The other day I video-responded to Asana’s co-founder, Justin Rosenstein, who didn’t care to get back to me. Justin gave a talk that I thought was, for the lack of a better term, naive. Enjoy!
Why a liberal forward-thinking atheist vegetarian is happy about the beef ban in Maharashtra
Butter Chicken. In a cashew-based tomato gravy with rich spices like fenugreek and turmeric, paired with some piping hot naan. How can anyone resist this? At least I couldn’t. Every Friday, without fail, this is what I grew up eating in Oman. The rest of the days, there was all kinds of rich north-Indian vegetarian food – but then there was also a significant chunk of chicken burgers, chicken nuggets and chicken sausages. This was your typical less-conservative Hindu family’s extent of meat eating. But all of this was true for me until the age of 10. Something changed then.
For the majority of my early childhood, I suffered from a severe migraine; it was my biggest horror that my parents often shed tears for. For years, the finest doctors failed to prescribe medication that would give me temporarily relief, let alone cure it permanently. Finally, a popular malayali homeopathic doctor visiting Oman highlighted meat as a potential symptom. While I don’t think anyone in my family actually believed homeopathy to be a real form of medicine (we were wrong – thanks, Deepa Raman aunty), at least I found some internal comfort from this diagnosis, almost as if a latent desire were being aided. That’s strange – my close friend Neha still recalls and reiterates how fond I was of sausages growing up. Why, you wonder, a butter chicken loving 10-year-old would like to stop eating something he loved so much? Now this remains a mystery to me – but from my best recollection, my mind and beliefs were evolving quicker than my peers*. And by around this time, I was developing a deep sympathy for animals, holding a strong principled and polarized view of what on earth is created to be eaten and what is not, and enjoying my moral and health high-ground. And while my family continued to exercise their “natural” omnivore traits, supported by an independent medical diagnosis, I became a vegetarian. Specifically, an ovo-lacto vegetarian.
Facebook is one of the few large technology companies who, as I believe, are for-profit social mission driven organizations. The organization’s repeated public claims to stay true to its mission to impact society at scale and forgive short-term financial wins from its very early days makes it a trendsetter in product and business model innovations on the web today, especially in the light of its $38+ stock price.
But more traditionally, (social) mission driven organizations have taken the non-profit path, and for good reason. Unfortunately, due to social and capitalism norms, mission driven organizations aren’t really poised to scale like Facebook has. This is why we cannot imagine a situation where Facebook would have been able to achieve the nature of impact it has under anything different from its current legal and equity structure. But just to put things in perspective, and a little bit of kicks, let’s go back memory lane when Mark, Dustin and the summer interns moved to the Bay Area and change only one thing about that situation: their legal structure. What if they were a nonprofit? Leave alone getting John Doerr behind them, they would have struggled to get a meeting with a foundation. And even after some struggle if they did get the meeting, and go through their “investment” process, here is what their email response from an ideal foundation may have looked like: Continue reading If Facebook were a nonprofit…
I am “following” who? My “friend” uploaded a music collection? What on earth is going on?!
When I was taught social and online community design at grad school, we spoke about what users liked and felt comfortable with and what users did not like. You know: sign-ups, privacy, and feedback and incentives, etc. Probably the most uncomfortable topic was on intellectual property. But with the rise of social web start-ups fighting for a handful of seconds of user attention today, I believe that there is a need to develop and advocate the importance of ethics around social experiences. Why? Because I believe that companies like Quora and Spotify are engaging in what I call “unethical social design”, and this warrants a need for an intervention from wise people.
If you are signed up to Quora or Spotify, aren’t you sick of all those hundreds of notifications (in-app and email push) about how everyone you know in your real life is following you and how they are now a part of the network? Well, guess what, each of those friends of yours gets similar notifications when you move an inch. But wait – how did these services know who my friends were and decide to “follow” them without me actually choosing to? Oops – that damn Facebook connect button that was compulsory on sign-up!
You see, as web-based B2C entrepreneurs, we are being taught everyday how social networks are a great place to bring thousands of users into our apps easily, and leverage an amazingly powerful graph which we cannot possibly create organically. These have gone from being suggestions to becoming the new mandates and market development mantras. But unfortunately, this tip doesn’t come with a handbook of rules – and companies like Quora and Spotify are abusing the newly discovered power. They are the culprits of the powers granted to the creators of the social web.
It is okay to spam. Yes, it is. At least a little bit. Email is probably the most effective means to secure retention of your user base. But the point where this social design trick turns unethical is when the services starts making decisions about the users preferences without asking them. Sensibly, “follow”ing another user ought to be the result of an intent expression by a user. Building a social network in such an unethical manner is not just an act of timidness, it also means that the foundations of these networks are weak.
I am sure there is a setting where can users can change this default behaviour of following Facebook friends, after getting sick of this. But by hiding it from the user experience from sign-up through engagement, prior to the user realizing what is going on, is wrong. The reason I would demand for the introduction of ethics into social design is because not all users hate this – in fact, this could very well become their incentive to be engaged in the network, but as I misquote Steve Jobs, “users don’t know what they want”.
Ps. I am really fond of Quora’s vision and most of its functionality. I have even visited them in Mountain View, CA. And Spotify also does a tremendous job of figuring out a great pricing model around music content, along with nice user experience. And that is why I care to write about this in the first place.
In 1985, Aldus Corporation gifted the world with PageMaker, a software which made publishing industry professionals feel more powerful than ever before. Before PCs became ever-so-common, PageMaker became the industry standard in publishing and carved out a new category of software, desktop publishing software, or in short, DTP. PageMaker was such an amazing invention, that some believe that it saved the Mac OS. It became the modern day letterpress. Since then, Adobe has made incremental improvements to this software year after year, and after moulding it into the newer InDesign, has brought the power of DTP to the masses. But I believe the next most extraordinary invention in publishing hasn’t come out of this PostScript giant, but from a small creative start-up in the Financial District of San Francisco called Inkling. And they call it: Habitat.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I attended the LAUNCH conference (a conference for start-ups and investors) in San Francisco. As I was walking around the start-up demo tables, I started to realize the huge magnitude of what I think has plagued the tech start-up community today: ELITISM. To describe it in its simplest way, I define elitism in the context of start-ups as “ventures that aim to benefit a really small % of society”. I earlier believed that this was true only for the start-ups I was following closely and what I saw emerging from hackathons, but after looking at some of the best start-ups in not just the country but in the world line up to present their hardware and software that I struggled to consider meaningful, I knew my hypothesis was validated. This hypothesis has grown from a lurking concern in my mind to a mental block that I am struggling to come to terms with, and that is why I want to talk about it with you.
Why are most new companies, especially tech ventures, not trying to solve real human challenges? Let’s back up: why am I concerned about this, and what is it that I call meaningful that these start-ups are not doing? I believe that most of us have one common purpose of existence: to make the lives of other people better, in the pursuit of happiness. And that the more lives that we improve, the more we serve humanity and the more purposeful our existence becomes. And so, one of our core endeavours as we create start-ups and work nights and weekends to build products and services should be to improve the lives of more people and create more meaningful impact in human lives. If this theory is so reasonably sane and simple, then why are entrepreneurs all over the place solving small un-problems (eg. filters for pictures) and getting away with it successfully?
I love Drupal. I have been engaged with the technology, the community and the vision for about 2 years now. So much so that I attended DrupalCon 2012 in Denver and loved it (I compare it to Google I/O when I consider the quality of tech conferences I have been to). But unfortunately, due to the reasons I am about to describe, I have come to the realization that Drupal is actually a horrible solution to build apps (content or non-content heavy) in agile environments, which is pretty much the case with most web start-ups. This has led me, the sole developer/engineer of my startup, to switch from building our core platform on Drupal (which I did for several months) to now building it in Django from scratch. This is not a pro-Django article, as I think I could accomplish the same with more or less similar difficulties in the 7+ MVC frameworks I have worked with in the past. I want to tell you exactly why Drupal is not right for such a context. Continue reading Why we stopped using Drupal for our platform
MS Powerpoint is a beast of a powerful tool, and immensely popular for giving people the ability to make presentations without making them think much. You know something is popular when it’s name becomes synonymously used with the adjective it helps accomplish, for example, searching with “Googling”, presentations with “Powerpoints”, tissues with “Kleenex”, etc. But despite much success of this feature rich tool, designers tend to hate Powerpoint. They instead settle with Keynote, InDesign, image slideshows, or sometimes even prefer to hand-draw live instead of relying on this toolset. So you ask, why? Continue reading 5 reasons why designers hate Powerpoint
Performance Reports. Indicator reports. Sector planning reports. Strategic plans. Donor information reports. Analysis. More analysis. Synthesis reports. Budget reports. Interim reports. Blah blah blah. This, my friend, is the best-in-class state-of-affairs in public policy and advocacy reporting, external communication and innovation medium, whether it may be from a government department, a consulting firm reporting in public affairs, a local or international advocacy group, or your average researcher. Each document, comprising of no less than 40 and sometimes more than 1000 pages of bleeding Times New Roman* text, is meant to serve as yet another step towards the advancement of public knowledge of public issues. But to me, it serves as yet another calamity from the perspective of good communication and information design skills. Just like is the case of Powerpoint, never before has the abuse of Microsoft Word and InDesign been greater. Sometimes I feel like the people writing and publishing these documents should be paid by Adobe for preserving the PDF standard, which they may use for paying the fines charged for wasting people’s vital time.
I would like to go to the extent and take the liberty to partly blame these poor communication practices for our inability to meet the development goals of our century. These have stifled innovation, created artificial barriers to entry and significantly slowed us down. Our failures in communicating theory, quantitative and qualitative data, and agendas for moving ahead as a society to masses of people in a succinct, clear and consistent fashion has left us hanging at the mercy of change makers who read and interpret these reports for a living. It has distanced public good agents from public good advocates, a crime which entire nations, at times, face jail-time for. If there were ever a worldwide census for least used and exploited public good available to one and all for free, these reports would win hands down and UNDP would be up on the stage giving a 17-minute speech while collecting the award. Of course HP and Xerox would be thanked generously for helping so graciously for giving UNDP the tools help create what in future will become heaps of recycled paper.
Enough trash talking. But really, why do policy makers, sometimes some of the most intelligent individuals on the face of the earth today, communicate in such a horrendous manner? While I was a student of technology and design, my graduate school is a public policy school, and that is where I found some answers to this big question. I learned some of these lessons while working on a recommendation report for a poverty-stricken African nation’s IT sector with 9 other people recently – and I have used that below to provide contextual real-life examples. These are in no way exclusive or entirely accurate, and so I welcome critique if you think otherwise.