Reminds me of a story about a house in my town where a hoarder filled every room with magazines, books, newspapers and other flammable stuff. So much that some “authority” turned off their power because it was a fire hazard.The difference between a healthy person and a hoarder is that that healthy person keeps the stuff that matters and throws the rest away.Isn’t VRM/Me2B about a better way to signal what matters?When Doc wrote about the Intention Economy, he was saying that the important thing is why people do what they do, buy what they buy, why it matters - what the intent is. Are they buying Sudafed because they have a head cold or because they are making Meth? Big difference.Instead of hoarding the exponentially increasing data about past behavior and using unprecedented amounts of processing power to figure out why we buy what we buy, there must be a better way to do that. A more efficient way. A way that wins our loyalty so when we have that intent again, we don’t search around, we just re-order.The model isn’t unprecedented - it’s called a conversation (thanks Doc, CluetrainManifesto).There are standards for what is acceptable in the real, physical world around respecting people’s privacy in a conversation. In fact that’s when people share more information voluntarily. If we need an agent, it is to verify those standards are preserved (which is better than what happens in the real world!).How does a business have a two way conversation? There’s this two way, interactive media technology!A two-way medium is what’s unprecedented. Not the amount of data it can generate.Katherine Warman KernI love "hoarder's dilemma."So I just looked it up, and it's a real thing:DocOn Sep 16, 2019, at 2:42 PM, JClark < " target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"> > wrote:Having a healthy, trusting society would be good for business, no?
Surveillance in support of manipulation and oppression is not healthy or
good for business, and yet that is the group-think-supported mirage that
businesses (and many forms of governance) are acting on. It's a
hoarder's dilemma.
j.
On 9/16/19 11:18 AM, Doc Searls wrote:We know all those things. What we need to make are better cases that
increased personal agency will be good for business.
For example, if picos provide a standardized way for customers and
companies to learn from each other, that's good for business.
Likewise, intentcasting is a better way for a customer to become a
qualified lead than for a company to track the person like an animal.
Standardized agreements that are good for both sides (such
as #NoStalking <http://customercommons.org/home/tools/terms/p2b1/>)
can reduce many frictions, including GDPR compliance needs. The list
goes on.
DocOn Sep 16, 2019, at 1:57 PM, Adrian Gropper < " target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">...
< " target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">mailto: >> wrote:
To Doc's second point on what will be good for business, I see these
perceived costs to business:
- Businesses prefer to be in control (reduced uncertainty)
- It’s expensive to give control to the customer (legal costs,
customization costs)
- Who else gets to format the questions? (reduced control)
- Ad-blockers and cookie managers reduce profit (complicated, but
there's little evidence of innovation)
Do we want to address these directly or do we need to change the
question?
Adrian
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.