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. Continue reading “Developing Shared Code with Principles”

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. Continue reading “Planning for Agile”

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. Continue reading “Twitter is throwing the towel on democracy”

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. Continue reading “With Big Data Comes Big Responsibility”

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”. Continue reading “iPhone stole your attention. Your watch might help.”

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. Continue reading “The cyber history repeats itself”

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.