Yesterday evening, Marko and I ran the closing session for Doors of Perception in India. Frankly, it was an amazing conference. There were minor logistical gripes like no wifi in the conference center (my excuse for not blogging for the last few days), but it was really incredible. Hats off to the whole team that pulled this together. Presentations ranged from self-organizing networks of manufacturers in slums to alternative currencies to the latest things going on on the web.

In the wrap-up session, I talked a lot about role of the open Internet in allowing bottom-up innovation and edge-inward work. I talked about the barriers created by monopolies. I said that it was the role of government to break up these monopolies and that we couldn't do it alone. I also talked about how Creative Commons was for providing choice and that we weren't saying that tradition media or content production models should go away.

Later, an elderly man stood up and said that all knowledge should be available to everyone and that he didn't think we should compromise on the copyright issues. He then said that the people are ready to fight and march in the streets and turn over the monopolies and we didn't need to sit around and wait for government. It turns out he used to live with Mahatma Gandhi's at his Ashram.

I felt a sudden pain. I realized that I was compromising and in fact evening softening my words assuming that the video of my presentation might end up on the Internet and that I would have to defend any hardline positions I took. I remember watching the movie about Gandhi (Irony alert. It was a Hollywood movie.) and thinking about the power of sticking to your principles and how this purity can move nations without violence or compromise and questioning myself and my methods.

I have always viewed my role as a sort of ambassador or bridge between groups to help provide a dialog. In talks to telephone operators or other somewhat old-school companies, I talk about their "challenges". To left-wing artists, I talk about the tyranny of the monopolies. The irony is that the recent trend of people posting audio or video files of my speeches online has made it difficult for me to maintain this split-personality / facade. I think it's a good thing that these things go online, but it reminds me a bit of politicians being criticized for what they have said at parties or "among friends"... or the Enron telephone calls. I have always encouraged this and poked fun myself. Being on the receiving end of this chilling effect is interesting. The core message I deliver doesn't change but delivery is slightly dampened.

I haven't been "outed" yet and I'm sure most people would understand what I was saying in the context in which my talks are delivered, but I sometimes say things that I'm sure I would say differently on my blog. In my mind, this is translated to words the audience understands in their frameworks in order to be constructive, but in a sense I'm being a bit dishonest. I also pull back on the "radical" throttle when I think it is going to offend my audience so much they will reject everything I say. Having said that, I've had a number of people get really upset. One publisher in Finland called my presentation about Creative Commons "disgusting".

My blog is probably the most "balanced" version of my position so just imagine that I'm slight more radical when I'm talking to the radicals and slightly more "soft" when I'm talking to conservatives. But my question is, am I compromising by adapting my words for the audience and where is the line beyond which I am not adapting words, but changing my position? What would Gandhi do? I suppose everyone does this to a certain extent but I was suddenly conscious of this gap last night.

UPDATE: Related post. "What would GW do?"

36 Comments

When you speak publically, I assume that you wish to do more than just inform. If your objective is also to shape opinions, I would say that whatever method you employ is valid just so long as you are not lying to anyone (including yourself) and while the opinion you hope to imbue is consistent, regardless of the target audience. Seems to me, that as long as you're an intellectual straight-shooter with whomever you're speaking to, all is good. Just my 2 cents.

"In the wrap-up session, I talked a lot about role of the open Internet in allowing bottom-up innovation and edge-inward work. I talked about the barriers created by monopolies. I said that it was the role of government to break up these monopolies and that we couldn't do it alone."

Unfortunately bottom-up innovation in DNS, because of ICANN's restrictive practice, is almost impossible. I hope that you are not only talking about how it should be, but that you also act as an ICANN board member to make it happen. Soon ICANN will find itself again in courts, if it continues with "restraint of trade". That's for sure!

Joi,

adhere to what you believe and do not "tailor" your beliefs to meet the crowd you are presenting - always someone somewhere will argue down your point of view whether it is "softened" or not - so be consistent to what you feel to be true and do no be deterred by irreverent criticism (although it is those critics that keep us fuelled)- there are the "us" out here who listen to what you say and that has real value - I may disagree with some of your thoughts on your blog - but I admire that you say what you believe to be true to your own beliefs...

and I have to admit at how surprised I am to your sensitivity especially when you are so public about your views and beliefs ;)

Well, Gandhi did great things, but there were also important things he was not able to do. Most importantly, he wasn't able to prevent India being divided into two countries.

I certainly don't mean to criticize, and I'm not qualified to say whether it could ever have been feasible, but if Gandhi had been prepared to fudge a bit more, he might have been able to keep the country together.

It's quite possible to take a strong, unambiguous stand against something like imperialism, where there is a clear enemy or outsider, but it's harder to do the same in a situation where there are two different viewpoints in close proximity to each other. This is how it is in the creative community. The reality is that monetizing of intellectual property rights under the traditional model is a big part of what keeps the 'creative community' solvent. On the other hand, it's clear within some sectors of the creative community that there are problems with the current regime. The reality is that there has to be some sort of comprimise.

If you want a political comparison, you could look at the Northern Ireland peace process. An agreement is being built through ambiguous wording which has slightly different meanings for both sides. The ambiguous, tenuous agreement at least gives an opportunity to build trust between the sides.

That's realpolitik folks!

everyone does it that is for sure. you need to have your core beliefs that you do not change for anyone. these are easy to nail down and to stick to.

forward looking policy development is quite a different task though. you need to remember when you are defending a core believe or looking for middle ground to assist in policy development.

i have always got the impression that you (joi) believe that traditional content producers and the new breed of creative commons content producers can coexist. if that is correct and is your core belief, i do not have any problem with varying degrees of intensity on the subject depending on the audience.

gw bush has his set of core beliefs and i find his adherence to them to be quite maddening. i do not like people who cling too tightly to ideals and find their inflexibiliy and inability to see different view points to be an extreme barrier to cooperation amoung groups with highly different perspectives. the more inflexible you are the harder it is for people to say you are wrong, and the less likely you will believe them anyway.

don't go changing joi, your ability to relate to different perspecitives is admirable and an incredibly important role.

The greatness of a man lies in admittance, as Gandhi did about his life in London as a student and a bachelor living a rich and glorious life. His realization of sorrow and pain of his people made him leave all that and adopt a simple life of self-sustainance and self-sacrifice and non-violence.

Joi, you're doing a great job on this medium and there's no need to feel guilty about certain things that you view from your side of the world perspective, anyone reading this blog would surely understand that.

Joi, I don't know if this is reading too deeply, but it feels like you're sort of debating whether to go the "American" or "Japanese" with your presentations and blogging... I moved to Japan at a fairly formative age (just out of university... not exactly young, but still) and I found that years of living in the culture softened my fairly opinionated Western personality, but they also allowed me to see the benefits of compromising and focussing on the needs of a group rather than just my own.

The fact is that people are going to have different opinions, and a lot of them aren't going to understand opposing ones. I think those of us who can understand both sides of an issue and still want to work to resolving it in some way despite not taking a polarized stance are very necessary to society... we all have to live together, and I think your "bridge" metaphor points to a very noble goal of trying to bring together people to work out some of the problems facing the world.

The very fact that you are invited to speak to both artists and old school corporations is a testament to your ability to understand both sides of a story, and a lot more constructive than adopting a dogmatic, confrontational approach, I think.

you saw the film, but did you read the book? ghandi's autobiography is sub-titled "my experiments with truth" and i guess we all chose which truth to tell according to who is sitting there in front of us, no?

It is admirable that you are able to present diverse points of view to opposing positions moving seamlessly. The relevance every time a point is made is at that moment and within the context. When captured electronically and presented as if it were a post script is not the same thing as the actual thought shared. You are now (in the blog) an observer (including introspection). At doors you were a participant. These situations are different. Assuming the same old man (perhaps a Gandhian) were to visit your blog and read your entry, his view may also be different from what was said at Doors. More importantly, I think your ability to shift between situations indicates a deeper understanding that is consistent in its basis and lends itself to situations...as sort of applied thought. Incidentally, I am great fan of doors and was supposed to be there at Delhi. Missed it, sadly.

Hi Joy,

There’s a difference between being mindful of your audience and compromising your own integrity. We create an initial connection with our audience by looking at a certain reality from their point of view. Then, we can take them to the other side so they can see reality from a completely different angle. This will create understanding, respect, and acceptance. Is there a greater gift you can contribute to this world?

-- Mike

Joi,


A monopoly illegally controls an industry. Except if acting under patent protection (a short-term legally-sanctioned monopoly, allowed by governments to encourage creativity for the longer-term public good) any entity that illegally controls an "industry" is, by definition, a monopoly. So, how do you, Joi Ito, without being "two-faced" justify participating in the most egregious of monopolies, ICANN? How does this jive with your apparent espousal of "breaking up" just such monopolies as ICANN? You SHOULD feel a "sudden pain." You ARE compromising! I am sorry, but I believe you should listen to your inner voice. It is telling you the truth, hard as that may be for you to accept. You are correct in saying that the "...Creative Commons was for providing choice..." But you are daily participating in an organization that, by its actions, actively works AGAINST providing choice. That is the way it is! Unlike other commentators, I believe your conscience SHOULD bother you, and you SHOULD feel guilty, to the degree you are not using your enviable, and powerful, position within ICANN to radically, and quickly, change its monopolistic practices. Please feel free to inform the oppressed out here what you are doing not to "...break up these monopolies..." (looking outward) but to break up the monopoly right under your nose, and that you are a part of.


Mike



I believe that Gandhi would lead by example. I would like to believe the next thing he would do is win, but history isn't so clear. While he did achieve independence for India from the UK, the struggle of its "partition" into the separate Pakistan and India was an unenvisioned, unnecessary consequence of the way independence unfolded.

In the end, he was assassinated by a Hindu nationalist. In working for everyone's freedom, he protected those that wanted only their own freedom. He had to, and it was the right thing to do - but his success story must be tempered by this.

Unlike Gandhi, you have institutional power. Maybe your position can empower you to make more people understand. Gandhi had to speak in action; if you can speak in words as well, you may have more who hear you and who will not leap to extremism. If you can save this world from just one more extremist, that is the value in "softening" your message. Remember the reason compromise is necessary: some people will be unduly harmed by any fanatical upholding of beliefs.

(In other words, "There is no algorithm for this. That's why being human is so hard.")

What would Ghandi be like if he had a blog?

Thanks for the very thoughtful comments. Yes. The irony was that I saw the movie, but didn't read the book. I guess I should read the book.

I think the issue of truth is an important one and involves balancing a variety of ethics ranging from "the ends justify the means" to "virtue and principle". (I blogged about ethics earlier) What is true to you, isn't true to others and trying to get someone to understand what you're saying often requires modifying your message. The tricky part is the edge where the message is so different, it really isn't true anymore.

I suppose the key thing that makes me feel like I'm still within my boundaries is that I genuinely believe that people are good and that people and organizations shouldn't be unnecessarily harmed. If Hollywood studios can figure out a business model that works in our new more open world, that's great. I am fighting monopoly power and sometimes institutional brain damage. When I'm on the outside, I can be aggressive about my comments, but when I'm allowed to speak inside, I try to think about it from their point of view.

The weird feeling I am feeling is very similar to the collapsing context that danah boyd often writes about. It's very similar to a teenager having their mother find their blog. Having all of my roundtable chats online is not a bad thing, but definitely collapses the context and makes it a bit harder to speak.

Mike Sorros: As for ICANN. I think you can criticize whether it is doing a good job or not, but ICANN is not a monopoly. ICANN was created as an organization to encourage competition and break the monopoly that Network Solutions had. The board members are chosen from a variety of groups including most of the constituant groups involved in the Internet. The board really can't be captured by special interests. ICANN is a non-profit and the board members are not paid. I charge some of my expenses, but I am generally out of pocket. It is a great opportunity to think and meet interesting people, but it is definitely not a "privilege" in the financial sense. I look at my 3 year term more as something like jury duty than a privilege. It is a privilege to work on something that is important, but I don't think that's what you meant.

As for the specific issue of DNS that you point out... are you talking about the market share of BIND? If you have a specific issue you'd like me to take up with someone, please send me some email.

Do not aspire to be a man of success, rather a man of value.

Be the change you want the world to be. - MKG

Joi, this is a very powerful posting of ours. One of the bests for this year.

There is nothing wrong with compromising (nor nothing to be ashamed of). There are as many sides to an issue as there are alternatives, and respecting that not everyone can be satisfied at any given time is the only way to eventually all look in the same direction to the same positive outcome. That, or fighting until you defeat your opponent by becoming stronger, and you become the opponent of someone else yourself. Copyright issues are a bit more complicated than "free for all versus evil monopolies".

Joi,


BIND is not the issue.


Though it is nearly impossible to believe that you do not know how "closed" and self-serving ICANN has been, when its charter was to allow TLD competition, please review the October 6, 2004 post at http://onthenet.ambler.net/ It is entitled "Why am I upset." Mr. Ambler outlines a long-running example of ICANN's prior restraint of TLD business. Without any valid justification that I can conjure, ICANN has restrained all the "trade" that could have been done over the past nearly ten years in the ".web" TLD. After you have reviewed the link, I would like to know if you have ANY logical explanation as to why ICANN has not allowed the ".web" TLD into the root...or does not now do so immediately. If not, then you are supporting an ICANN which illegitimately controls the TLD (and, therefore, the domain-name) marketplace or "industry". In other words, you are supporting an illegitimate ICANN monopoly.


Mike




Mike: I will look into .web, but it was before my time. Can you give me a permalink to the entry you're talking about on onthenet.ambler.net? I believe that ICANN is actively approving all of the TLDs that seem to meet the requirements and is doing a good job considering the various forces pushing against each decision from a variety of directions. I don't think (at least the in the discussions that I've participated in) that there is any sense of trying to restrain trade. I think WIPO and other trademark groups are trying to hold back the creation of TLDs for trademark issues and some TLD requests do not meet some of the basic requirements, but I believe the board/staff of ICANN are being very open about approving TLD requests.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "self-serving". I don't own a TLD, nor do I have any financial interest in a company that runs a registrar or registry. ICANN does not run a TLD. I agree that there is an aggregation of power and the multi-stakeholder and bottom-up approach is trying to address this issue. However, I don't see how this is a monopoly.

If you are arguing that everything should be peer to peer in the name space, we should take this to a more technical forum. I think that designing such a network is technically feasible, but impossible to organize at this point.

IMHO

I am still new to ICANN and don't know all of the history, but my experience so far has been that there is a sincere effort to try to prevent monopolies, allow innovation and allow competition while protecting the stability of the Internet.

Anyway, this is my last comment about ICANN on this post. If you want to continue, I'll create a new item just for you and me to talk about ICANN instead of spoiling this thread for others who might want to talk about Gandhi.

I find it is not possible to get the message across at any one time. Given that, the best I can do is to plant a seed and hope it grows perhaps by itself, perhaps fertilised by others.

In planting the seed, there is a choice: Either the gentle subtle approach of asking questions that lead into hidden conflicts, or the shock and awe approach of laying out the conflicts in their raw disgusting state.

Which to take is a matter of circumstance. Some would say just asking a subtle question is a compromise because you hid the truth, others would say "you're not helping" when they are offended by the shock and awe of their own compromise laid before them.

In the end, the only compromise is to reap but not to have sown at all.

very interesting question. I've have to think awhile on that one.

As far as religious philosophers go, I prefer Gandhi to Jesus, but I think a reference to the New Testament might be appropriate here.

When Pontius Pilate interrogated Jesus before his crucifixion, Jesus proclaimed that "Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." To this, Pilate replied "What is truth?"

By some accounts, Jesus was not allowed to answer. Other sources show that Jesus waffled and wasn't able to give a concrete answer. I think that's because we cannot define what truth is. Can you think of anything you have learned or were told that wasn't communicated through a filter of some kind?

I think you should feel free to nuance the filter as you wish, but keep the "truth", or message consistent.

To: Mike Sorros

If you want to discuss boring ICANN and TLD issues, there's already a thread on Joi's blog here... ;-P

http://joi.ito.com/archives/2004/12/05/icann_board_and_committees.html

Joi, firstly, this is a fine post. And I may add that your responses in the comments have been a great example for me.

As for your argument... which I read at first as "Is it deceit to tailor one's argument for different audiences?" (sidestepping the misconception that Ghandhi was above all such things himself...):

As other commenters have noted, its politics to do so and perhaps foolish not to do so. It's also misguided, I believe, to think that truth a fixed constant with only a narrow means of communicating it. In complex issues such as the balance between public good and private interest (which is what I think the whole government sanctioned monopoly of ideas stems from) it certainly would seem there are trade-offs to be made.

However, on second reading of your post I was struck by the clarity of the position of the elder gentleman you quote. Which raises the question:

Does his position more closely resemble your true feelings on the matter?

If so, then I would have to say your "softening" of your argument and advocacy of Creative Commons could be misconstrued as a underhand means of destroying the current order in intellectual property rights. If what you believe is that monopolies, legally sanctioned as well as illegal acquired, are an evil, to be destroyed and if not destroyed undermined as much as possible, then not declaring this intent would seem to be deceitful.

Not that I'm saying that *is* your position... just that perhaps this dialogue is a round-about way of confronting this desire.

Yet, if this is your objective than as a skilled revolutionary you might be willing to be deceitful somewhat to effect change. I don't know any successful revolutions that didn't utilise (and more commonly were driven by) some form of deceit.

Of course, effecting revolutions seems like a compromising and soul-agonising experience. I guess if you are serious about change then a little moral hazard and soul angst is a small price to pay.

Of course, I wouldn't recommend naval gazing in public with this angst. Normally. Because now I think about your post, maybe your real question was: "How do I perform advocacy and social bridging, which require some duplicitous behaviour to work, in a world where I am fully exposed (on the Net)?"

Now that's a really interesting question. How can people lie in a world where everybody has access to the truth? Or how can people put on a mask when they are being observed all the time? Call it the real social challenge of the century.

I don't have the answer to that one but I guess learning from what little I can see from skilled masters (e.g. governments) the key is to confuse the truth with nonesense, hit emotional rather than rational chords and never reveal your true thoughts and if you must never write them down. Not exactly a good template for someone as nice you.

So to sum up: Keep on, keeping on.

Mmm, complex feeling and dilemma's you present. Very nice of you to present them. I’m new to blogging, but you show the great potentials it has. I gave it some thought and rather spontaneously came up with the following;

Is a compromise a good thing? It is rumored that the Japanese government made a deal with the mafia about drugs and weapons. Is it a good thing? There are pros and cons. Guantanamo is a compromise between execution and the Geneva convention. Is it a good thing? How to deal with a threatening nation; do nothing, make war, or economically sanction this nation [as a compromise]. Very though examples on which one could discus for ages. Copy-write, creative commons, or nothing.

I remember this story from school; King Solomon had to deal with this dilemma. Two woman with a child. One child dies of whom this mother steals the baby of the other and claims it hers. Both see the king and both claim this child. As there is no evidence other than there testimonies, king solomon has to rule to whom this child belongs. Bring forward this child and he drew his sword; “as it will for always be unclear to whom this child belongs i shall kill it and you both shall be childless”. The real mother then cries out: no!, give this child to her, but don't kill it, where as the other woman states, yes, kill this child, thats the best compromise. King Solomon had the truth presented to him and ruled the child to the mother who was prepared to give it away, for the child's sake.

In this story there are 3 compromises. 1 the women see the king to rule. 2 the suggestion to kill the child in order to see justice and solve the case. 3 the mother prepared to give the child away so it may live. Yet, there is only one satisfying solution. The child deserves a loving mother. It even could have been two loving mothers, but that was not the case here.

Content deserves a loving owner. It could even be more than one.

So do people deserve loving rulers?

My point: a compromise never feels satis-factional. But neither are the problems we face. Due time and wisdom we may acknowledge that one focusses on the wrong thing. The copy-write issue of course has much to do with the current rules of the economy. Though this economy also has its parallel worlds, like the current blossoming of sharing on the internet, which you in part also see in the academic world [sharing of knowledge] the bigger part of the economy one faces is still based on restricted supply and marketed demand. I don't think the world will find a better system soon. But at least the sharing economy keeps us reminded that the current situation is just a compromise.

As Antoin and Seyed point out, part of the issue is probably the complexity of the issue you are trying to address. I think the main stream media are better at presenting binary or clearly polarized issues. The reality is that things are complex. (I wonder if things are more complex or have always been complex...) A lot of it has to do with how much interaction and how much time you have. If I am talking to someone one-on-one, I can wrangle my way though some fairly nuanced things and come to a peaceful balance, even if we disagree on some basic points. The problem, I guess, is that a 15 or 30 minute speech doesn't allow for much feedback during the process and you have to take positions, which when simplified sound binary, but which in reality aren't. Sometimes I wish things were more black and white, but they aren't.

That's why Lessig's books are so long. ;-) If you really want to cover a topic and be fair, it almost takes a whole book to do it.

As Iang says, I think the key is to plant seeds for people to ponder on later. Present frames, stories, disruptive thoughts... but package them in a way that speaks to their world view. (The theme of Seth Godin's new book which I'll write about later.)

Having said all of that, I think I need to go "back to Gandhi" every once in awhile and check to make sure I'm not compromising unnecessarily or choosing an easy road, when there is stronger road that could be taken.

You can't please everyone all the time and you shouldn't even try.

Maybe it would help if people imagined you jumping up and down singing "Anarchy In The U.K." (the only karaoke song I've ever heard you sing) when they are listening to you. :)

Neil: Yeah... I hope a video of that doesn't end up on the Internet any time soon.

I do remember when I was serving on the National Police Agency study group boards, I would park my car in the lot underneath police headquarters. I used to park next to all of the patrol cars. I would play "Anarchy in the UK" on my car stereo. Something about listing to Anarchy in the UK (with the windows closed) while being ushered into a police headquarters parking spot by a uniformed policeman made me smile. Now when I hear that song I always remember those funny moments.

The best of man is like water,
Which benefits all things, and does not contend with them,
Which flows in places that others disdain,
Where it is in harmony with the Way.

So the sage:
Lives within nature,
Thinks within the deep,
Gives within impartiality,
Speaks within trust,
Governs within order,
Crafts within ability,
Acts within opportunity.

He does not contend, and none contend against him.

I think Seyed hit the nail on the head... resolving the conflict you feel depends largely on how you view yourself and what your objective is.

If, as you stated, you believe your role is to be ambassador and peacemaker, then your ability to empathize and communicate with both sides is key. Yet it's equally critical that you yourself not be "religious" in such a role. Of course, your objective must be to achieve compromise between the factions.

However, if you do indeed have your own firm beliefs and your objective is to seek "justice", then any deliberate alteration of your stance can very well result in distrust.

You've probably seen this:

"Joi Ito outs himself in a soul-searching piece on his seeming willigness to turn up or down his radicalism on various topics because his words (on in this case, video) might show up on the Internet...."

http://tinyurl.com/4e7n7

Aaah, the ever-present problem of adapting your words to effectively communicate with an audience.
You visited the issue once, already, as it is something one takes into account when speaking, but also when writing:

http://joi.ito.com/archives/2003/12/23/bloggers_block_collapsing_facets_and_the_number_150.html

Still, from reading your blog, I think that there's an unmistakable spine of moral integrity and consistency that permeates through your writings. You're doing great, man :-)

What a great conversation is going on here!
Just my 2c:
I think that speeches have to be tailored on the audience, if understanding is what you are looking for. To a certain extent, at least, simply because you have to speak a common language for understanding to happen.

The fact is that people go mad when they have the feeling you're not true to your word, they feel betrayed.

So probably the question is more if it's just the language to be tailored or also ideas and positions. Because if you can shape your language without compromising your ideas, that's bingo.

Joi: tailoring the tone of the message to the audience is not selling out, its getting the message across. From what I can see you are kind of a centerist within what looks to me like a frothing at the mouth left wing swarm. I appretiate your willingness to look at various sides of an issue. The real problem with having your life available on the Net is it will be viewed by children of all ages, most of whom do not or will not take the time to understand context of the message. Do what you gotta do.

Just be honest. You won't regret it and you'll have more self-respect.

It seems the West is waking up to the teachings and philosophy of Gandhi, the modern-era saint. An increasing number of universities and colleges in the US is opening courses on Gandhian Thought. According to Savita Singh, Director of Gandhi Smriti and Darshan Samiti, about 50 universities and colleges in the US have launched courses in Gandhism in the last few years.

Leave a comment

6 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What would Gandhi do?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://joi.ito.com/MT-4.35-en/mt-tb.cgi/3365

"What would Gandhi do?" is the title of a soul-searching post by Joi Ito about positioning. It reminded me of a passage in William Shirer's memoir of his time with Gandhi. I'd like to quote the passage, which ends... Read More

Joi Ito has a fascinating, heart-felt post about the way he — and almost all of us — accommodate our positions to the context in which we're speaking. He was at the Doors of Perception conference in India conference: Later, an elderly man s... Read More

Joi Ito has put up a very evocative description of how blogging shapes his behaviour. An excerpt: I realized that I was compromising and in fact evening softening my words assuming that the video of my presentation might end up on the Internet and ... Read More

Joi posted about his Doors of Perception experience (I was going to link to the conference web site, but it seems to be broken at the moment), and his realization that his integrity can be compromised when he's speaking ("I... Read More

Joi Ito outs himself in a soul-searching piece on his seeming willigness to turn up or down his radicalism on various topics because his words (on in this case, video) might show up on the Internet: [from What would Gandhi... Read More

Weblogsky: Joi, Doors of Perception, Gandhi: Joi asks What would Gandhi do?, and I confess that I have no idea. Perhaps he would blog. Perhaps he would tell me, and Joi, and so many others, that the life we've... Read More

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Business and the Economy category.

Books is the previous category.

Computer and Network Risks is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index.

Monthly Archives