Developing Shared Code with Principles

One of the most high-leverage work in a technical organization is building shared libraries or frameworks. A common library, a piece of code that can be used as is, or a framework, a system that codifies certain decisions and allows further work to be built on top, has the opportunity to benefit many people at once. Not only that, they also institutionalize shared knowledge, put knowledge that’s in people’s head in code for future employees. And of course, there are other benefits such as possibly open-sourcing such work, which comes with its set of benefits to hiring and on boarding.

Of course, there are risks with such a venture. The biggest risk is of course the value risk; that the work goes unused by other teams. That is bad enough, but sometimes it gets worse. Sometimes the adoption comes, but the work instead of enabling teams, hinders them. It gets in the way of actual work, the benefits of standardization is overshadowed by the pains of integration and customization.

So how do we make sure our shared work, be them libraries or frameworks, achieves its goal? In my experience, there are 3 principles that separate successful shared projects from failed ones. Two of them are about how to build the project, and a third one about how to get it in hands of others.

Start with a Real Project

Start with the origin. The ideal way to come up with a shared tool is to extract it from an actual project. This seems straightforward enough. The biggest benefit of this approach is the framework has an immediate customer, so its creators are incentivized to solve actual problems, for actual people. In practice, the most important value comes from the “developer ergonomics”, or essentially the usability of the project is automatically improved. This is basically the cornerstone of the agile movement anyway.

Take Rails, which has been extracted out of Basecamp, a project management software. Or Django, again which was extracted from a content-management system built for a local news site. These two frameworks have different cultures, but they attack the same problem; how do you make sure your developers are more productive?

I realize this way of working is not always easy, or even possible For example, it’s easier to imagine a front-end library like Bootstrap being extracted from Twitter’s internal UI, than, say a library used for internal communications platform. But it is possible.

Keep It Small

The second way to ensure success in a shared product is to keep the surface area as small as possible. In other words, the shared project should try to provide value as soon as possible. In practice, what this means is that the framework should probably undershoot its feature set.

This might sound counter-intuitive. If we are aiming for high adoption, should we not try to cover all the possible use-cases? Shouldn’t we try to solve as many problems as possible, to make sure people find some use in our work?

The problems with trying to solve too many problems at once are plenty. First of all, as modern software development methodologies have discovered, the problem discovery is really a continuous process. Instead of trying to predict what the problems would be and trying to solve them, we should try to deliver value as soon as possible, and then iterate further.

The more subtle problem with a large feature-set is that in my experience, especially more tenured teams see it as more of a liability than leverage. They realize a big investment, especially in a new project will likely result in more work down the line.

A small word of caution here. Especially in the front-end world, this advice to keep the feature set small is taken to an unfortunate extreme. No project should need a library to add left padding to a bunch of strings. The line between a small project that does one thing and does it really well and a comically tiny project is a fine one. A good rule of thumb is to make sure the project should provide some immediate value, and be meaningful by itself. That is, one should be able to do something “production” level with your project and only that.

Take a look at first version of Rails, which is essentially a bunch of ActiveRecord classes that uses Ruby’s dynamism to build an Object Relational Mapper (ORM). All the other features that most Rails developers take for granted came many years later. Similarly, React (in addition to being extracted from an internal Facebook project), barely had many of the features it has now; support for many of the common HTML tags, ES6 classes came later.

Evangelize Constantly

And lastly, but maybe most importantly, teams should actively evangelize their projects to be adopted within a company. This might be initially uncomfortable. Many technical teams have a negative opinion of any sort of marketing. They believe that other teams should be able to evaluate their work on its merits, and everything else is either throwaway or disingenuous.

This is a short-sighted way of looking at it. Developers of shared tools should consider evangelism as not only adverting but also forming a two-way communication channel with their customers.

Take marketing. Many of your potential customers inside your company might have heard of your project, but unless they know the project is well supported and actively maintained, they will probably not consider using it. When you market your project via emails, presentations and such, you are not only letting people know of your project, but sending an active signal that it’s active, maintained project. Many times, just having a face attached to the project that is known inside the company is the difference between real adoption and leverage as opposed to a repository full of insights bit-rotting away.

Moreover, evangelism is also about forming that feedback loop with your customers. When you actively work with your prospective customers, you are getting immediate feedback about the pain points they are having. You see what some of the under-invested parts of your project might have low-hanging fruits for future wins.

Again, a bit of warning here is in order. Evangelism doesn’t come naturally to most developer teams. Moreover, with evangelism sometimes comes sacrifices. It is not unheard of to make one or two small one-off work for a big internal customer, to get some initial adoption. This might feel impure, but sometimes might be necessary. The key here is to keep the scope of the one-off demands as small as possible, and really do it for customers who would be game-changers.

Building shared libraries or frameworks is extremely fulfilling; seeing your code be adopted by others, making their lives easier is why many people get into software development in the first place. And it is an amazing way to create high leverage work in a technical organization. Ability to positively impact the work of tens, hundreds, or even thousands of fellow developers is something most executives would be excited about.

I believe with these guidelines in mind, you would be in a much better place to both deliver value for your company, and have some fun doing it.

Planning for Agile

One of the main tenets of agile methodology is working software trumps extensive documentation. You get something to work, and then iterate based on the quick feedback. It sounds great in theory, and in my experience, works reasonably well in practice. All software estimates are wrong, so agile is also wrong, but it produces software and does it without inflicting too much damage on those who build it.

But how do you square this way of working with a long term vision? If an organization is aligned towards a vision, there has to be a roadmap that people follow. And a roadmap, by definition, is a long term plan. It guides what needs to be done months, and sometimes years in to the future.

These two ideas seem contradictory, and they can be confusing for especially inexperienced software engineers to wrap their head around, like it was for me years ago. But after spending several years in companies big and small, I found a way to reconcile the seemingly contradictory ways of thinking. For me, two ideas bridge this gap: a) Planning is for planning b) “Agile is a state of mind”. Let me explain.

In his seminal book High Output Management, the famed late Intel CEO talks about how Intel creates a five-year roadmap, every year. This seems insane on the surface; every year a bunch of high powered executives come in and spend many hours creating a five-year plan, only to do it next year, seemingly wasting 4 years of planning! Couldn’t they just do a one year plan?

Grove points out the output of the planning process is not really the plan itself, but the mental transformation of the people involved in the process and the organizational effects. The physical, literal exercise of having people sit around a table, and discuss the future establishes a shared vocabulary, and provides a starting point and a framework for all the future ad-hoc decisions that will need to be made.

In other words, once the planning process is finished, it is the people that is reformed, and the plan, on paper, itself is just a small residue in the crucible. That transformation is provides two main things; first is a sane default for all the future decisions and the second is a lingering sense of what needs to be done to keep the momentum. In my experience, the sane default aspect is more important. The key here is not that plan is a fallback for next decisions be followed blindly but it’s a shared framework, a common place to start the conversation to initiate a discussion. This is what Eisenhower meant when he said that “No battle was ever won according to plan, but no battle was ever won without one”. It’s not what happens that matters, it’s that something happens.

This leads me to my next point, namely “the agile mindset (man)”. In most software projects, especially those in consumer field, what matters is the cadence of development. And the hardest part of that momentum is always overcoming the inertia of doing nothing. Ironically, most of the time, this inactivity manifests itself as planning. We need plans, for ourselves, surely, but we also need the antidote.

Let me give an example. One of the projects I worked on involved building a new transport layer that extend all the way from the mobile client almost to the storage layer on the backend of a major enterprise. Almost literally, there was a moving part on every single part of the stack, each owned by different teams on different schedules, sometimes different timezones, different set of hopes and dreams.

The number questions with a project like that is essentially infinite. Some things security and privacy are non-negotiable, but the tail end of requirements have no end in sight. What is the monitoring story? What about error handling? How do we handle rollbacks, exceptions? Typing? Code generation? Compression, and performance? Where do you even start?

This is the point where agile mindset comes in handy. The idea behind agile is not that documentation is not useful (it is definitely useful, which I’ve learned the hard way) but it comes after the working software. The trick lies in being able to identify what really matters and what that initial state of working software looks like. In my experience, it’s always better to err on the side of simpler. Anything more than just a bit, sometimes literally, needs justification that’s simply not worth it.

So here’s what we did: we defined the security and privacy guarantees we need to provide, and only those. Nothing else. And then started building out something where the client can talk to the server, and server can respond back. It was extremely uneventful, when I tapped a button on my phone, and the random string I typed on my laptop appeared back on it. But it worked, and rest of it just followed. We found a way to handle the error handling, and handled the performance bottlenecks as they came along, and some brave souls handled code generation and today, it all works.

This is not to say the process was simple. The art of saying “not today” when people come knocking with their pet feature ideas, either from up or down the management chart, and sounding similarly credible when saying “but tomorrow” is a delicate skill. It requires credibility, resolve, and yes, sometimes a thick skin.

The selling point of “Agile” to the management has been that it provides value instantly and is more amenable to a dynamic, fast changing marketplace. And those are all true, but such verbiage can throw off those working in the trenches as MBA-speak.

For me, the main guiding principle of “agile”, with an intentional lowercase-A, has been the idea of taking into account how humans who build the software work. This isn’t surprising, considering “Agile Manifesto” was penned by actual software developers in the field. The open embrace of the messiness of doing anything that involves flesh-and-bones people is what makes the process more bearable than other forms of building software.

There are known knowns, there are known unknowns, and yes, there are unknown unknowns. There are temper tantrums, there are executive demands that come from nowhere on the 11th hour, there are teams that forgot they are involved, and there are those that casually ignore everything until the last moment.

The best we can do is aligning everyone on the same goals as best as we can, make sure people feel involved in the decisions that affect them, form the personal and organizational connections they will surely need, and have some sense of what success looks like. Rest will follow.

Twitter is throwing the towel on democracy

When I was growing up in Turkey, one of the more curious political insults was a “statukocu”, or “one who favors status quo”.  I remember asking my parents what it meant. And when I got the answer, it didn’t satisfy me either; why would wanting things to stay the same be a bad thing? It took me a bit longer to fully understand what that really meant.

Jokes about “move fast and break things” are as original as an Adam Sandler blockbuster these days. And so are essays about them. Sure, democracy is too important to accidentally break by moving fast. We get it. Facebook gets it too, they changed their slogan.

But what if what kills democracy is not Zuckerberg et al moving too fast but the crippling inability of Twitter to take a single action? Those jokes haven’t been made yet by others. Luckily for us, though, Twitter management continues to be that joke. And we are the butts, I think.

It ’s hard to describe this any other way, without sounding mean. As I mentioned yesterday, Trump couple days ago tweeted some blatantly racist tweets, showing people getting killed. Twitter first said they didn’t delete those tweets because they were “newsworthy” and provided “both sides” of an argument. I am of the opinion that inciting violence and racism are universally derided but OK, maybe Twitter knows better?

Then, and here’s the joke part, they walked back on their decision making. Not their decision, but their decision making. I wrote yesterday that “newsworthiness is just a fleeting moment of decision making done in San Francisco” but I was wrong. My larger point was that “newsworthiness” was a sham, a non-falsifiable hypothesis that allowed Twitter management to do as they wished. But, with the new “explanation”, I am not sure if there’s even anyone in the room anymore. Maybe there’s just a robot that just throws darts at a Wheel of Apology?

Imagine getting rejected for a job application, and the recruiter sends you an email the next day “Sorry, we didn’t hire you not because you are too junior, but because we just didn’t like you”. That would be hugely disrespectful, and would show a startling lack of professionalism. But this has been going for literally years when it comes to Twitter. Is this fine?

At this point, I am not sure what to say. One running joke is that Medium  is a Silicon Valley blog for apologies. Maybe we can say that the main reason Twitter exists at this point is to provide a platform for Trump to spread vitriol and for Jack to come up with post-facto rationalizations on why that’s a good thing, some Nazis, and sure, a bunch of startup (read: Uber) drama. This joke works on many levels, considering Medium is also founded by a Twitter co-founder.

I consider myself a progressive. I think favoring the status quo is not a amenable political position in general, and definitely not ideal in today’s America. But here’s the thing; I am from Turkey. I know how fast the sense of normalcy shifts under you when you let a few people play you. My Turkish diaspora jokes about how “we had Trump years ago, no big deal” but there’s darker underbelly here. Nothing is too sacred to discuss, but some things are worth saving. Democracy is a good one. Twitter is throwing the towel here.

Erdogan’s rise to the authoritarianism didn’t happen overnight. Turkish mainstream media did not become a single propaganda machine overnight. Educated Turkish youth who are hopeless, tired of the constant political drama that sucks the oxygen out of any room did not start looking for jobs abroad en masse overnight. There were millions of people screaming about how dangerous Erdogan and AKP is before he got elected, and before they changed the laws left and right.  The madness came slowly, and then all of a sudden.

America is nowhere near Turkey, but it’s also farther ahead when Erdogan first gained power. Turkey and US are similar in many ways, mostly depressing ones such as lack of belief in evolution and income disparity. But it will slip, and it’ll happen both faster you can think and slower.

So, this is the world we live where Twitter (and Facebook and Google and YouTube) operate. Don’t be fooled; these companies are American companies that prospered under American values and are headquartered in America, mostly staffed by Americans in decision making levels. And the American values are under attack. There are no sides here. There’s only one side. It’s the side of liberal democracies.

Our, and yours, current leaders of social networks are flailing. In their attempts to keep their businesses afloat and provide a semblance of impartiality, they are picking the side of chaos. As Bret Stephens aptly puts in his piece, we are all part of Trump’s game now. Politicians of all statures, even heads of state, all across the world are on the edge, because they think the US president is unhinged. Everyone who is letting these shenanigans are going to be on the wrong side of history. A few people who have points of leverage are failing.

History books are being written. And they will definitely outlast any Medium blog post.

With Big Data Comes Big Responsibility

It’s getting harder to suppress the sense of an impending doom. With the latest Equifax hack, the question of data stewardship has been propelled to the mainstream, again. There are valid calls to reprimand those responsible, and even shut down the company altogether. After all, if a company whose business is safekeeping information can’t keep the information safe,

what other option is there?

The increased attention to the topic is welcome but the outrage misses a key point. Equifax hack is unfortunate, but it is not a black swan. It is merely the latest incarnation of a problem, that will only get worse, unless we all do something.

The main issue is this: any mass collection of personally identifiable data is a liability. Individuals whose data is vacuumed en masse, the companies who do the vacuuming, and the legislators should become aware of the risks. It is fashionable to say “data is the new oil” but the analogy only goes so far, especially when you consider the current situation of the oil-rich countries. Silicon Valley itself here is especially vulnerable.

Big parts of the tech industry in Bay Area  is built on mass collection of such private data, and deriving some value from it. A significant part of the value comes from, somewhat depressingly, from the ever increasingly precise ad targeting. The problem with this model was long known, if not tacitly admitted by its creators, but it wasn’t until the Snowden revelations real national debate has picked up. With the recent brouhaha following the 2016 Elections, and a real risk of an authoritative government in the US, the questions are louder this time.

Public outcry does help, but the change is very slow. Part of it is the business models are wildly successful. Combined Alphabet (née Google) and Facebook are a trillion dollar duopoly. The cottage industry around these two companies, along with practically all stakeholders in the area being somewhat either beholden or financially tied to the industry, motivation to change is small.  Some companies, like Apple, try to raise the issue to a higher plane of morality, part for ethical reasons, part competitive. But the data keeps getting collected, at an ever increasing pace and it’s getting more and more likely a catastrophic event will occur.

Let’s first talk about how data gets exposed. Hacking, or unauthorized access is the most talked about but it’s far from the only way. A lot of the times, , it’s just a matter of a small mistake. Take Dropbox. A cloud storage company once allowed anyone to log into anyone else’s account by entirely ignoring a password check. The case was caught quickly, but it’s a dire reminder of small mistakes can happen. And that is a point worth pondering, separate the recent hack Dropbox suffered from.

As easily data is collected and stored, it’s even easier for it to change hands. Companies and their assets change hands, and so do the jurisdictions they live in. Russian tech sector is a prime example. Pavel Durov, the founder of the oddly popular instant messaging platform Telegram, first built VKontatke, a Russian social network site much popular than Facebook in the country,. But then came Russian government with demands of censorship. Durov ran away but the Russian social network is owned by a figure much closer to the government. And there’s always LiveJournal, which again got sold to a Russian company, now all its data under Russian jurisdiction.

And sometimes, the companies themselves open up themselves to being hacked. Once an internet darling, Yahoo! was put on spotlight when its own security team found a poorly designed hacking tool, installed by no other than company itself. Initially designed to track certain child pornography related emails for the government, the tool was built without the knowledge of the company’s Chief Security Officer, Alex Stamos, a well regarded security professional. He departed the company soon after, only to join Facebook. And again, this is just an addition to the Yahoo! hack that affected 1 billion users, and almost derailed multi-billion dollar acquisition.

Government surveillance is a touchy subject, and moral decisions are always fuzzy, with someone being unhappy. Governments should use tools at their disposal to keep their citizens safe, and this might sometimes require uncomfortable measures. This doesn’t mean they should be given a direct access to millions of people’s private, however. Intelligence efforts should be directed, not drag net. Living in a liberal democracy requires a certain amount of discomfort, not pure order.

But it is hard to deny the evidence at hand, from once liberal darlings like Turkey to known autocratic regimes like China, any government will find it impossible to resist the temptation to take a peek at the data, one way or another.

Governments are made up of people, just like corporations are. The solutions to these problems won’t be easy; with so much already built, tearing it all down is not an option, or even preferable. The industries built add value, employ thousands, if not millions. But we have to start somewhere, both as individuals, technology companies, and legislators.

First, individuals need to be more cognizant of their decisions about their data. Some of it will require education, from a much younger age. But even today, for many, there are a lot of easy steps one can take.

For many uses, a more private, less surveillance oriented tools already exist. Instant messaging tools like WhatsApp (once bought by Facebook for a whopping $19 Billion) is easy to use while using an cutting edge end-to-end encryption technology borrowed from Signal. One can wonder, if essentially playing spies is worth the hassle, but the risks are real, and getting more so every day even for congress people in the US.

For regular browsing, things are in worse shape. Practically every site on the internet tracks you across every other site, shopping and news sites are particularly bad. The users are fighting back, with sometimes clunky, equally overzealous tools. Thanks to an overzealous adoption of ads, both intrusive and sometimes malicious, ad-blocking is on the rise around the world. It is hard to fault consumers, most would benefit from using an independently owned Ad-Blocker like uBlock Origin, or using a browser like Brave that has such technology built in. Apple recently updated its browser Safari on both macOS and iOS to “intelligently” curb cross-site tracking.

For things like email, and cloud storage, things are trickier. For many users, their data is safer with a big company with a competent security team, as opposed to a smaller service provider. There’s a balance here; while big providers are much juicier targets (including governments who can request data legally), they also have the benefit of being hardened by such attacks. Companies like Google use their own services, further incentivizing them to safeguard data, at least from hackers.

However, even then, most people would benefit from increasing the security from the default values. For users of Gmail, Dropbox, and virtually any other cloud storage technology, using 2-Factor authentication, coupled with a password manager is a must.

And largely, going back the cognizance, individuals must be aware of the data they provide and be at least minimally informed. When you sign up for a new service, before sharing with them all your data, see if they at least have a way to delete it, or export it. Even if you never use either of those options, they can be good signs that company treats your data properly, instead of letting it seep into their machinery.

For creators of such technology, things are harder but there’s hope. First step is obvious; companies should treat personally identifiable data as liabilities and collect as little as possible, and only for a specific purpose. This is also the general philosophy behind EU’s new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) directive. Instead of collecting as much data as possible, hoping to find good use for it later, companies should only collect data, when they need to. And most importantly, they should delete the data, when they are done with it, instead of hoarding it.

Moreover, companies should invest in technologies that do not need collecting data at all, such using client side computation instead of server side. Apple is the prime example here; company uses machine learning models that are generated on the server, on aggregate data, for things like image recognition or speech synthesis on the devices themselves. Perhaps a sign of poetic justice, the intelligent cross-site tracking Apple built-in to its browser is based on data collected in aggregate form, instead of personally identifiable fashion.

It is not clear, if such technologies can keep up with a server-based solution where iteration is much faster, but the investments might pay dividends. Today’s smartphones easily compete with servers of just a few years ago in performance. Things will only get better.

And for times when mass collection of data is required, companies should invest in techniques that allow aggregate collection instead of personally identifying data. There are huge benefits to collecting data from big populations, and the patterns that emerge from such data can benefit everyone. Again, Apple is a good example here, though Uber is also worth mentioning. Both companies aggressively use a technique called differential privacy where private data is essentially scrambled enough to be not identifiable but still the patterns remain. This way, Uber analysts can view traffic patterns in a city, or even do precise analysis for a given time, without knowing any individual’s trips.

And more generally, companies should invest and actively work on technologies that reduce the reliance on individuals’ private data. As mentioned, a big ad industry will not go away overnight, but it can be transformed to something more responsible. Technologists are known for their innovative spirit, not defeatism.

End-to-end encryption is another promising technology. While popular for instant messaging, technology still in infancy for things like cloud storage and email. There are challenges; the technology is notoriously hard to use, and the recovery is problematic when someone forgets their encryption key, such as their password. Maybe most importantly, encryption makes the data entirely opaque to storage companies, severely limiting the value they can provide on top of it.

However, there are solutions, some already invented, some being worked on. WhatsApp showed that end-to-encryption can be deployed at massive scale and made easy to use. Other companies like Keybase work on more user-friendly ways to do group chat, and possibly storage, while also working on a new paradigm for identity. And there’s also more futuristic technologies like homomorphic encryption. Still in research phase, if it works as expected, technology might allow being able to build cloud storage services where the core data is private while still being able to be searched on, or indexed. Technology companies should direct more of their research and development resources efforts to such areas, not just better ways to collect and analyze data.

And lastly, legislators need to wake up to the issue before it is too late. The US government should enshrined privacy of individuals as a right, instead of treating as a commercial matter. Moreover, mass collection of personally identifiable data needs to be brought under supervision.

Current model, where an executive responsible for leaking 140M US consumers’ can get away with a slap on the wrist and $90M payday, does not work. Stronger punishment would help, but preventing such leaks at the source by limiting the size, fidelity, or the longevity of the data would be better.

Moreover, legislators should work with the industry to better educate the consumers about the risks. Companies will be unwilling to share details about what is possible with the data they have on their users (and unsuspecting visitors) but it is better for consumers to make informed decisions in the long run. Target made the headlines when it reportedly figured out a woman was pregnant before she could tell her parents. Customers should be able aware of such borderline creepy technology before they become subjects to it. Especially more so considering Target itself was also a victim of multiple major hacks. Facebook recently was the subject of a similar report where the company discovered a family member of a tech reporter (the same reporter who broke the Target story), unclear to everyone how. Individuals should not feel this powerless against corporations.

The current wave of negative press against Silicon Valley, caused mostly by the haphazard way social networks were used to amplify messages from subversive actors, is emotionally charged but is not wholly undeserved. Legislators can and should help technology companies earn back people’s trust, by allowing informed debate about their capabilities. A bigger public backlash, when it happens, would make today’s pessimism seem like a nice day in the park.

There are huge benefits to mass amounts of data. There is virtually no industry that wouldn’t benefit from having more data. Cities can make better traffic plans, medical researchers study diseases and health trends, governments can make better policy decisions. And it can be commercially beneficial too, with more data we can make better machine learning tools, from cars that can drive themselves to medical devices that can identify a disease early on. Even data that is collected for boring purposes can become useful; Google’s main revenue source selling ads on top of its search results, which no user would want to get rid of.

Data might be new oil, but only with mindful, responsible management of it will the future look like Norway, rather than Venezuela or Iraq. In its essence, personally identifiable data in huge troves is a big liability. And the benefits we derive from such data currently, is largely mostly used for things like better ad targeting. No one wants to go back to a time without Google, or Facebook. But it possible to be more responsible with the data. The onus is on everyone.

iPhone stole your attention. Your watch might help.

Apple announcements never fail to entertain. Over the years most amusing moments came to be when an Apple executive makes a comment about how their products not just contain amazing technology, but embody larger than life qualities. Couple years ago, when Apple removed the headphone jack from its phones, they called, without a hint of irony, “courage”. This year’s announcements had its share of squirming moments too, from Apple Town Squares to soul-sucking visualizations of face scanning technology. But for

me, the real kicker was when Apple decided to associate the Apple Watch with cellular connectivity with “freedom”.

It’s hard to not cringe, when you see Apple’s first promo video for the cellular Watch shows a surfer, who receives a call right in the middle of her sick trick. How is that a good thing? Do people not go on vacation to unplug? The eye rolls didn’t stop there; where Apple decided to demo making a phone call with nothing but a watch by showcasing an Apple executive answering a phone call, during a paddle-boarding session on Lake Tahoe. I wrote the proclamations of freedom via a $400 watch, combined with a $120/year bill hike, off as garden-variety Apple navel gazing.

It wasn’t until I read a review of the watch by Hodinkee, a high-end watch blogger, that the freedom Apple was promising was nothing more than freedom of its own device, the phone. It’s a great read overall, with lots of interesting insights into the industry itself. But what caught my eye was how the watch changed, or reduced how he used his phone.

In the few days I’ve been using the Series 3 Edition as my only communication device, I’ve found myself checking Instagram less. Texting less. Dickin’ around on the web less. I use the watch to text or make phone calls when I need to – and that’s it. My definition of “need” has changed completely – and frankly I don’t miss having my phone in my pocket at all.

The smartphone promised us always-on connectivity, and we welcomed it with open hands. The ability to respond to an email immediately wasn’t new, but add an actual web browser, and an App Store that extended the functionality of the phone virtually endlessly, we got hooked. As the fidelity of medium increased, it slowly became not just a device to use for a specific purpose, but something that we use, to more or less, to use. In short, we traded in our attention for the promise of always connectivity.

The reasons for how our phones are so addictive are numerous and we are just discovering the results, both personal and societal, of such an enormous shift in how we manage our attention spans. Although the research is taking shape, there are already a few loud voices telling us that the commodification of our attention is nothing less than a full-on scale war by the brightest minds of our generation against our identity.

I am not no Luddite; I earned my living for the past 7 years for working at technology companies. As I have moved across first cities, and then countries, I have relied on technology to stay connected to those that’s dear to me. I also think that technology is an essential tool to slowly bring down the arbitrary barriers in humanity, democratize access to information, and generally make the world a more just place.

Apple Watch here stands as an interesting device with the promise of a connectivity with a much smaller drag on one’s attention. It has a screen, but a much smaller one than the one on your phone; you simply can’t look at it for hours at end. The input methods to it are similar to a phone (with the notable exception of a camera) but voice plays a much bigger role on it, ironically, than it does on the phone. You can, realistically, use your watch via voice, both as an input and output method and only rely on the screen for an occasional glance.

Of course, the same dangers that made the smartphone an attention hog loom over the watch. Unlike a phone, a watch is always attached to your body, with an ability to jerk you at any time with a vibrating motor. And Apple is not being subtle about its goals; while it is admirable that the company is using the heart-rate sensor to detect heart conditions and generally provide data to researchers around the world, there’s something off-putting about your heart rate being measured constantly and uploaded, even in aggregate form, to some datacenter somewhere. And maybe, this will all be invalid when the tech industry actually puts is resources, unlike they’ve done so far, behind developing new apps for the watch that become as addictive as their phone counterparts.

It is early in our technological evolution to tell what will be the prevailing way we’ll be interacting with technology and for what purposes. Smartphones seem ubiquitous now but it’s important to note that they have existed for merely 10 years, a blink of an eye even on the fast changing pace of technology. It’s very unlikely and depressing that interacting with a 6 inch glass slate that is littered with apps whose raison d’être is to collect more data about you to sell better ads, is the conclusion of human-computer interaction.

In some way, Apple’s proclamation of freedom that you can get with a watch is an admission of this guilt. What the watch promises is a freedom from your phone. More than any company, Apple itself created this world where we feel a compulsive desire to be entertained and not be bored. And maybe, with the watch, Apple can help undo some of the damage. This is not to suggest that the main reason Apple sells devices is to advance the human civilization, or to not make unfathomable amounts of money, only to spend it on absurd buildings or ask for salvation from a giant corporation for our sins.

Unlike many of the other tech giants, Apple makes most of its money (though increasingly not all of it) from directly selling products to its customers. Without other intermediaries to take a cut, the company’s incentives are more directly aligned with those of its users. And more than that, with its size and reach, Apple is a company that sets the tone for the industry.

Our mode of interaction with our technology is still evolving. It is not reasonable to roll back to a world where always-on connectivity isn’t the norm. But that doesn’t mean that our attention should be up for sale. A device, or a combination of devices, that makes a conscious effort to be less in your face and more out of your way is one way to ensure that.

The cyber history repeats itself

With a new unicorn popping up seemingly every other week, it’s easy to forget that the new behemoths that shape our lives, the technology firms, existed more than a few years. Behind the shiny veneer, however, there is a rich history of how this world came about to be. And just like any other history, it’s one that keeps repeating itself.

The latest iteration of the history, though, is not its finest one. Nazis are back.

A quick recap. The informed citizens of the greatest country on earth have collectively voted to elect a white supremacist sympathizer, with overt, covert, voluntary, and involuntary help of practically every tech company and its acolytes. By the time we all woke up to what we did, it was too late; the Nazis were emboldened, chanting in the streets of Virginia, among many places. Then a guy woke up, literally, and decided to kick the Nazis off the internet, until they find a new home.

“I woke up this morning in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the Internet.”

— Matthew Prince, Cloudflare CEO

For some observers of the technology, this latest kerfuffle might just be a new chapter in the upcoming book by a Vanity Fair writer. For those a bit more in the know, they would note that the Nazis (a word I am using as a short for white supremacists), never really left the internet. They practically populated the every platform you did; they were on newsgroups, mailing lists, 4chan, reddit, Facebook, Twitter, and probably still are.

But, go down a bit farther back in the Wayback Machine, and it’s easy to remember that Nazis and some part of their history was on the internet as far as 2000s, and it points to one of the most interesting tensions of the Internet with capital I; the constant tension between the borderlessness of it, yet the levers of it being controlled just a few. This is subject of this essay; how the current gatekeepers of the internet’s aims to create a new type of statelessness state is just a clumsy reiteration of past attempts.

“Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.”

— John Perry Barlow, EFF CO-Founder

The aspirational extraterrestrial culture of the internet is a messy and deep subject but the “Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace” is a good start. Penned by John Perry Barlow, one of the founders of Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), at a World Economic Forum, the declaration pulls no punches. In fact, more than just statelessness, you can hear the subtext of cyberspace being not just an international entity but almost an supranational one. It is a good read, both as a way to understand the libertarian thinking of early residents of the cyberspace and also as a Marxist approach to how zero marginal cost of production of technology changes the entire dynamics of economy and of course societies. It is also remarkably prescient, not necessarily in the types of world early adopters would eventually create but the conflicts they would face.

Scroll your way up to 2000. Not just to the days Before iPhone or Before Facebook but Before Google. In 2000, a French human-rights organization discovers that Yahoo, on its auction platform, allows sale of Nazi and Third Reich memorabilia. While still not tasteful and unpresidential at the time, such activity was not illegal under US law, but quite so under French law. In what’s considered a landmark case, French court eventually ordered Yahoo to not just pull such items from its French store ( but also make the items in the US store inaccessible in France.

Front page of the internet, 2000 Front page of the internet, 2000

The entire discourse around the case is extremely fascinating, and some of the statements from both sides have a very timeless quality. To an American audience, where only freedom of speech is more paramount to right to carry a firearm, an interference by a French court of all courts, is an international overreach of unseen proportions. However, this analysis misses the continent-wide trauma Europeans experienced with Nazism in 1940s. While America has its fair share of World War 2 scars, it pales in comparison to the destruction Europe endured. This suffering was so profound, so widespread and so deep, and Nazism such a vile idea that the entire continent’s new identity, European Union is largely built around this reaction.

It is worth pulling out a few quotes here especially, just to see how prescient some of the predictions from the French philosophers are. Mark Knoebel, the French activist whose letters sparked the entire shebang says that American internet is becoming a “dumping ground” for racists all over.

Any discussion of censorship on the internet would be amiss without bringing up everyone’s once-favorite liberal reformer turned autocrat strongmen Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the president of Turkey. Even as far back as 2008, just 4 years after Google’s IPO, the Turkish government was in cahoots with YouTube over a couple of videos making fun of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkish Republic. In what would become the norm for Turkish government (or already was, depending on your ethnicity in Turkey), the state decided to block YouTube entirely, and demand the videos be taken down. The case went on for literally years, during which time YouTube stayed blocked in Turkey for almost two years. Turkish bloggers took the matters to their hands, where they shut down their own sites to protest the government’s block. However, the block itself was so ham-fisted that even the then Prime Minister Erdogan himself mentioned that “everyone knows how to access YouTube”.

“I think the Decider model is an inconsistent model because the Internet is big and Google isn’t the only one making the decisions”

— Nicole Wong, Google

Still, the details of this 2008 already signals the awkward situations tech companies would themselves with government. Impossible to imagine now, though, Google employees felt comfortable jokingly calling themselves “The Decider” with a New York Times journalist in the room. The employees in charge, many with law degrees, were aware of their power, felt obviously uncomfortable with the levers they held, but, in the end they held on to them.

A common theme that underlies most of the Silicon Valley thinking is that computers, internet and associated technologies changes everything; from mode of production to distribution to how information is generated to how it is disseminated. No incumbent is too big to not upend, no industry without with inefficiencies a couple of scripts can eliminate. A common complaint of the less-STEM focused side of the world, then is that Silicon Valley’s casual disregard for the history and the rules of the world is bordering on recklessness.

This is largely a political argument, which means it’s an everything argument, but the singular point is that sometimes the Internet company’s casual disregard for history is not just hurtful for the entire world, but also for themselves (a statement whose irony is quite obvious to yours truly).

Silicon Valley companies love to invoke legal talismans, a phrase (I think) coined by Kendra Albert. In short, they love to evoke feelings of a legal proceeding, such as a due process, where there is none, to mostly justify their own decision making. But sometimes, such invocations are just symptoms of delusions of grandeur and they do come with consequences for everyone, as mentioned, including the companies themselves.

Consider the time Twitter UK General Manager called Twitter not just a bastion of free speech but the “free speech wing of the free speech party” in 2012 and try not to cringe. But you can definitely see a direct line from the EFF declaration to such an inane statement. A new world is being born, called the cyberspace (as opposed to what, meatspace?) and the rules are written by whoever is creating this world. Considering the current situation Twitter find itself in right now, with user growth barely chugging along, a stock hugely under its IPO levels, its value possibly held up significantly by an orange White House resident, it’s hard to imagine Twitter would be behaving the same way if they had a better understanding of the nuances of free speech laws, and how it protects people from state because, unlike corporations, state is allowed to jail and sometimes, kill, its people.

“That means more than one-sixteenth of the average user’s waking time is spent on Facebook”

Of course, this aspirational statelessness of guardians of the cyberspace does go the other way too. It’s easy to write off your overzealous application of freedom of speech as a mistake,  but harder to do, when you do the opposite. When a tech company counts  ⅓ of the world’s population as its users (and 80% of online Americans), and those users spend a considerable amount of their waking moments looking at things pushed on to them by that company, it’s practically impossible to for a one-in-a-million event to not happen with exceeding frequency when you are dealing with billions.

Probably one of the more eye-opening cases of this American overreach into cultures involves bodies, or more specifically naked ones. For Americans, a sight of a covered breast at a sporting event is a cause of national debate, but for many Northern Europeans, nudity is just another state of undress, as normal as any other. Especially so, when it is presented in a historical, artistic or just non-sexualized context. And even more especially so, when it is the Conservative Norwegian Prime Minister who happens to share a Pulitzer-prize winning photo. Is Facebook, run largely by a bunch of white men in America, not making cultural statements about an unashamedly progressive country?

Banned in California Banned in California

It is easy to write off these high profile instances as simple mistakes, and having worked in a similar user-generated content site before, it is mind-blowing to me that Facebook is as free of spam as it is. But what does that mean when these types of  incidents happen so often that you slowly start shifting values of other cultures to your own, which whether you like it or not, were shaped by your own American upbringing? One cannot just create a culture in such a transactional manner.

It is one thing, as an academic exercise to imagine a world without governments, a libertarian paradise. And if someone wants to take his academic exercise to the seas or to other planets, it is only within their rights to do so.

But for a generation that wants to eventually not just govern the cyberspace but also one of the most important states in the world, the utter clumsiness of the entire enterprise should give one a pause. A common joke in Silicon Valley, the place about the Silicon Valley, the hit HBO show is that many of the absurd plot twists in the series is really toned down to be believable to the general public.

Consider the case of Reddit. When a bunch of celebrity’s iCloud accounts got hacked and their private photos were posted on the site, the company decided, reasonably, to remove that content. But in doing so, the CEO of the company said that they were considering reddit not just a private company, but “a government for a new type of community”. He even went to describe how he sees the actions by the moderators akin to law enforcement officers. But, how do you reconcile such great ambition with the fact that your CEO, or president, resigns from the government because of a seating arrangement issue? (Disclaimer: I worked at a Reddit competitor briefly, around 7 years ago, partly because I was and still am quite interested in the space. I even wore a Reddit t-shirt when they came to visit us)

“We consider ourselves not just a company running a website where one can post links and discuss them, but the government of a new type of community”

— Yishan Wong, Former Reddit CEO

Building a new world, one that is more just, more humane, one that is safer, cleaner, more efficient all great goals. When I decided to study computer science in 2005, my main motivation was similar. I grew up in a town in Turkey where I didn’t always fit in and it was through the internet where I could see more of the world easily enough and find people that I could connect with, on many levels. I wanted to extend that world, which seemed reasonably better than the one I lived in, more to the real world.

And personal politics matter too. As an immigrant to US, unlike most of my more left-leaning friends, I find the idea of statelessness, or a post-nation-state world an experiment that humanity owes itself to try. While the supranational organizations such as the EU and World Trade Organization do have their flaws and globalization comes with this unsettling feeling of homogeneity, I stay largely optimistic that as a species, we are better off in a more integrated society.

However, that does not mean I advocate for a world where we outsource our thinking, our values, our cultures, our judicial decisions and certainly not our free press wholesale to a small number of people, who are unelected, unvetted, and largely unaccountable.

What I would like to see, however is less of the reckless attitude but a more thoughtful approach. An informed, inclusive, global debate about the kind of digital world we can create together. One that learns from our previous mistakes, and does better. Time for this discussion is running out, and we have repeated our mistakes enough times. We need to do better now.

On quiet

Istanbul is not a quiet place. The streets are filled to the brim with cars, honking. The kid is screaming to his mom, the girlfriend to her boyfriend, the police to the street vendor. It’s not pleasant, but it is Turkey.

However, the real noise is not the people, or the cars, or the ferries. It is the news. Everyone in Turkey is always watching the news. It’s on the background when you are at home, with your parents. It’s blaring at you when you are at the corner store from the TV hung to the corner. It’s shouting at you when you are at bank, from the small radio sitting next to the framed photo of the teller’s daughter. It’s even on at the waiting room at the doctor’s office, because that’s when you really need a pick me up.

And when you are, by some miraculous happenstance out of the earshot of a TV, there’s Twitter. Everyone is always on their phones, and if they are not checking Instagram, they are checking the news on Twitter. It never ends. It wasn’t always that way, I want to say, but for the love of me, I can’t remember when it wasn’t.

It used to be fashionable to call Turkey the “Little America”, largely due to an overzealous adoption of neoliberalism and all the joys and pains that come with it. It used to be a thing, a family tradition, to enjoy the even the most inane of American traditions. Having visited America was a sign of not just wealth, but also a checkmark on the pursuit of a more enlightened world.

Now, slowly it looks America is on its way to become a “Little Turkey” itself, primarily starting from people’s addiction to the news and a constant state of screaming.

Many a words have been said about the 24/7 cable news networks in the US. How the inane, and insane, need to fill up over the hours drives networks to just have talking faces on TV. The current boogeyman for the orange man in the White House is partly responsible, people argue, for him being there. When I was a kid, CNN for me was the night-vision imagery from the first, of seemingly endlessly many, Iraq war. Now it’s a bunch of talking heads, that are always there.

And then, there’s Twitter. And push notifications. Always the push notifications. It used to be different though. When I first moved to US, in 2006, we also had a scandalous president. He didn’t seem to be that coherent, and his policies didn’t earn him many favors in or outside the US. There was some political turmoil, maybe even a war, but it happened on a different timescale. There were other things going on.

One of the first things that America lost when Trump got elected is the quiet, the personal space millions had to themselves. You had a time to yourself to be in love, to be with your friends. There were conversations that never touched on politics. Some things were downstream politics, but most things were not. There was a time, when you could just be angry at your things in your world at your own time. Now, you are required to be angry all the time because of something you didn’t do, don’t have control over and seemingly with no end in sight.

Has it been 6 months since Trump took the office, or 6 years? Is anyone even counting anymore? How would it feel different if this wasn’t just 1/8 (hopefully) into the dumpster fire that’s this administration but we were just halfway there. I am aware that I am speaking from a privileged position here, as a white man with a stable job in a well-paying industry, as opposed to being a minority. Maybe things were always this loud, if you always had to worry about your job, or your livelihood.

But in the objective space I can carve out, I feel that things got worse. And we need to do something about it.

I am not suggesting that people ignore the news or disengage from the public discourse. Or disconnect entirely or at all. I don’t think a democracy works with a fully disengaged public. And it certainly does not, with a public that only is informed about topics that interest them. We all have a responsibility to be informed, including on things that don’t matter to us but to those around us. But it also matters what we each decide to think about, what we need to care about. We built ourselves empires on capturing attention, and we are slowly realizing that our minds cannot keep up with its demands. But, I think we have yet to realize that our minds aren’t also capable of being outraged, all the time. We can’t always be mad, lest we lose our connection with the reality. Everything is political but politics isn’t everything.

One goal of politics is to arrange relationships between big groups of people. Not necessarily divide or unite them, but to establish some sort of structure. A network of roads, where connections happen. It doesn’t care if you run tanks on them, or ice-cream trucks. You can drive away, or run towards someone. But the world is not about those roads. It’s not not about them either, of course -just ask any commuter- but it’s just a part of it.

Somewhere along the way, we need to park our cars, get off our bikes and look around the world as is. The quiet is easily disturbed, but in the end, it’s what makes each of us human, unique and it’s what keeps the society humming along. We can’t always scream, we need to be quiet so that everyone else can have it too.

Accents and Blowhards

Each time I get in a cab in San Francisco, I make it a point to talk to the driver, not just because I believe it’s awkward otherwise but I as a somewhat assimilated Turkish person living in the U.S., I enjoy conversations with cab drivers who a lot of the time happen to be foreigners themselves also. As we speak and they ask me where I’m from, a lot of the time, they tell me how surprised they are that for someone living in the US for 7 years, I have almost no accent.

Similarly, at bars and other places where I meet new people, especially if I explicitly try and slow down my speech just a bit (and I speak pretty fast), I am able to maintain a non-discernible American accent, or so I am told. In fact, for a long time, I considered having an accent myself a failing as I was leaking information the moment I started speaking; there have been times where I’d have preferred if the people I’m talking to didn’t necessarily know I was a foreigner.

Recently, Paul Graham, the founder of the prime Silicon Valley capital firm Y Combinator, made some comments in an interview about how, according to his data, a strong accent in an entrepreneur is strongly correlated with their companies failing. Unsurprisingly, as the notion of an accent is tightly correlated with nationalities and races, a big kerfuffle arose so much so that Mr.Graham himself had to write a piece explaining himself to people calling him ugly names.

As someone who has been interested in languages and accents, both personally and academically, the entire debacle has been a fascinating one to watch, somehow reminding me about the Turkish saying “a mad man throws a stone into a well and thousand clever men can’t get it out”. But as I read more and more of the blog posts and comments and tweets, I decided that it is now my turn to throw a stone into the well of the internets.

Before I came to U.S. in 2006, I attended an American high school in Turkey where the primary language of instruction was English. During my time, I was heavily involved in the Model United Nations club, which meant that I had to be speaking English outside of school and I was lucky enough to give public speeches, in English, when I was 17, to thousands of people.

When it was time for me to pick a college in the U.S., my choice of CMU was partly driven by the fact that it had a small Turkish community which would allow me to make more American and international friends, which I did. I’m assuming that since 2006, I have spoken and read more English than Turkish by orders of magnitude; most of my close friends in the U.S. are Americans and at this point, I find myself even slurring my speech in Turkish, speaking certain words with an English tonality. Moreover, I have actually studied cognitive science (not computer science!) during college, specializing in linguistics, so this puts me in a special place to strategically aim stone, like no one else can get it out.

Let’s first look at what venerable Paul Graham actually said about accents, before making any judgements.

One quality that’s a really bad indication is a CEO with a strong foreign accent. I’m not sure why. It could be that there are a bunch of subtle things entrepreneurs have to communicate and can’t if you have a strong accent. Or, it could be that anyone with half a brain would realize you’re going to be more successful if you speak idiomatic English, so they must just be clueless if they haven’t gotten rid of their strong accent. I just know it’s a strong pattern we’ve seen.

Taken verbatim, or parsed like a computer, this is a benign statement. Paul Graham and the folks at Y Combinator have probably worked with more startups than most people in Silicon Valley and it’s a natural tendency to look for patterns and explanations for interesting phenomena when you are exposed to so many of the similar things at once.

Nevertheless, what Paul Graham is seemingly missing is that communication doesn’t happen just through words we speak but the context in which such words uttered also matter equally, if not more so. The context brings along all sorts of prejudices, preconceived notions and especially for a semi-public figure like Paul Graham himself, who owns part of his fame to his eloquent essays, it’s the author’s responsibility to somewhat adjust his narrative to the audience.

There’s a curious and slightly frustrating tendency in people with scientific backgrounds to assume their audience they are speaking to has to have the same level and type of sophistication and it’s simply “phony” to adjust the way they speak, both in tone and content, to make themselves easier to understand or maybe just not horribly offend the other party. It’s also curious that this tendency, or social oddity if you will, seems to be amplified in people working with computers, where it’s tempting to reduce all sorts of information to its pure essence while actually losing information that’s not so easily coded in terms of words and phrases, but actually is more transient and context dependent, meaning that in order to represent a specific piece of information, you’d have to code the entire state of the world, almost literally speaking.

Note that Paul Graham mentioned not only people with accents but actually said “people with strong foreign accents”(emphasis mine). Surely, you can argue that I’m nitpicking words but hey, Mr.Graham is the native speaker here himself and one could only assume (or care) he’s picking his words with utmost care and precision, given we are talking about languages here and I’m just giving him and his words the respect they deserve.

So, as soon you start talking about “people with strong foreign accents”, you immediately bring race and nationality into play, which even, or maybe especially, in the Land of True and Unadulterated Meritocracy that is Silicon Valley, is a third-rail. Thus, after those words were published and publicized, just like on cue, people of all sorts started calling Paul Graham racist, a xenophobe, a hypocrite, and many other unspeakable things. I’m sure his fame, his wealth as well as the “rich, white men” stereotype that he unfortunately seems to fit in didn’t help the matters much and his close ties to the technology sector where there’s seems to disproportionate number of people with accents and foreign born individuals made it an even juicier subject.

I have no reason to believe that Paul Graham is any of those things people call him. If anything, from what I can tell, he’s passionate about allowing more foreign born nationals to U.S., for one reason or another. It could be an altruistic motive but for this discussion it could simply be that he wants more labor force available to his companies. In either case, Paul Graham, argued many times on Twitter, on comments section on Hacker News and his response, that he is on the founders’ side on this debate and he actually is trying so frantically to help people and I believe him. But sometimes, there seems to be some room for improvement in his tone, delivery, and the actual content of his messages.

Take into account the second part of that sound byte where Mr.Graham argues that “anyone with half a brain would realize you’re going to be more successful if you speak idiomatic English, so [the entrepreneurs] must just be clueless if they haven’t gotten rid of their strong accent”. Now, we are at a point of not just calling out people with strong foreign accents, but essentially saying that people who haven’t actually gotten rid of their accents are lazy and stupid because they aren’t able to understand how people are perceiving themselves. That’s very, very hapless coming from Mr.Graham (and is pretty offensive to people who had lobotomies for medical conditions, they are surprisingly normal). And there’s another underlying implication here is that not only you aren’t as smart as a person with half a brain if you haven’t gotten rid of your “strong foreign accent” but also it’s sliding scale where the common decency, mind you, of getting rid your accent is strongly tied to your intelligence.

The more surprising thing is that Mr.Graham seemed shocked at the response such a sound byte seem to have generated. While a significant chunk of the responses have been simply people being angry, a couple of smart people have touched on how someone as notorious as Mr.Graham is still propagating stereotypes and providing more ammo for those who are truly racist and short-sighted. My personal qualm has been more about the haphazard way Paul Graham seems to throwing around phrases with a false sense of authority without realizing their implications or really grasping the content matter at hand fully.

Going back to the aforementioned quote, Mr.Graham himself mentions that he’s not sure what actually causes entrepreneurs with strong foreign accents to fail and enumerates a couple possible explanations. In other ways, we have an interesting phenomenon, a couple possible explanations, and some preliminary data. This is an interesting pattern that should be familiar with anyone with a half a brain but a college education would help too. This is where a person would simply engage in what’s a battle-tested way to solve this problem; apply science! Or more specifically, simply apply the scientific method, test your hypothesis, measure your data, rule out other possible explanations such as confounding variables, rinse, repeat, until there’s a reasonable level of confidence.

And in fact, Mr.Graham does seem to understand this also. Reading his response piece, he alludes that he has in fact some data on this:

We have a lot of empirical evidence that there’s a threshold beyond which the difficulty of understanding the CEO harms a company’s prospects. And while we don’t know exactly how, I’m pretty sure the problem is not merely that investors have trouble understanding the company’s Demo Day presentation”

Note the phrases like “empirical evidence” and “threshold”. I’ll give you a freebie; while common among the nerderati, regular people don’t generally speak with such scientific terms. In fact, anytime someone invokes jargon, you can assume that they are trying to raise the level of conversation to a higher plane, where they are either trying to make a better point or simply coming down to crush you (although in common conversation, it’s a pretty big faux pas). It’s admirable that Mr.Graham is trying to argue that he’s basing his arguments on evidence but when he comes up pretty short when he tries to draw the all mighty scientific sword to cut over the controversy which has surely has been hurting him, personally and financially.

Scientific method, while far being perfect, is simply the best tool we have at hand so far to establish some resemblance of truth and figure out causal relations (Although you’d be surprised how many big areas with rich scientific evidence are still very highly contested). But scientific method requires not only using the correct terminology, but actually doing the walk also. More specifically, the empirical evidence Mr.Graham mentions is worth next to nothing unless he’s willing to share the data he has collected publicly, along with his methods and have them peer reviewed. Again, if you think I’m actually creating a straw man where there’s none (since Mr.Graham never actually said that he’s doing “science”), I’d just urge you to look at the definition of the word “empirical”, read that sentence to yourself couple times out loud and come to your own conclusion as to why Mr.Graham used such language.

Paul Graham, in his response, clearly argues that he has no problem with accents per se but it’s actually when people have such strong accents that it’s hard to understand them, it’s an issue.

Everyone got that? We all agree accents are fine? The problem is when people can’t understand you.

Putting aside the curiously defensive tone with those question marks, this again makes me think that Mr.Graham doesn’t fully understand how accents work or how people will inevitable understand his messages.

Over the course of my life, as my Turkish accent has become less noticeable, I noticed that some people are simply better at understanding different accents and some people even understand different accents than others; in other words, it’s pointless to argue that there’s a discrete point after which an accent becomes less or more understandable to anyone. After a strenuous workout, even my college girlfriend had hard time understanding me while my Mexican roommate never missed a beat. I still don’t fully understand some Southern accents and neither do my friends who have never left California their entire lives. Some people’s Russian accent still trip me up but I am a sucker for French accent and the New England accent is still bit of a mystery to me (I kid, kind of) but I’m getting better at it.

Attributing any perceived advantage or handicap in understanding different accents is itself an interesting problem in itself; putting my cognitive scientist hat on, I can tell you that the list of phonemes you can both speak and hear are determined by what you grow up hearing, when you are as little as 6. In other words, it gets progressively hard to simply hear different phonemes than those spoken in your native language (and more interestingly, babies who have no language yet seem to be able to hear and produce all these phonemes). The most dramatic and well known manifestation of this a lot of Japanese people not hearing the difference between “beer” and “beel”, and I personally have hard time pronouncing “wedgie” and “veggie” differently, unless I’m trying, which makes for funny moments at BBQs. Again, this phenomenon is part of the reason why you have people who have seemed to spent 20 years in a different country but still speak with an accent whereas their kids start speaking two languages with no accent when they are 10.

Again, that’s not to say someone can never get rid of their accent; anyone with cursory knowledge in statistics know that statistics don’t apply to individuals and most natural phenomenon fall within a bell curve. There will undoubtably have outliers on both ends of the spectrum.

So, now, everyone got that? We all agree that sometimes people can’t meaningfully get rid of their accents and even if they do, there’s no point where they become universally intelligible at the same level?

Every once in a while, while I’m on the subway or in a movie theater or somewhere there are a lot people with different nationalities, I realize how U.S. and Bay Area in particular is such a diverse land, where everyone is accepting of all cultures, all races, languages, nationalities.

But unfortunately, even in the U.S., a nation of immigrants (and the unfortunate natives), there’s still much road ahead when it comes to understanding and accepting of differences. Luckily, we all realized having accent monitors in our classes was a bad idea pretty fast. There are many studies (the scientific ones) that document that having an accent is simply a handicap when it comes to hiring. Similarly, many studies show that people find people with certain accents “smarter” and inevitably, other ones dumber. Even world-renowned celebrities aren’t immune to such thinking. Famous German supermodel and America’s Got Talent hostess Heidi Klum herself received significant amount of criticism because of her accent. Judging by how her accent has changed over time, I find it pretty likely she received a lot of speech classes, which she could fortunately afford, to make her accent more palatable to American clientele.

When you hear people of such respect and influence like Paul Graham make such audacious claims with such seemingly such great authority, even if he is unaware of how he’s perceived, it’s a great reminder to everyone that human communication is a wide, fascinatingly complicated field, an area of very active research where there’s already significant debate between established scientists on how it works on all levels, with all sorts of public policy, social, and many other great implications.

All in all, I believe Mr.Graham’s heart is in the right place and he’s simply trying to help people be more succesful. In the same vein, as someone who has experienced problems and couple unpleasant incidents even, with my accent back in the day, I can attest to that even in the great melting pot that’s U.S., to this day, there are benefits to being able to communicate clearly and effectively. But we should strive for better, help find ways to help people communicate clearly, and make social progress towards inclusion, not exclusion, as a humanity. And when it comes individuals, everyone should certainly strive to make themselves understood better but really, that’s an advise we can give to not just people with strong foreign accents but to simply everyone, including Paul Graham himself.

Turkish Protests of May 2013 for the Uninitiated

AKP, the current ruling party, came into force 2002 following a disastrous market crash in 2001. While they were a newly formed party at the time, its founders have been politically active for years and have their roots in radical Islam; many of the founders of the party have come from previously banned political parties for threatening the secular order and the PM Recep Tayyip Erdogan himself has spent several months in jail for reciting a poem which was claimed to incite religious hatred.

While Turkish economy made great strides between 2002 and now, AKP has essentially switched Turkey’s course from being part of the modern western world to being the regional leader in the middle east and the Islamic world while socially engineering a conservative, heavily Islamist society.

It’s hard to describe the current situation without going too much into the past, but, in a nutshell, Republic of Turkey has been founded as an aggressively secular nation one of whose core principles was to “advance to the level of modern societies” where modern is really “western”. I’m not very sure as to why those ideals didn’t stick with the populace as a whole or how we unfortunately regressed; theories range from being modern, secular people just not being in our blood to religion being reintroduced to Turkish politics as a distraction from the looming threat of communism.

For a long time, there was this untold (being liberal with this word here) war between the seculars and the religious conservatives. The secular bureaucracy always considered themselves the rightful owners of the country and were relatively harsh on maintaing that secular status quo which wasn’t a popular proposition for the Islamic minded. So there’s a lot of pent up anger there.

I’ve glossed over like decades of Turkish political history here (mostly because I know most of what I know by the way of osmosis instead of studying it formally and you probably don’t care) but so when AKP came into power in 2002, they somewhat straightened the economy out by heavy liberalization (I’m kind of for this) and ridiculous and reckless privatization (not so much for this). And since Turkish economy was in such shambles, it didn’t take much for people to like them a bit more and they straightened their stronghold in the parliament in the further elections.

But going back to the pent up anger and these guys just being religiously motivated, they have systematically started to not only take revenge for their past oppression (they surely were oppressed, no doubt) but also steer the direction of Turkey to a more Islamic state. I could count tens of things; from tens of journalists being jail on farcical charges to world-renowned artists being on probation for essentially being a fervently militant but overall harmless atheist.

Come to think of it, it’s pretty fascinating how systematic and determined they have been in this. For example, not only they jailed journalists left and right, they also essentially waged a legal war on couple of the media conglomerates and couple of millions-of-dollars worth of fines later, they have reduced the most of mainstream media to their propaganda tools. And of course, he who controls the information, controls the universe.

And more seriously, there has been an increasing lack of tolerance to alternate lifestyles and outright social retardation of the populace during the reign of AKP. While there has been always been who didn’t like how others dressed and acted and all that but it was always within limits; today it definitely feels more dangerous for, say, a young woman to be herself on the street late at night not because she might get assaulted (which she might) but actually she might get harassed as to how on earth she could do such a thing in a Muslim country, shame on her. Utterly sad stuff all around.

So, now, the conservative lawmaking has gained serious momentum in the last couple of years and especially the last couple months and it finally started to grate on the more socially liberal types like yours truly. Recent debacles include proposing a new ban on abortion (seriously?), reinstating capital punishment (this is more of a nationalistic play since there’s a Turkish terrorist org leader in jail who a lot of people want dead), ban on retail sales of alcohol, calling kids to be “act more appropriately in public” and such.

And surely, it’s not just the interference into the secular lifestyle that has started to get on people’s nerves but the reckless attitude AKP has been approaching not just law-making but also privatization, which include selling off culturally and economically important assets that belong to Turkish public (by the way of Turkish government).

Of course, there’s also Turkish foreign policy that has recently become another pain point for the government. For all its booming economy and charismatic leader, Turkey is now in a weird spot with all its neighbors and close allies. US and Turkey were (and still are) strategic allies but then Turkey is one of the countries with the highest anti-American sentiment. Turkey’s relationship with Israel, one of the few countries in the region with a functioning democracy, has never been that rosy (aside from military cooperation) but that relationship has essentially been severed when Israel saw Turkey’s highly provocative bluff and 9 Turkish citizens.

Of course, what’s been on everyone’s mind recently is Syria and AKP certainly played the wrong cards there. While Syrian and Turkish leaders were on good terms for a while, once Essad lost control of the country and went berserk against his people, AKP decided to take a pretty active stance against him and started supporting the rebels. There are a lot of reasons why AKP did that, actively interfere with Syrian internal affairs; ranging from being altruistically interested in overthrowing a killer to being involved in rebuilding Syria. And of course, there’s that undeniable religious tension; while Syria is mostly of the Sunni sect, the same Islamic sect most Turkish people are, the ruling class is mostly Alawites, which the ruling Turkish religious figures aren’t a big fan of.

Why is Syria issue significant in this context? The biggest reason is big part of Turkish public consider AKP’s actions as Turkey interfering with another country’s internal affairs and especially Turkey supporting the armed rebels just bring up way too many bad memories to Turkish people who have fought years on end against Kurdish separatist organizations. Essentially, for a lot of Turkish people, Turkey is doing exactly the same thing that it has been complaining about for years. Things got pretty tense when Syria downed a Turkish reconnaissance jet flying too close to Syria (or in its airspace, not sure) but the real blow came two weeks ago. In Hatay, a city that Syria always historically considers a part of Syria, not Turkey, two simultaneous car bombings killed 51 Turkish citizens and many signs seem to point to Syria as the culprit. The Turkish government, in its regular ways, tried to downplay the event by forcing the media to self-censor (irony of that statement isn’t lost on me) which only made the people blaming AKP for those deaths angrier and made people even warier of the growing authoritarian attitude of AKP.

And speaking of the Kurdish issue; this is one area I can give some credit to AKP. For most of 90s, Turkey has been in a war with the Kurdish minority in its eastern region which cost the country tens of thousand lives on both sides, took a huge toll on the economy and made Turkey an unnecessarily “militaristic” state, for my liking at least. It was only during AKP’s that the Turkish government meaningfully acknowledged the issue officially and restored some of their rights to the Kurdish minority living in Turkey. That being said, they have certainly been somewhat tactless at it at times and since a lot of the wounds from years of fighting are still fresh, it’s not something a lot of the Turkish populace is taking too well or internalizing properly. Hence cue the rise of nationalism and MHP, the nationalist party.

Lastly, during all this, it’s been interesting to watch the actions (or the lack thereof, depending on who you ask) of the major opposition party, CHP. CHP considers itself the founder of modern Turkey, a dubious but technically correct claim. Ironically, while a leftist party (their name translates to Republican People’s Party but the word they picked for “People” has some socialist connotations) CHP is really seen as the party of the educated, somewhat better off, “white” Turkish elite. It’s not clear to me (or anyone, really) what their stance has been the past 10 years; For example, there have been times where they sided with the rising nationalism and scared a some chunk of its original voter base away, not surprising considering the previous violent tensions between leftists and nationalists have resulted in martial law in Turkey for years.

I mention this opposition party because now, for progressive, socially liberal yet globally minded Turks are really left without much choice; you either vote for one of the fringe political parties and see your vote go to waste (since there’s a barrier to entry to parliament) or vote for a leftists party who refuses to take a proper stance on anything and fail to represent the progressive Turkish values. I’d comfortably say that a lot of CHPs votes not really come as people want to vote for them but they just consider them the only viable alternative to a increasingly conservative ruling party.

So, those Turkish people, or most of the relatively well-educated, left-leaning slice of it, got more and more frustrated with AKP, they would occasionally take it to the streets; mostly during one of the surprisingly many of the national Turkish holidays, a remnant from the founding days of the Republic. In fact, most of those holidays for the past couple years have lost all their meaning has become a nationally agreed upon days to protest the government and get tear gassed in return.

And now, we come to what has happened in Gezi Parki (Promenade Park). Back in the day (like Ottoman back), there used to be a military barracks there and at some point it got demolished and now it’s a green park (admittedly, not the nicest of parks). And now, the government wanted to actually rebuild the old barracks building back as a backhanded historical gesture but they have also admitted that they envision building a shopping mall and a residence building as part of the complex.

It’s kind of a perfect storm for many reasons: a lot of Turkish people see these malls popping up left and right as a symptom of some unsustainable, reckless and thoughtless economic growth that will come bite back at us. Moreover, Gezi Park is right in Taksim, which is akin to Times Square but is also the “cultural” heart of Istanbul and Turkey, even. It used to be (and mostly still is) home to a lot of artists, foreigners, religious figures, embassies, bars, Raki places, galleries, foreign schools and such. It’s the place where I take my hot foreign dates to show off the Turkish coolness to seal the deal; it’s that cool.

So now you have tons of people who dearly hate you, (sadly less than those who like them) and you say you want to build a mall, which people hate (or they say they do but then I’ve yet to see an empty mall in Turkey), and you want do that right in Taksim which is like a slap in the face because nothing is lamer than building a mall in a hot cultural district.

And the rest is what you have been seeing on TV. People tried to prevent construction crew from uprooting the trees in the park, police wanted to kick them out and police and a couple hundred people started fighting in Taksim, which is the protest central and shit kind of hit the fan. As police reacted with disproportionate force, the protests became more fierce. And things have been escalating since then with people actually walking across the Bosphorus bridge that is normally closed to foot traffic, a lot of celebrities lending their influence to the protestors which is ballsy for a lot of them because AKP does tend to retaliate to that stuff a lot.

While mainstream media has been uncharacteristically (even for them) nonchalant about the entire thing, apparently showing cooking shows instead of, say, couple hundred thousand people gathering on the streets, people have been organizing and distributing news on social media sites like Twitter and Tumblr. In fact, at least based on what I hear from Turkish and foreign journalists, Twitter is the main source of news for a lot of people, which of course is a mixed blessing.

While this sounds all great, by some generous interoperation of the word “great”, and an atmosphere ripe for revolution, that would be kind of far fetched, at least at this point. For better or worse, the current political party is a democratically elected one that had almost half the people’s support in the last election. Of course the legitimacy of the elections are always in question (AKP seems to overplay their incumbent card at times and there are tons of creative things you can do when you are running both the government and election organizations) and even in the case of an legitimate election, you have a populace that is greatly misinformed because you have a mainstream media that is reduced to churning out soap opera after soap opera and press that is anything but free.

Facebook and Uncanny Valley

I grew up with Facebook, in all senses of the word. The first time I was in the US for summer school in 2004, Facebook practically didn’t exist. Just a year after, in 2005, when I was again in the US for a different summer school and actually got a .edu email address from a major college, I remember my friends being really excited that they could join this service called The Facebook. I remember vaguely looking at it, not really getting what the big deal was and casually ignoring it.

Fast forward yet another year, in 2006, I am on CollegeConfidential forums, a forum frequented by high school seniors applying to colleges in the US and I see that virtually everyone in the CMU forums are freaking out about getting their email addresses simply because it’d allow them to get on Facebook.

And during the course of my studies, in a relatively short span of 4 years, I have seen Facebook evolve from this website where you would go to see if that girl in your Econ class was single or not to an alternative, second internet for a significant part of the world’s population. And maybe more interestingly, while “the-company-to-work-for” for computer science majors at CMU was definitely Google in 2006, Facebook was definitely became a much more appealing option in 2010, especially for those who wanted to work more on the consumer side of things, like yours truly.

It is not just because a significant part of my young-adult life evolved alongside of Facebook that I get more value from Facebook than the average user; I am a Turkish native who went to an American prep school in Turkey. Now a significant chunk of my friends are scattered across the world. While we maintained a Yahoo! Group for some time,for some intra-class communication, that group died a pretty quick death as people’s lives got busier, other things took priority and most importantly Facebook simple became easier to use for same purposes.

That is all to say that Facebook is very important to me, probably more so than it is to a nerd who grew up with BBSes and dial-up or casual user on it.

There is however something way more essential for me, something so valuable that I can’t put a price on it and would do anything to keep it mine; my personal life.

Those two realities, that I value my interaction on Facebook as well as my personal life would of course be irrelevant to each other had it not been for Facebook simply taking a much bigger part in both my personal and my social circle’s life. And even that would be fine; culture and our way of living will undoubtedly change with each advancing technology; but seeing the effect on Facebook my own personal life and mental well-being, I have started to actually think about how to handle this new technology better.

Moreover, I have been always interested in how technology actually changes people’s lives. While computers and all things high-technology has always been fascinating in their own right, the biggest reason I started doing what I am doing is and living where I am living is that I wanted to be around when technology when it not only it changes our lives as individuals but also as a society.

While I am not as multi-cultural as I wish I have been, I am lucky enough to have a good grasp of not just Turkish and American cultures but also the “internet” culture that I grew up with as a kid who had spent more time on his computer than being outside for a significant part of my life.

So over time, I have formed some well informed, some not so well informed, opinions about Facebook. As culture and technology are two of my favorite topics, it’s something I have talked a lot to many people about and those people have told me many times I should share those thoughts with others.

This is all those thoughts, unabridged.

Facebook is public.

This is the guiding principle of my activity on Facebook.

It should be very clear to anyone with some knowledge of advertising and marketing works is that the more data Facebook has on you, the more money they can make. So it is definitely in Facebook’s interest to get you to both put in as much as data as you want as well as making it more available to others. In fact, this horse is so beaten to dead by everyone, that I almost find typing all this pointless.

But the thing that is really worth mentioning is that I actually believe that Zuck and Co believe that they are doing something good and worthwhile, inducing us to obsessively catalogue and index every inane activity happening in our lives. Sure, it’s easy to point out how this will all make Facebook the next AOL, it takes a different, slightly twisted but in that amusingly twisted, mentality to build features so that you can mark the first time you got a tattoo on your timeline or when you recovered from chemo. While the nerds among us would pour hours and hours to organizing our Winamp playlists and no one else seemed to care, it somehow became acceptable, if not outright “cool”, to be the person who checks in not oneself but everyone around him to the hot spot that none of your friends are at, without a single care about how it might be used or abused.

However, you don’t need to look any further than the privacy kerfuffle Ms.Randi Zuckerberg raised to understand the implications of actually putting any content online. Ms. Zuckerberg posted a picture of her family, including her brother Mark, chatting around a kitchen counter. While the photograph itself wasn’t “public” in the Zuckian sense, one of Ms.Zuckerberg’s reporter friends, probably thinking it was a benign enough photograph posts it on Twitter, resulting on Randi Zuckerberg first saying how “uncool” it is, posting a couple more angst-filled tweets and then deleting them right after.

The irony of the whole situation notwithstanding, the point I am trying to get across while there is already something a bit disturbing about how a single entity having so much personally identifiable information about you, the more nuanced issue is that as long as you put any sort of information on Facebook, be it an image or a relationship status or a simple comment, you are in fact sharing that all that information with not just the Facebook’s evil privacy-hating overlords but also practically every single person who might see it on their Newsfeed. And sure, even if you somehow made your way out of the Escheresque privacy controls and you have limited the your online exposure today to your socially capable friends, you are still making a ton of assumptions, from what private means to each of your friends to their actual well-meaning, if we are going to get a bit dark.

And then what happens when Facebook actually changes their privacy policy so that you new actions don’t adhere to your old controls and your friends can now share the content if they sacrifice their youngest new-born to the gods? And of course, there’s the problem with Facebook inventing even more new ways to expose more of your activity not only on Facebook but also on any other application with their frictionless sharing. Are you going to now trust not only the judgement of the seedy app developers who’d do anything to get their user numbers app, as well as their technical competence in addition to everything else you already had to keep in mind?

Sure, it’s somewhat of a stretch for most people to be embarrassed by a photo of their dinner to be posted on national news, the chances of you having posted something on Facebook having made its way to someone other than its intended audience is higher than you’d think. I’m sure your off-the-cuff racist joke is hilarious but do you think all your friends and your-friends’s friends share your appreciation for Louis CK? And yes, you do look great in that bikini but have you ever made your way to the darker corners of the internets where creepy men share them with the rest of the other creepy men, pretty much legally?

So do the easy thing and ask yourself: would you be OK with whatever you are posting on Facebook (or any other social network, for that matter) being public one day? It’s only 2 months ago that Facebook removed the feature where you could truly hide yourself from all searches.

Facebook has more privacy controls than ever before but arguing that as Facebook hasn’t become more “public” over time or simply won’t be fully public at some point in the future is a futile discussion.

Privacy isn’t dead.

I find the new-fangled “privacy is dead, get over it” rhetoric utterly misinformed, if not outright stupid.

It’s easy, and fun if I say so myself, to be overly excited about a new way to check-in places, share your feelings and thoughts, or maybe snap a picture of a particularly attractive sunset (or a bike, if you are like me). You can argue until you can’t on Hacker News whether or not such things constitute as innovation but what you cannot argue is that mere mortals, people like you and me, enjoy them a lot.

It is however naive to think that the more of our lives we put online for others to see, the less we care about privacy. In fact, if anything, I’d say that most people I know are more aware of that nasty feeling you get whenever your privacy is infringed because it happens more and more every day.

And make no mistake; the moment when someone infringes on your privacy, when it comes to stuff that really matters, you will find yourself feeling the same way too.

Not to take any more cheap shots at Ms.Zuckerberg’s misfortune –though she probably deserves a lot more for producing the world’s most horrible show on TV–, if one can get angry over a picture of her family, just sitting around a kitchen counter being posted online, saying that we should just simply give up on privacy because it’s too damn inconvenient is not just wrong but actually dishonest.

In fact, one need to look not any further than the tech scene to find stories of people doing the craziest things, things that you’d not expect them to do, just because arguably someone invaded on their privacy. While some of them, like Google not talking to CNet for a year because they unearthed some publicly available information about its CEO is more entertaining than not, some others like the famous Ruby developer _why collecting his things and quitting the internet is more damning and dark. Barbara Streisand might not have been as foolish as we thought she was, after all.

And sure, you can again make the argument all this doesn’t apply to you because you are essentially a nobody on the internet. But simply imagine how you’d feel if one day you find a notebook on your friend’s desk where he lists the times that you leave and enter your building. And moreover, he also lists every single thing you told him, the boring stuff like your favorite book as well as the awkward stuff like what kind of skin cream you have in your closet.

Are you going to argue that he can’t sit at the cafe across the street from you and watch you literally get on the public street or simply work as a cashier at the grocery store?

While you should go ahead and reconsider your friendship with that sociopath, you might as well come out of that traumatizing relationship with an epiphany about how much you cared about your own privacy and how much it matters to you. And while it is easy to flex it here and there every once in a while, it hurts a lot, more than you think, once you lose it. And by definition, it is one of those things that you’ll not easily get back after it’s gone. So might as well keep it as close to your chest.

It is not real life.

As we spend more and more time online, digital, cyber or whatever we call it these days, our well curated online presence slowly slips into the uncanny valley. You look at someone’s online profile and get this feeling that person is living the life you wish you had been living; some shots by the beach that you will never go to or the concerts that no one invites you to.

Surely, it might just be my Fear of Missing Out, or FOMO as it is lovingly called, talking but there is something utterly non-human and almost disturbing to see someone’s life in such great detail without the perfections.

It reminds me of this time they were shooting a movie on campus, back when I was in college. As some scenes in the movie took place in a dorm room, the film crew actually build a “dorm room” in the common area of our dorm. What was amazing about the dorm room was that it was so much of a stereotypical dorm room, with the casually discarded clothes on the bed to the random containers of Cup-Noodles to Harold and Kumar posters and the Macs and every other detail being picture-perfect that you could definitely tell that it wasn’t an actual dorm room but something that was actually manufactured.

That is not to say everyone is constantly putting out an act on Facebook. The real issue is that it is very hard, if not impossible, to actually create any resemblance of documentation of one’s social world using bits-and-bytes online. Maciej Cegłowski describes the technical issues around the issue (as well as the utter pointlessness of it) much better than I ever could in his post. I am simply approaching the issue from the other, psychological end.

Ask any social psychologist and you’ll hear about how self-reporting studies are extremely hard to validate. It turns out it is surprisingly get people to give you the answers you want (or not) but extremely hard to actually get them to describe to to you how you feel. In fact, if you look at enough social psychology studies, you might very well think that the entire field is about finding a more ingenue and clever ways to trick people into giving you the true answers, instead of doing any “science” work.

And there is of course the social pressure which muddies the waters even further. Are you actually going to post about your horrible break-up when you see your friends are having the time of their lives in Malibu? Maybe fish for some easy likes and compliments by posting a joke or an Instagram. But then, why would you let anyone know that you are spending your valuable time, that time you’ll never get back, being on Facebook? And now we are back to where we started. Shouldn’t you actually be out and about in a tropical island or just be simply out to meet some new people? Maybe becoming a true Lawnmower Man and playing Farmville all day, every day is the answer, after all.

When I was looking for a new job, couple years ago, someone who I consider a good mentor told me that a lot of the really cool jobs aren’t actually public. They are not posted on companies’ websites or job boards. The only way you’ll hear about them is if someone actually reaches out to you because they think that is the right job for you and you are the right person that for that job.

I find the phenomenon extends well into social life as well. As I mentioned before, my social circle on Facebook is pretty fun and I definitely learn about new stuff happening around me. But more often than not, I get notified about the really coolstuff that is happening through boring mediums like hearing it from a friend over some beers or someone actually reaching out to me personally thinking that I’d really enjoy that really cool thing.

And I haven’t even touched upon the actual living aspect of it all in this meta-noise. Now that you have excommunicated your sociopath friend and are now shooting the shit with your best friends in Malibu; everyone is having a great time. You think this is what happiness must be like, just enjoying your friends company without a single care in the world other than your drink being a little too cold.

Would you rather be the person who’s actually having that great time or the person who is obsessively documenting everything that is amazing happening around you? Just like most things in life, there’s a line in the sand (no pun intended) that one draws here; we all want to remember the good times and have memoirs but there’s a point at which the whole enjoyment becomes a simple vehicle for documentation and the reality becomes irrelevant. Of course, this is nothing new to Facebook, but there’s no denying that Facebook’s permeance in our lives took it to unprecedented levels.

Facebook should do better.

As I mentioned before, I have no beef with Facebook, as a company or a product. In fact, I have even applied there 3 years ago for a job opportunity and have a good deal of friends, including one of my best friends from college, work there as engineers, designers, and product managers.

As an engineer myself, the fact that Facebook even works amazes me day and night. I have always considered their design team on top of their stuff, working with challenges that would make a regular designer’s head explode in a second. And moreover, I have high admiration for the speed and fervor with which they are able to ship features and change things.

In fact, I believe Facebook in and of itself is one of the places that has been operating relatively consistent and coherent manner as well as consumer focused companies go; there are deviations and distractions (looking at you, Poke) here and there but you can’t blame Zuck & Co. for doing what they said they’d be doing.

If anything, given its sheer size and how much it permeated into our lives, I am surprised that Facebook hasn’t made as much of a cultural dent as many other online properties. Granted, it has created a never-ending stream of amusing stories (mostly caused by privacy blunders) for bored journalists to sift through and the vast amount of data Facebook generates should feed generations of sometimes slightly misguided but mostly well meaning social scientists and marketers, Facebook The Company simply feels like it has been busy building features that you think it should have (as in, for example, seeing a list of all things you have “liked”), instead of doing something world-changing or jaw-dropping.

As I touched on before, Facebook did all this while creating a culture that not only nurtures but also attracts very high-caliber talent. I might be alone in feeling this way but I hope that the company actually continues on that culture after its eventful IPO, finds its true calling (and by that I mean revenue source) and invests all that back into its technology and talent and become a true tech company instead of a media conglomerate that everyone loves to hate.


One friend I asked to proof-read this essay told me that there’s no point to all this. And I agree, there isn’t. These are simply my thoughts on Facebook, just like I said, some are well-informed and some not-so-much.

But there is something I want to convey and that is that your online activity, be it on Facebook or Twitter or whatever, matters as much as you want it to.

Just think about what you are doing, every once in a while.