Tech has limits, so?
Let us assume the tech industry acknowledges the limits of tech (at least its current limitations) and gives a reasonable understanding to the larger world about what to expect from tech.
What happens next? Do we call it a day and go back to the world which was not being eaten by software? That is foolish and well, not even possible. Then?
The next step is to come up with suitable business models for it. This would vary based on the industry/use-case etc. but let us pick one example and run with it. The easiest one — News.
Before software ate the print news industry (by moving the print content online at first but more importantly by moving the ‘discovery’ of news online soon after), we had the “Only news that is fit to print” paradigm. There was curation of the highest kind, done by the experts (with its obvious limits), which meant it was not-fake (not always unbiased though) and definitely brand-safe. After it got eaten by software, curation was given to algorithms (which optimized for its benefits like impressions, clicks etc.) and to the general public (who optimized for their benefits, like status-seeking, proving their point etc.). This meant there is more fake-news, brand-unsafe content etc.
This Curated news (“fit to print”) versus UGC (put on steroids by algorithms) can be compared to natural world as follows: A curated garden tended by an expert versus a wild forest. In a wild forest, weeds will come up but that is to be expected.
So, now to the business model: For those who want the ‘curated’ version, there is the subscription of NYTimes and other such places. For those who want the ‘wild’ version, there is Facebook.
Just as we have educated people to have a clear expectation on what to expect when visiting a curated garden versus what to expect when visiting a forest, we should do the same with online news as well. If you want curated version, go to NYTimes (and pay, just as you would to enter a private garden); else, go to Facebook (just as you would enter a forest). While these are the extremes, there will of course be a spectrum of different experiences, including a semi-curated public garden. (like a Govt. news website).
Get Techynotions’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Unlike the physical world, where the dangers of visiting a wild forest is high, more people would prefer the wild Facebook in the online world. And that is a problem. That is where our education and the fact that there is a spectrum of experiences should help.
Just as users go to where they prefer within the spectrum, so should advertisers and others.
Now, I have painted Facebook as the ‘wild forest’. Irrespective of whether that categorization is fair or not, Facebook is not going to agree that they are that. Instead of fighting over it or simply giving a false impression that their tech has no limits and can curate as well as an expert in just a bit more time, they should start offering different versions of their product — An adjustable scale for their users to determine which part of that spectrum they wish to be in. At one end, it will only be content from reputable sources. At the other end, it will be any content available (where just the extreme ones like child porn should be removed). Users can then experience different parts of it and determine where they want to be. For users at the ‘well curated’ extreme (I thought of calling it ‘good’ extreme but decided against it), they can even charge money and share it with publishers.
All that is a round about way of saying we should have a “Bright Web” version of Facebook (and other such sites). People who want safe and trustworthy content should go to it. For the rest, there will be a series of “Grey Web”s. And of course there is “Dark Web”.
This way, we will have no complaints. People will still go to “Grey Web” (or even “Dark Web”) but without any expectation that it will all be good. Platforms will still do their best to keep it clean but there is no guarantee. If you need guarantee, go to “Bright Web” version (and may be even pay).
On the “pay” part, it need not be that you charge only for the curated version. Depending on your industry/use-case/user-base, you can charge for the “curated” version or the “wild” version. i.e. any one extreme is charge-able.
Sounds right?
PS: This is one of those indefinite ideas of mine. In lateral thinking terms, this could be an “intermediate impossible” of course but one step better than now.
Don’t agree? OK.
