Blayne Sucks

Currently, Twitter is the Internet’s dominant micro-blogging service. It has shown that micro-blogging is a distinctly different form of communication deserving of it’s own niche, and it has done so well with its own micro-blogging service that micro-blogging itself is perhaps better known as Twittering.

Of course, there is one small problem. Twitter is a closed platform. As Tim Bray put it:

The basic problem is that Twitter is centralized; that’s not how the Internet works.

A quick look at history tells us that open communication protocols win in the long run. When you call someone on the phone, you aren’t limited to people using the same telephone service provider. When you email someone, you aren’t limited to people who are using the same Internet service provider. Even actual blogging has standardized norms (RSS and Atom) that allow people using blogger, WordPress, LiveJournal, or any other blogging mechanism to easily follow blogs on other platforms. (Though, cross-blog commenting is still a bit of a problem.)

Although I could talk about the Network Effect or Metcalfe’s Law, for the purposes of this post, I will focus on the key security design problem facing Twitter. This is not to say that the Network Effect and Metcalfe’s Law aren’t important. They are. I’m just talking about another, unrelated reason that supports the need for diversity in the micro-blogging industry.

A recent incident is an exemplar of the real problems caused by a centralized protocol like Twitter. An attacker was able to hijack several high-profile Twitter feeds, including Barack Obama’s campaign feed and the official Fox News feed. How did this happen? Well, it turns out that there was a security design flaw on the Twitter site that allowed rapid login attempts. This allowed an attacker to use a dictionary attack against the Twitter account of a member of Twitter’s support staff. Once the password was guessed, the attacker was able to get access to any feed in all of Twitter-dom.

The key security flaw in any centralized protocol is that such protocols are monocultures. Bananas are a great example of the danger of monocultures. Bananas are an extremely important crop worldwide, but the vast majority of bananas grown are of the Cavendish variety. Why? Because the tastier Gros Michel bananas were wiped out by a disease. They were all essentially genetically identical. There was almost no diversity in the banana ecosystem. As a result, they were unable to adapt to the disease, and since the same problem exists with the Cavendish, we’re still one bad disease away from a worldwide shortage of bananas.

The same problem exists for micro-blogging. If you want to micro-blog, you effectively need a Twitter account. Twitter is so dominant that almost all micro-bloggers are using Twitter, which makes it a monoculture. Because Twitter is a monoculture for micro-blogging, the micro-blogging itself is one bad security incident away from obliteration. Also, if Twitter were to go belly up (which is not, as Tim Bray discussed, outside the realm of possibility for an Internet-based company), then, effectively, the entire micro-blogging industry would be eliminated.

At this point you might say, “Wait! Twitter has an open API!” This is not the same as open source, and it does not eliminate the threats posed by monocultures. It does mean that it is very easy to add functionality to the Twitter protocol, but it does not mean that you can participate freely without a Twitter account.

Micro-blogging needs a viable open source alternative to create a federated micro-blogging protocol. Tim Bray proffered Laconica and one of the commenters in his thread mentioned the soon-to-be open source Jaiku, which was recently shutdown by Google.

Whatever happens, a federated micro-blogging protocol would be far more robust than the current Twitter monoculture. If I were to add a single gutsy prediction to the list over at Freedom to Tinker, it would be that a major security incident at Twitter allows an open source alternative to gain a foothold in micro-blogging. It may not happen this year, but I think it’s inevitable with any monoculture.

Last month, Jim Harper started an interesting discussion on regulation around the holidays. Although I was hiding from my computer in an attempt to take a vacation at the time I have finally caught up with the discussion. If you happen to have missed this as well, I think it’s well worth reading.

Jim started the discussion with an excellent blog post over on Cato@Liberty about ‘real’ regulation. If you haven’t read it, here’s a juicy tidbit:

What Burnett meant when she called for a “real” regulator, of course, was “the regulator I can imagine.” The regulators people imagine are foresighted, interested only in the public good, they’re resistant to lobbying, and they run efficient organizations. But these characteristics are simply imaginary.

Tim Lee followed this up with a post on the Technology Liberation Front extending the discussion to regulation of technology. Again, if you haven’t read it, here’s a juicy tidbit:

Too many advocates of regulation seem to have never considered the possibility that the FCC bureaucrats in charge of making these decisions at any point in time might be lazy, incompetent, technically confused, or biased in favor of industry incumbents. That’s often what “real regulators” are like, and it’s important that when policy makers are crafting regulatory scheme, they assume that some of the people administering the law will have these kinds of flaws, rather than imagining that the rules they right will be applied by infallible philosopher-kings.

The FCC is designed to ensure (theoretically) that these bureaucrats are independent, but if you take a look at what is actually happening, then it becomes clear that independence is in many ways imaginary. The FCC’s website describes the organization of the Commissioners as follows:

The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.

News today that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin will resign on Inauguration Day makes the FCC an even more interesting topic for discussion. With this resignation, Obama will have nominated all five of the serving FCC Commissioners by this summer. Also, it goes without saying that the FCC will be regulating some important aspects of our society, including the Digital TV transition that’s slated for February.

Obama’s choice for FCC Chairman is Julius Genachowski. Wikipedia describes him as “an American business executive with experience in telecommunication and technology issues.” This ideal of not having a financial interest in Commission-related business isn’t starting off well. Of course, that’s Wikipedia, so maybe it’s not trustworthy. Let’s look at Reuters’ description:

Genachowski was chief counsel for Reed Hundt, an FCC chairman under former President Bill Clinton. He also held various positions at Internet search and media company IAC/InterActiveCorp (IACI.O) and several firms investing in technology, including Rock Creek Ventures and LaunchBox Digital.

Again, it sorta feels like this is a man with financial interests in technology. Business Week even lauds his “business sense” as a key benefit that he brings to the table. But let’s take a step back from this individual appointment. I really don’t know much about Genachowski other than what’s been reported in the news, and I certainly don’t want to pick on him as an individual that’s emblematic of the larger problem with “real” regulation.

My point is simply to consider this: Is it really possible to find anyone who has the knowledge needed to help run a regulatory organization like the FCC that doesn’t have a financial interest in Commission-related business? If it isn’t outright provably impossible, then at the very least I think there’s a strong argument to be made that it is impossible. Sure we may wish that it weren’t so, but if wishes were fishes, we’d all be casting our nets. Of course, I’m open to your thoughts in the comments.

Before we get too far into 2009, I wanted to post something that I probably should have posted before 2008 came to a close. I chose not to write about the passing of Randy Pausch when it happened (He died on July 25, 2008 at the age of 47.) because I felt that I needed time to reflect on everything that I’ve learned from him. I was never a student of his in any class that he taught, but I certainly learned a lot from him.

Long time readers of this blog know that I’ve covered Randy Pausch’s work several times. I wrote about his now-famous “Last Lecture” back before the video deservedly became a huge sensation. I wrote about his excellent Time Management talk twice to cover both versions. I wrote about his growing press coverage and the book version of his Last Lecture when it came out.

Despite all of that, I wasn’t really sure what to write about his passing when it happened. Time Magazine covered his passing rather well at the time. Although it has been half a year since, I’m still not entirely sure what to say. Certainly, there’s a lot that could be said of him. Carnegie Mellon has a memorial site up with excellent coverage of his work. ABC News considers his story to be one of the best stories of 2008. He was named the “Most Inspiring Person of 2008” by the online Beliefnet community. His Last Lecture book is one of Amazon.com’s best books of the year.

Of course, all of these things strike me as things that Dr. Pausch wouldn’t have said himself. He continually credited those around him because he realized that we – none of us – aren’t capable of this sort of success alone. Everything worth accomplishing in life requires teamwork. When he got tenure, he rewarded his entire research lab with a trip to Disney World. When his Alice Project received well-deserved praise, he deflected all of the credit to those around him.

There are times in life that I wish I were a poet. I would love to be able to write a proper requiem for this teacher. But I am not a poet. I barely know the first thing about poetry. I am a dreamer. Sure it sounds silly or corny, but there’s nothing wrong with being silly or corny from time to time. I thought I knew a lot about dreaming before I heard Dr. Pausch’s lecture. I thought it was something people did for fun, or something that had little bearing on reality. I was wrong. It doesn’t have to be that way. Our dreams and aspirations can affect the way we live, and as a result they can affect reality for everyone.

Maybe the best tribute is to continue to dream big every day and not worry about sounding silly. It sounds simple enough, but doing anything consistently every single day is extremely hard. It’s hard because most days are pretty bland. We get caught up in one mundane thing after another, and pretty soon the day’s over. One day bleeds into the next and it turns into a lifetime.

If you’re already feeling bogged down by a return to normal life after the enervation of the New Year, I would encourage you not to forget whatever audacious New Year’s resolution you may have made, regardless of how far behind you may already be. Take some time to watch the lecture again. And get back on that horse. You don’t have wait another 11.5 months to try that resolution again.

Although I haven’t blogged much about sports on this site recently, I feel I compelled to post my thoughts on Tony Dungy’s retirement as Head Coach of the Indianapolis Colts. You can read the text of his retirement speech here.

Coach Dungy’s record speaks for itself. Tony Dungy retires with an overall record of 92-33 at Indianapolis, including the playoffs, which makes him the winningest head coach in Colts franchise history. The Colts made the playoffs every year under Dungy, and the Colts have won 12 games each of the last six years, which is an NFL record. In the seven years that he’s been there, the Colts have won 85 regular season games, which is just 1 game short of New England over that same time period.

Tony Dungy is also the winningest head coach in Tampa Bay franchise history with 54 wins. Starting from his position as head coach in Tampa Bay, he is the only coach since the AFL / NFL merger to take a team to the post season 10 straight years. He is the first head coach to defeat all 32 teams in the NFL, the first African American head coach to win a Superbowl, and only the third person to win Superbowls both as a player and as a head coach.

Those are just some of his football accomplishments, but anyone who has followed the Colts knows there’s much more to him than football. Coach Dungy has never been afraid to talk about his faith as a Christian. He has been active in prison ministries and in working with troubled youths. Dungy is well-known for having written Quiet Strength: The Principles, Practices, & Priorities of a Winning Life, which was a New York Times Best Seller. Quiet Strength describes how he became an elite head coach in a cutthroat league without compromising his ethics. It also dealt with his perseverance in the face of grief over his son James’ suicide in the fall of 2005.

In fact, the success of Quiet Strength may have contributed to his decision to retire at the age of 53. A big part of his reason for stepping down is his desire to make more of an impact off the field, much of which will likely be documented on his website. He has another book, titled Uncommon: Finding Your Path to Significance set to be released in February of this year. In his retirement speech, he eluded to his desire to spend more time with his family, which certainly also contributed to his decision. His son Eric is a junior in high school and will be visiting college campuses this fall, which has been postulated as another reason for his decision to retire.

Of course, for the Colts, the question remains: what next? The simple answer is that Jim Caldwell, who was announced as the next in line after the season last year, will be the new head coach. Bob Kravitz, who coves the Colts for the Indianapolis Star, believes that it was time for Dungy to go. I’m not sure I can quite get on board with that. I certainly support Dungy in his decision because it really is just that: his decision, but I simply can’t say that I would say the Colts are better off without him.

Kravitz’s argument boils down to two basic points: poor playoff performance and a “coddling, enabling, everything-is-all-right culture,” fostered by the Colts from top to bottom. To the first, I say that any winning record in the playoffs is a good record. Under Dungy, the Colts are 7 and 6 in the playoffs with one Superbowl. There are about 27 other teams in the league that would love to have a record like that. To the second, I say that Kravitz just doesn’t get it. The Colts culture isn’t a coddling or enabling culture at all. It’s just not the insane, thoughtless, cutthroat culture that can be found virtually everywhere else in the NFL. The Colts aren’t just about winning; they are about winning the right way.