As many of you know, I’ve been working at Ashoka this semester starting, hosting, and producing a brand new podcast for them on the intersection of technology and social entrepreneurship.  I’m happy to say that it has officially gone live, and is now listed in the iTunes store!  You can subscribe to the podcast in which I interview social entrepreneurs about how they are changing the world through technology by following this link (which opens iTunes).

Below is the official release about the podcast from Ashoka.  Thanks for checking it out!

We’re excited to announce the very first episode of the AshokaTECH Podcast!  Join Host Alex Budak as he interviews Ashoka Fellows and Changemakers from around the world, discussing the ways in which they are leveraging technology for the social good.  The interviews bring you even closer to inspiring social entrepreneurs  as they discuss their big ideas, best practices for engaging in social enterprise, as well as tips and advice for budding social entrepreneurs.  In bringing you as close to these leaders as possible, make sure to follow Alex on Twitter, @TheBudak, where you’ll have the opportunity to submit questions for future interviews, and transform the podcast into a two-way communication in this cutting-edge field.

The first episode features an interview with Ashoka-Lemelson Fellow, and founder of the World Toilet Organization, Jack Sim.  Jack joined the podcast from Singapore, and discussed the work he is doing to bring attention to sanitation issues worldwide, as well as his personal motto: “live a useful life.”  Along the way, Jack discusses how he mobilized a multinational coalition around sanitation issues, and tells listeners how they can participate in “World Toilet Day, 2009.

Note: This blog post originally came as an assignment for my course on networked technology and society.  It is a response to reading two brilliant books on the current state, and future of the internet.  The first, “Wealth of Networks” by Jochai Benkler (available for free on his website), proffers an optimistic view of the potential of the web.  The second. “Who Controls the Internet?” by Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, argues that barriers exist, and claim such views of a single, global internet to be a fallacy. In this post, I seek to reconcile the two views, and show the potential for common ground between either end of the spectrum.

There are three crucial aspects of the current networked world that Wu and Goldsmith would argue that Jochai Benkler overlooked: the disparate needs and cultures of people around the world; asymmetric technological development by country and region; and the enforcement of national laws.  This blog will outline these three aspects, showing how Wu and Goldsmith’s beliefs as outlined in “Who Controls the Internet?” conflict with those arguments from Benkler’s “Wealth of Networks,” before showing how all three have the potential to be reconcilable, resulting in one truly global internet.

Firstly, Wu and Goldsmith argue that, as evidenced by internet content that is unique to a language, culture or geography, the concept of a single “interconnected world” is a fallacy.  Through examples ranging from the fight to keep Icelandic as a language in Microsoft products, to websites with unique drop-down menus to choose language and/or region, Wu and Goldsmith argue that we do not all experience the same web.  Thus, they would argue, the new information economy is not as simple as individuals with their personal network being part of one global network. 

Secondly, Wu and Goldsmith cite the physical structure of the networked internet, and how nation-states retain control on many aspects of the actual connection to the “world wide web.”  Through many examples of Chinese control over networks — from developing firewalls to creating closed national networks, Wu and Smith show that Benkler’s dream of a borderless internet remains halted at many international boundaries.  Though Benkler argued that information could spread so easily due to an infinitely small marginal cost, physical impediments, such as firewalls, can obfuscate such proliferation of content.

Thirdly, through examples such as Yahoo! in France, and Ebay’s recent litigation, we see that even if one assumes a level technical system through which data can be transferred, the rules governing such a system still vary by state.  As they show, some countries tolerate Nazi goods, and some have draconian privacy laws — while others do not.  That a system like Benkler’s relies upon Geographic neutrality, its existence is called into question by Wu and Goldsmith in showing how state-level governance still matters.

Despite the seemingly intractable battle between the internet-world-views of Benkler and Wu and Goldsmith respectively, there is, in fact, potential to reconcile the above differences.  The later half of the 20th century is filled with examples of countries relinquishing some autonomy in the name of supranational cooperation.  The European Union, for example, has seen disparate states with diverse cultures, languages and histories, coalesce around certain crucial issues like trade and security.  While each state remains distinct — no one would argue that France is now interchangeable with Belarus — they have agreed upon laws and standards that allow for the open movement of people, goods, and services.  This shows that such potential exists for cooperation with regards to the internet as well.

While Wu and Goldsmith critique Google for entering China and subsequently caving in to the demands of the authoritarian government, it must be conceded that more information — albeit not complete information — is now available in China than before Google entered.  With more access comes more information, and because of Benkler’s model of the economics of intellectual property, it can easily be transmitted.  So, while borders certainly do matter, because information is inherently different from other goods due to its inexistent marginal costs, it can spread even in spite of a reliance upon regulated physical networks.  It may not happen overnight, as Benkler seems to argue; but, despite varying degrees of openness, information still has a tremendous possibility of passing through even tightly controlled borders.

Finally, while the internet, currently, is English-dominant, a couple of current trends are, if you allow me to quote Tom Friedman, flattening the world.  For instance, ICANN, the group that oversees all domain names throughout the world, just agreed to allow non-Latin domain names to be purchased.  While Wu and Goldsmith may argue this shows increasingly Geographically defined borders, it actually means that more information — and a more diverse group of internet users — will begin creating content.  Despite language barriers, online translation tools make consuming content in different languages trivial.  Secondly, the proliferation of mobile phones in the developing world, alongside mobile internet, means a huge influx of new users.  At the same time, we have seen a number of leading websites such as Facebook develop “lite” builds of their sites for those on slower, or mobile connections.  As mobile internet spreads, and the technical demands of webpages shrink, the intersection of content creation and growth in users converges in a more usable, and more representative internet.

While Wu and Goldsmith serve as the “id” to Benkler’s “superego,” considering both points of view, as well as current trends show that — while not there yet — the internet still has the potential to be a single, truly global network.

Georgetown Professor Patrick Deneen had a brilliant op-ed today entitled “Humanizing Economic Theory.”  In it, he recounts the the discipline’s rise to the forefront of the social sciences, but then argues that it relies upon “…a false anthropology — one in which humans are defined above all by their fears and appetites — undergirds a system that encourages materialism, short-term thinking and a utilitarian relationship to the natural world and fellow humans.” He then argues, by showing alternative economic thinkers that “Recent events have shown that the modern study of economics not only misinterprets the world, but alters it for the worse. It is time for a better economic theory, and, beyond that, for a truer understanding of human nature.”

My thoughts: 1) I wish I could have quoted this last year during my microtheory and public finance courses; and 2) this further intensifies my belief in social entrepreneurship which, while relying upon market-based economics for sustainability, recognizes that humans and our world are more complex than demand curves, edgeworth boxes, and marginal utilities — and that there really is room for social good to be a part of our new economic mindset.

Since Berlin has been in the news quite a bit this week, commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, I thought I would take you on a quick trip to the Berlin I know and love.

Recently renovated Potsdamer Platz at night — formerly what was “no-man’s land” during the Cold War

I’ve made it no secret that Berlin is my favorite city in the world — the vibrancy, diversity, and creativity are unlike any other place I’ve visited. It’s gritty and grimy — I lived across the street from what we were pretty sure was a brothel – and quite eclectic. The contrasts between new and old, capitalist and communist, and East and West fascinate me — and can be seen both from high atop the Communist TV Tower looking down on the city, as well as within a single block.

The Brandenburg Gate at Dusk

The food in a city tells a lot about its character, and Berlin is no exception. They are quite proud of their German heritage, and love their beer and meat (an indelible memory is walking through the U-Bahn to catch my train and seeing a guy walking along with just a fork and a huge wurst on it). At the same time, though, it’s quite cosmopolitan, and while there I had lots of Indian, Asian, and even Cuban food. The one food that Berlin is known for, above all else, though, is the Currywurst — a pork sausage slathered in ketchup and doused in curry powder. But, I’ll be honest: I think there are about a dozen things about it that violate my California palate!

The Berliner Dom

The neighborhood I lived in, Kreuzberg, is among the most eclectic in a wildly diverse city. It has a huge Turkish population as a result of the “guest worker” program decades back, and, as of late has attracted a vibrant artist community. However, located in East Berlin, it still has some traces of its pre-1989 past; there is one bar my friends and I would walk by every morning on our way to class, which, even at 9 AM, would be filled with blue-overalled Germans drinking beer. Finally, during our last week in Berlin, we summoned the courage to enter inside, where we were greeted by pseudo “wild wild west” decor, random American license plates hanging from the walls, and incredibly friendly people eager to talk with us.

Graffiti in Kreuzberg. Translation: “But it really is art!”

My time in Berlin was filled with surprises, as just when I thought I had finally figured the place out, I was greeted with a new — and wonderful — contradiction. With the world’s attention focused firmly on Berlin this week, I hope you’ll consider checking it out — but I won’t judge you if you don’t try the currywurst!

Thanks to Sosauce.com for letting me share my love for Berlin with the world.  You can check out the original on their blog.