by this technology. How can the average citizen feel sufficiently empowered and knowledgeable to actually embrace this idea?

Basically what I’m trying to explain to people is that it’s not so scary. If people in the government can or think they can understand it, so can average citizens. And they have both an opportunity and a responsibility to get involved in those decisions.

In your opinion do the powers in Washington really understand technology issues? And are they qualified to make these major policy decisions about the Internet, censorship, and so forth?

Most of them don’t understand the technology, but making a decision about censorship does not require one to understand the technology. It requires one to understand the Constitution. It also requires one to understand that, let’s face it, America does not rule the Internet any more than France or China does. You need to understand, if not the technology, at least the basic fact that the Internet extends beyond any national boundaries. That’s probably the thing that confuses governments the most.

Do you have concerns or second thoughts about the digital revolution? You’ve said that we have three kinds of questions to deal with: intellectual, business, and social. Are we adequately working to address these?

We’re starting to address them. The book is trying to encourage people to do more. We’re never going to solve the problems raised by the digital age any more than we solved the problems raised by the industrial age or the agricultural age. But that doesn’t mean we should give up. These are the same old problems: what to do about people who are poor and uneducated, what to do about people who are bad, how to deal with conflict. None of them are going to go away. The Net makes some of them more visible or more acute. As long as we’re human beings, we’re going to be dealing with conflict. The thing is not to throw up our hands in despair and say, “Oh, it’s the Internet. I don’t understand the technology.”

As a member of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Council, you stated at a 1993 meeting that intellectual property depreciates and intellectual service appreciates. Does this still summarize your thinking on intellectual property?

Yes. Fundamentally it does.

You also said that content ownership matters, but it’s not the key factor in intellectual commerce. What is the key factor?

There isn’t a single key factor. It depends what business you are in and what business model you’re trying for. But there’s also the issue of control rather than ownership of the right to copy: who can link to my site; who gets to use the intellectual property to make money in other ways. The fact is, a lot of what happens on the Net is going to be service, not intellectual property at all. It’s a complicated area. The point is, worrying about the right to make copies is kind of missing what are much more important rights, which are basically rights to exploit it, rights to have content attributed to you, rights to sell advertising. A way to make money. It’s going to be use of the property, not simply making copies of it.

You call Release 2.0 your design for living in the digital age. Is this intended to help us cope with and utilize the Net? Or do you think we actually can help shape it as you suggested?

I’m hoping we can help shape it. To some extent I see this as a Dr. Spock baby book. Here’s a lot of information, here’s what to do, here are things you might not know. But in the end it says “Trust your own instinct. Millions of people have done this before you; just don’t lose your common sense.” But there is one difference: Dr. Spock said “Bring up your own kid” and I’m saying “Help create society as well.” It’s not just a personal issue. It is indeed creating an environment that you want to live in.

Realistically, will individuals have the power to do this?

I think, as a whole, individuals have far more power. The point is to understand, not that each individual is going to have the power to run the world, but that the world is going to be much more decentralized. And each individual has an opportunity and responsibility to contribute to the whole.

What will drive the continued development of the Internet? Will the Net be mainly a commercial vehicle for marketing and sales or will it continue to expand as an information repository, or are there undreamed of uses that still may be coming?

People have a real desire to communicate, to be heard, to influence others. The profit motive will be a big part of it, but so will the people’s desire for attention, their desire to have an impact on other people. I have a fairly optimistic view of human nature and not everybody is going to be like this. But I think you’re going to have a lot more amateur publishing, a lot more amateur selling, instead of people seeing themselves only as consumers and as workers in somebody else’s enterprise. People will see themselves as producers, both for profit and not-for-profit.

You’ve discussed how individuals can and should shape the Net, but how do you think this technology might change us? That is, we recognize that it will probably change our society, our education, even our culture, but do you think it might change the individual innately? How we think and learn? Even more, might it lead to changes in the brain itself, as some people have suggested?

I don’t think it’s going to change human nature, but I think it is doing scary things to our attention span, to our ability to think linearly. And that concerns me. It also makes it easier to create fragmented communities that are ignorant of the world outside. I also think it’s going to change our notions of what privacy is. But at the same time, I don’t think it’s going to change such fundamental human things as fear and love and hunger and desire for attention and so forth. But it’s definitely going to change the institutions and the habits we have.

Speaking of institutions, what’s your opinion of American schools today? What reforms do you think are necessary, especially regarding the maximization of technology and the Internet?

I think good teachers are far more important than computers. If I had to choose between a good teacher and a computer, I’d take a teacher any day. What we need is more flexibility. Again, more decentralization of power in the schools. Computers can help, not just as a teaching tool but as a way of disseminating information about schools and performance. You can create a market for school performance without creating a financial market. If parents had a better understanding of how their schools rate compared to others, if teachers communicated better with other teachers and shared best practices—I think that would help a lot. So computers have a lot to do with not only what goes on in the classroom, but with the institutions of education.

One provocative statement that you’ve made is that content is no longer king except to the extent that it can garner attention. How does this apply to education and knowledge-based endeavors? Does the Internet have limitations as an information tool?

It applies to exactly what we were just saying. All of the information on the Internet isn’t as good as a good teacher who will provide the service, the attention around it, the thing that motivates the student to be excited, the role model. Very smart and motivated kids can just learn off the Net, but most kids need someone to talk to, someone to provoke them, someone to help them learn. There is more to education than information. There is human motivation.

How does American education compare to that of the rest of the world, especially Central and Eastern Europe?

Central and Eastern Europe have much better technical education, but honestly they are not as good at encouraging kids to think. American education varies much more, I think. The best of it is incredibly wonderful. The worst of it is appalling. In the rest of the world, education tends to be more consistent. The challenge is to raise the average here in the U.S. And I am distressed at how poorly people spell. That’s something I’ve noticed on the Net and increasingly in printed publications.

I agree. I’m not sure if that’s ignorance or carelessness or what, but you’re absolutely right.

Clearly, I think if the education system were better, people would spell better. That’s a silly thing, but it’s important. It’s an indication of clear thinking.

You’ve said that the President’s goal of Internet access for every classroom is a worthwhile goal, not only to help provide a better education for all students but also to give them a sense of involvement, self-government, and empowerment, which is increasingly missing in our society. What might this mean in terms of social involvement and a renewal or return to our democratic roots?

I hope it means that people feel they have more control over the world around them as well as over a screen. It is a worthwhile goal, but again I wouldn’t make that a goal to the exclusion of, for example, paying teachers more. Kids need role models. They need personal attention even more than they need technology. Yes, you can get personal attention over the Net, but having a teacher physically there really makes a huge difference. So it’s a goal, but it’s not the first goal. That said, yes, I hope people get more involved in what happens around them instead of being limited to their own personal interests.

You must have been an exceptionally intelligent and precocious child. What kind of early education did you have? Did traditional classroom learning challenge you?

Well, I went to nursery school, then kindergarten. I skipped a grade. I remember in first grade going out into the hall to read while they were doing things that I already knew. I went to public schools, but I went to good public schools. I learned French starting in the third grade.

Was the traditional classroom boring for you, and if so, how did you respond?

Oh, some of it was, but I read like a fiend. For years I was waiting to turn 14 so that I could go work in the local library as a page. And I did indeed do that the moment I turned 14.

What is the parents’ role in education? You’ve talked a lot about the teacher as being indispensable, but how can or should parents contribute?

The ideal parent is also a good role model: speaks in whole sentences, surfs the Net with the kid and says,“Oh, you’re going to have to understand: this is advertising. What do you think the motivation is here?” It would be great if all parents were ideal parents.

Who is responsible for educating citizens to take advantage of the Internet and educating students for the Internet as the workplace of the future, which it undoubtedly will be?

Ideally parents are ultimately responsible for educating their kids. Which means if their school isn’t doing a good job, they whine, complain, and fix it. In terms of formal education about the Internet, it should be the school. If the school doesn’t do it, it should be the parent. Often kids can educate themselves very effectively. Using the Internet doesn’t take a lot of education. Using one’s power and being a good citizen takes a lot of education, but it tends not to be of the formal kind. That tends to be through role models, watching how other people behave, learning to be polite to people, that kind of stuff.

We’ve heard a lot of scary scenarios concerning potential implications of the Internet for traditional education, such as the abolishment of existing school systems and buildings, pedagogy, curricula, assessment and accountability, commercial control, and so forth. Do you see this happening? Will students be doing more learning at home, in virtual reality or applied situations, or through distance learning from various sites?

They’ll be doing somewhat more, but it’s really important for them to physically be around other kids and interested adults. It’s sort of like what’s going to happen to stores: in the long run, you’re going to need fewer of them. But none of this happens overnight.

That’s true. What about teacher education? Do you think schools of education will have to change the way they prepare teachers for schools of the future, and if so, how?

They absolutely must change. First of all they should be better at teaching in general. Teachers should feel comfortable with the technology so that they’re not scared of what their students are doing. But it’s more familiarity with it than needing a course per se. I mean, who gives courses in the telephone? It’s just a tool that normal people learn to use.

You’re a strong proponent of entrepreneurship and networking and very generous with your ideas and connections. You’ve often been the catalyst in putting together partnerships and collaborations. Should entrepreneurship be taught in schools?

I don’t really think it can be, as a subject. Most of it is simply character; some of it is having role models, working with other entrepreneurs. One interesting thing about the Net is that it does reduce the separation between work and home, for better or worse. A kid can get on the Net and start selling anything from cookies to computing services. And there is less separation of media between what’s meant for children and what’s meant for adults.

Can we create a climate in which entrepreneurship would flourish on the Net?

Yes, absolutely. I’m spending a lot of time working on this in the U.S. as well as in Western and Eastern Europe. It’s everything from tax policy to role models to how the government feels about these kinds of things. Absolutely, there is a climate that encourages entrepreneurship and a climate that doesn’t.

You talked earlier about the need for a person—a teacher and/or a parent, ideally both—to physically work with students. What about some of the perhaps inevitable changes in work and study habits and communication that the Internet will bring about? What does this mean for the development of socialization and interpersonal skills in our society in general? Will we become a nation or even a world of isolated techno-junkies?

I don’t think so, because that’s so contrary to human nature.

I hope you’re right. It would appear that individual success in the future will depend more than ever on intelligence, higher-order thinking skills, creativity, and such. What do you think will be the most important personal attribute for success?

Personality. I really mean it. The way you interact with people is going to matter a lot. There is this notion of the Net as a repository of information, with people who create good information and software as the winners. I see it as more of a place where you provide customer service and interaction. We may lose retailing in stores as we know it, but we’re going to have the same requirements for personal interaction on the Net.

So the same skills that are needed for a good customer service representative today will be needed there also?

You have to be literate. It’s going to be more than just serving up a burger. But at the same time, I think there will be huge demand for pleasant people on the Net. So in the same way, distance learning will grow, yes. But distance learning with a teacher who does not have 2,000 students but who has 20 with whom he or she communicates personally.

Is there one preeminent skill or area of knowledge that students must develop for future success?

You can’t just have one. There are different models. Unfortunately, there are lots of people who succeed by being jerks. As I said, personality is still going to be important. It’s not going to be this digital world of intelligence and numbers. That’s going to be part of it. A technical education is important, but it’s not everything. Social skills are not going to vanish or be less important.

You were quoted in the San Jose Mercury News as saying that universal access would be attainable and desirable if we first reached another goal of universal decent education. That’s a wonderful statement, but we have a long way to go. How do you think we can achieve this goal?

I don’t think we can, but we should keep trying. Do I think we can achieve a world where everybody is nice? No. But I’m still going to try to bring up my nieces and nephews to be nice.

In 1995 Congress passed the Communications Decency Act, which outlawed offensive material on the Net. Shortly after that the Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with the ACLU and others, filed suit against this law and won. Isn’t that verdict now being challenged by the government?

The government has given up on that particular thing. We won the lawsuit.

What happens now with the standards?

The threat of censorship is not over, but that particular law has been overturned. Now the opportunity and the responsibility for determining what children see has moved back where it belongs—to parents and teachers. So there’s going to be a market for filtering tools, but like everything else, those tools don’t replace a good parent. They are tools for a parent to use, but they don’t do the whole job.

Unfortunately, there are no parents present in some situations. What about safety and privacy issues in cases such as the Trojan Horse program? What about a situation such as the Moldava Telecommunications fraud incident that was reported in the September 1997 Atlantic Monthly?

I didn’t read the article, but I do know something about that particular fraud. Those things are going to continue happening as long as people are gullible, scared, or naive—on and off the Net. With luck we’ll get better at policing them and require better authentication. People will get smarter. As for privacy, consumers have to start asking “What are you going to do with my data?” when they give out information, and they need some way to ensure that the promises that are made are kept. The Electronic Frontier Foundation has cosponsored a system which does that. It’s called TRUSTe; there is a logo on the Web site and a disclosure of what the site will do with your data. Then you can decide if you want to deal with that site or not. If the site doesn’t keep its promises, then TRUSTe can sue it because it signed a contract. This doesn’t require a law. All it requires is a government that will enforce the contract.

Will our definition of privacy change?

I think when people feel that they can control the information about them, they will feel less concerned about the information that is out there. Obviously there is also the matter of security, things like credit card numbers. That doesn’t really have to do with privacy. That has to do with security. People need to be reassured that their credit card numbers are being treated carefully. Again, you’re going to find all kinds of Web sites and you’ll need to build reputations and trust.

You’ve identified labeling and disclosure as being the key to content control. And you suggested that maybe a perfect job for the new knowledge workers would be classifying content so that users could be enlightened consumers. Who would train and employ these workers?

Rating services, commercial companies that offer rating services just as magazines do. It’s not going to be a formal education process; it’s going to be something that people learn on the job.

Who would determine what criteria they use in classifying this material? The rating services?

Each rating service would determine its own. Then people would say, “Gee, I really like this rating service. It keeps coming up with things I like.” Or “This one just doesn’t reflect my taste.” The same way you might or might not read Atlantic Monthly.

Would we be able to choose among these services or check one service against another?

That’s the whole point, and that’s why it’s not censorship. It’s a free, open market just like the market for magazines.

What’s your perspective on equity and access? Females are often discouraged from studying or having a career in technology or economics. But it’s in these very areas that you’ve been absolutely fearless and very successful. How did you do it, and what message would you have for ambitious girls in school today?

What I’m doing has very little to do with that. This may sound disingenuous, but you can use computers without knowing much about technology, just as you can drive a car without knowing much about electrical or mechanical engineering. I was lucky because both of my parents were scientists. My mother was a math professor, so I wasn’t scared of it. My message for girls is just don’t make a case out of being female. My mother once met Gloria Steinem, and she said to Gloria, “ I’m sorry, I don’t think I’ve done as much for the women’s movement as I should.” Gloria looked at my mother and asked, “What do you do?” and my mother said, “I’m a mathematician.” “Go be the best mathematician you can be. That will do more for the women’s movement than anything.” I thought that was a great answer. If asked I will talk about being female, but I’m really more interested in doing what I do and in just being an example of a woman who concentrates on what I’m doing. I’m visible as a woman, but I’m not trying to represent all women myself.

How will the issue of access be resolved? Is this one of the most important issues and does it affect equity?

As I said, I don’t think the issue is going to be resolved, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work to make it better. But I think it’s all going to become relatively cheaper, as the markets work. The most important issue is not to give people free access but to give them the education so that they can make use of it. That absolutely should be paid for by the government, which means by the citizens. I’d rather have people make up their own minds about access, what they consider worth spending their money on. And we’re heading in the right direction.

I’m glad to hear you say that. The Internet may offer us new freedoms that we haven’t thought of before. Why would there be any workplace limitation for the handicapped? Computers are blind to color, gender, age, and so forth; differences are irrelevant. Can the Net offer that kind of equity?

It offers a lot of freedom and choice. At the same time, at least as it’s text-based, it discriminates against people who can’t write well. It’s not nirvana. And, frankly, I don’t want to go on the Net and pretend I’m not female. I want to be honored for what I am, rather than have the ability to “pass.” At the same time, it’s a miracle for people who are physically immobile. And it’s a miracle for the people in Russia who can reach the rest of the world. It’s a wonderful device for giving people access to a world they were cut off from. As you say, it provides huge amounts of flexibility and enables us to make many more of our own choices. Again, there is a real world there, too.

In an interview in the San Jose Mercury News, you said that an even deeper problem than the lack of women in technology was the lack of African-Americans, that we had to have diversity of all kinds. Rather than assimilation, you felt that the Net should celebrate differences and make them visible. Is this what you were talking about?

“Had to have” implies somebody should make a law and I didn’t say that, but it is a troublesome situation.

Will people become more isolated with increasing use of the Net or will they find new ways of connecting?

There is a danger that this will happen to some people, just as some people become alcoholics. But by and large it’s very valuable. The Net is going to be used more for connecting people than for disconnecting them.

What about those people who for one reason or another can’t make it in the technological age, maybe due to illiteracy, mental, emotional, or physical conditions, or extreme poverty?

Or lack of education.

Or being in an inaccessible or remote area or even having a mindset that refuses to accept or try technology. Will this be the basis for a new classism?

I don’t think it’s a new classism. I think it’s the same old problem, and yes, it’s going to happen. The Net isn’t going to solve all those problems.

You’ve said that companies have to start planning as if the software was already free…by using it as a vehicle for services and support rather than selling copies as the core business.

Not cost-free, but priced free.

How do you persuade software companies to rethink their strategies, and what would this mean for the customer?

Well, for the customer it means that things are getting cheaper and cheaper. For the strategy it means you need to figure out how to make revenues other than by selling copies.

Is this viable or is it happening?

Absolutely. A lot of companies are already charging more for support than for product.

What are the virtual communities that appear to be emerging solutions to Internet marketing? Are these types of chat groups or more like focus groups?

They’re neither. They are bunches of people who might communicate by email or listserve, or who might post on the Web; it varies. It’s just like a community in real life. It could be your church group. It could be the people in a bar.

What can they accomplish?

They can accomplish what any community accomplishes—which may be miracles or maybe nothing at all.

Your company EDventure Holdings focuses on emerging technologies worldwide. Have you found that there are great differences in the technologies that are emerging in different countries?

Not in the technologies themselves but in the way they are used.

Is there wide disparity in the level of their emergence?

Yes, absolutely. The United States and Scandinavia are probably most advanced in using the Net. A lot of other countries don’t really have much phone service, let alone Internet service. You need that and then you need to know how to use the technology and have the commercial infrastructure, and so forth.

One division of EDventure Holdings is EDventure Ventures, your venture capital fund dedicated to active investment in startups in Eastern Europe. Why are you convinced that investing in this area is such a good idea?

It varies. I’m convinced that it’s a good idea because there are a lot of smart people involved, growing markets, huge opportunities, and it’s fun.

Is it a problem that in many cases they don’t have access to as much computer technology as we do right now? Or will that in a sense free them to leap over our technology?

You can call it a problem or you can see it as an opportunity to help change the situation.

You’ve spent a lot of time in Russia, and you have several ventures and investments there. What do you see for the future of Russia economically and technologically?

It’s very hard to predict. My hope is that the kinds of business practices, intelligence, efficiency, and openness in the computer sector will spread to the rest of Russia. It is a growing phenomenon and I’m trying to make it happen, but it’s not guaranteed.

What do you see as the most immediate or critical problem facing the Internet right now?

There is no single problem; it’s everything you’ve talked about. There are problems and there are opportunities and there are dangers. I’m not trying to be disingenuous, but I really don’t have an answer.

Speaking of dangers, are you familiar with Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death?

I’ve certainly heard about it.

Postman warned about our lack of media consciousness and of the danger of substituting entertainment or show business for substance (particularly in television). He cited Aldous Huxley’s belief that people will come to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think—that what we love will ruin us. Do you see this as a danger for Internet users today?

Of course it’s a danger—a danger that people will amuse themselves to death with everything from television to the Internet to alcohol to all kinds of things, although it’s certainly my hope that there’s less danger with the Internet. The Internet at least provides opportunities for us to be interactive and proactive, which television really doesn’t. If you watch television, you are pretty much forced to just sit there and watch the screen. On the other hand, the Internet mostly encourages you to interact.

Another longtime interest of yours is artificial intelligence. What is its future and in what areas do you see it as being most useful?

Its future is in disappearing into all kinds of products and services that we already have. There’s a lot of AI in daily products like word processors. It makes software a little more flexible, a little more able to understand you. It seems to understand what you want. AI’s future is just to do more of that. It’s going to be a bigger and bigger part of everything we do.

Given the fact that many people are going to look at digital issues on a very superficial level, how do we instill the concept of ethics as you mentioned earlier?

We write books. We write articles in TECHNOS. We provide good examples. We don’t just pass laws.

You’re called the industry’s leading visionary. Can you share insights your vantage point has given you into industry trends?

None but the obvious. The Internet is getting more important. It’s a means of communication between people, as well as information. Its great value is between people, not just as an information source.

What can possibly follow the Internet? Or will there just be further refinements or extensions?

It’s going to remain important and become ubiquitous. I think the next interesting field ethically is going to be genetic engineering. That will make the ethical dilemmas of the Internet look easy. That really does change human nature.

For a relatively young woman you’ve already had an incredible career. What’s next for Esther Dyson?

I’ve no idea. Just not to get bored.

The Web site for EDventure Holdings is located at:
www.edventure.com

Dyson as Digital Sage

Esther Dyson addresses her first book, Release 2.0: A Design for Living in the Digital Age (Broadway Books, 1997), to her readers as world citizens, not as consumers or business people.

“I have tried to write from as broad a perspective as possible,” she states. “I’m trying to speak not as an American but as a member of several communities, many of them outside the United States.”

The book is a sage guide to issues surrounding use of the Internet. Dyson divides her presentation into four interlocking parts: “Things the Market Can Handle,” “Things Government Must Handle,” “Things Time Will Handle,” and “Things You Must Handle.”

Among things the market can handle she includes truth in labeling (“much of what’s out there is not clearly labeled”), content selection (“filtering can work without any help or new laws from government”), consumer privacy (“if you don’t want to reveal your identity to buy stuff, you shouldn’t have to”), anonymity (“mostly to be discouraged”), and encryption (“it is important for individuals to understand how to protect their own information”).

The things she feels government must handle include cross-community laws, laws of full disclosure, nonconsumer privacy, money matters, and education (“good teachers and the Net together are a powerful combination”).

Time, she says, will handle such matters as openness and visibility, commerce and community, intellectual property and process, and the “attention” economy (“people may focus less attention on money and more on the satisfactions of impact and attention”).

And the things private citizens must handle, in addition to simply understanding the new medium and taking an active and principled role in it, include using your rights responsibly. “Specifically,” she advises, “take advantage of the new powers and rights the Net offers.”