Categories
My Opinion

Where We Go From Here: 10 Thoughts on the Immediate Future of the Web

I was asked to close out WordCamp Vancouver with a short 20 minute keynote on something interesting. After some thought, I put together a list of 10 trends I see in the web community and where we are headed in the immediate future.

0. The Future Keeps Arriving

In my +15 years working on and with the web, the one major lesson I’ve learned is the future keeps arriving, sooner than you think, and often the future is already here. The web, the internet, and the technologies and communities powering them are evolving ever more rapidly, and what we consider future possibilities today often becomes practical realities the very next day. The future keeps arriving. Keep this in mind as you read on.

1. WordPress Themes are Dead. Long Live WordPress Themes.

If you’re of the WordPress persuasion, you’ll know about the Block Editor, nee “Gutenberg,” and how it’s changing everything. Even if you don’t work with WordPress, even if you don’t care about WordPress, this transition from the content blob to each piece of content being its own “block” with its own properties and attributes is changing everything about how we think of content on the web. Why? Because WordPress powers a full 34% of the web meaning what WordPress does impacts everyone, even those who don’t use it.

Why does this matter? The front-end of pretty much every WordPress site up until this moment is a template displaying content in a relatively rigid way. With the Block Editor, that paradigm is all but dead. Right now, blocks are confined to the “content area,” meaning the post or page content itself. That’s about to change. In the foreseeable future – probably within the next 12 months – the block concept will spill outside the content area to take over the whole view. This article and video from Matias Ventura gives us an early preview of this future:

Exactly what this all means is still up for debate, and the debate is happening right now: See Ben Gilbanks’ “The End of WordPress Themes Is In Sight” and Justin Tadlock’s “Rebirth of Creativity: Gutenberg and the Future of WordPress Themes” for two contrasting views.

Bottom line: What we think of as a “WordPress theme” is already an outdated concept. The future has arrived, we’re just waiting for the practical implementation.

2. Gatsbyfication of the CMS Ecosystem

If you don’t know what Gatsby is, you will soon. The emergence and popularity of static site generators like Gatsby, 11tyNuxtJekyllHugo, and more is the beginning of a communal shift from delivering server-side rendered front-ends to delivering static or faux-static front-ends, often powered by JavaScript frameworks powerful APIs, and new query languages like GraphQL (see below for more on that). Gatsby and its ilk sit adjacent to traditional CMSes pulling data from them through APIs and presenting it to the user in new and more performant ways. And they can combine data in ways those old CMSes can not. More on that later as well.

What’s driving the Gatsbyfication of the CMS ecosystem? Several things:

  1. The idea of the monolithic end-to-end CMS solution is old and outdated. We no longer consume data from single sources, and giant monolithic CMSes like WordPress, Drupal that try to do everything for everyone etc are becoming dinosaurs.
  2. Performance is the new Black, and CMS-generated just-in-time server-rendered sites just don’t cut it. Static site generators pulling data from CMSes is the natural progression from caching server-rendered content.
  3. Delivering content on the “Edge”: The web is global, yet CMS-based content delivery is most often confined to one server in one location. Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) have long been used to try to remedy this issue, with mixed results. Static site generators like Gatsby allow content to be computed and rendered on the “edge” – closer to the end-user, and in a more performant way.
  4. JavaScript is the new wine. Nobody likes PHP any more. Love it or hate it, JavaScript is the place to be, and static site generators are soaking in it.

Bottom line: I call this trend the “Gatsbyfication” because right now Gatsby has more wind in its sails than any competitor and money is pouring into the project. Does that mean Gatsby will reign supreme? I have no idea, but I think a Gastby-type solution will reign supreme in our immediate future.

3. With the APIfication of the Web, REST is ceding to GraphQL

REST APIs have been around since forever. I remember going to a web conference in 2009 where almost every talk was about RESTful APIs. REST gave us the tools and infrastructure to evolve the web beyond single-source-of-content solutions and paved the cowpaths leading to the client-side content rendering which is now the default for content rich sites including LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook, and sites powered by static site generators like Gatsby (see above).

The problem is the REST concept is old, and it doesn’t provide the necessary tooling to do the things we want to do today.

Enter GraphQL, a new query language which approaches the same problem REST tried to solve in a new and more modern way. I won’t bore you with the details of how GraphQL works (we have courses for that at LinkedIn Learning if you’re interested!). Suffice it to say GraphQL allows developers to combine data from different API sources and make it available in ways that benefit them and make previously impossible or very hard things practically possible.

If you don’t believe me, look no further than the WordPress project: After an enormous undertaking of creating a proper REST API for WordPress, tools like Gatsby choose instead to use the custom WPGraphQL to query and consume data from the source.

Bottom line: The APIfication of the web has been happening for a while, and future web services will need to serve up comprehensive APIs to stay relevant. GraphQL-type query languages will replace REST as the standard interface, and as a result consuming content from single sources will become an anti-pattern (see below).

4. Content Streams and the Content Mesh

Back in 2013, David Gelernter published an opinion piece in Wired Magazine titled “The End of the Web, Search, and Computer as We Know It” where he talks about the concept of a “lifestream”:

“a heterogeneous, content-searchable, real-time messaging stream.”

David Gelernter

Sound familiar? If you have one of those talking thermos cans at home and asked it “Hey Corporate Surveillance Device, tell me about my day” you know that’s pretty much were we live today. Except the web hasn’t quite caught up to the trend yet.

Enter the “Content Mesh” — the infrastructure layer for a decoupled website — introduced by the Gatsby team and pretty much the manifestation of what Gelernter talked about all those years ago.

The Content Mesh, if we choose to adopt this language, is the idea of building a front-end that consumes and interacts with data from multiple sources. So instead of having one monolithic WordPress site trying to do blogging and ecommerce and forums and forms and everything else, you have one unified front end that brings in blogging from WordPress, ecommerce from Shopify, pages from Contentful, forms from Google Forms, etc. Literally meshing together content.

Bottom line: The current idea of the content mesh is an evolution of the single-source website concept. That’s where we’re headed right this moment. In the slightly more distant future, the content mesh will be served by our personal assistants, configured by the individual user, and the website as we know it will be a quaint anachronistic thing some people choose to spend their time on.

5. The Rectangular Screen as Main Content Delivery Modality is Already Dead

Here’s the new trailer for the dystopian near-future sci-fi show Black Mirror:

Just kidding. This is an ad for Facebook Horizon – a virtual world reminiscent of the OASIS predicted in the book Ready Player One, except it’s run by IOI (you don’t need to read the book or see the movie btw. If you haven’t, just read on).

AR/MR/XR/VR/CR whatever we end up calling it, the idea of computers in some way augmenting our reality by introducing virtual layers in the form of visuals, audio, or other sensory inputs, is now a reality. All the major tech firms are fighting to be the first to inject their own ad-fuelled reality as a layer on top of our own. If you have one of those aforementioned talking orporate surveillance thermos cans, or a modern phone or computer or TV with a voice assistant, you are already living in this future.

The world in which our main tool for accessing information over the internet is a rectangular glass screen is already in the past. We are merely experiencing the late-stage residuals. The second the Fruit Company rolls out their first set of iGlass AR-powered glasses, and the Search Company follows suit with AR-powered contacts, the focus for web content delivery will shift from “how do we cram as many ads into the viewport of a mobile browser” to “how do we cram as many ads into the field of view and range of hearing of the human experience?”

Don’t believe me? Watch Marley Rafson’s talk “The Case for Augmented Reality on the Web” from JSConfEU 2019 and draw your own conclusions:

Bottom line: The APIfication of the web, and the Content Mesh, will become more important than ever because we’ll need to design and deliver our content to new interfaces which don’t even exist yet in the immediate future. Also, unless we actively resist the urge to AR everything and put ads everywhere, our AR world will be an insufferable hellscape reminiscent of Keiichi Matsuda’s “HYPER-REALITY” for the next decade.

6. CSS Changes Everything

On a positive note, CSS is evolving and changing in extraordinary ways, and the future of CSS is even more extraordinary. In our modern web dev world already have magical tools like flexgridcustom propertiesanimations, and filters. Soon our CSS toolkit will expand exponentially thanks to CSS Houdini. Look no further than Una Kravets‘ JSConfEU talk “CSS Houdini & the Future of Styling” to see where we’re headed next:

As if that wasn’t enough, the canvas in which we do our work is about to change as well. Right now, Adam Argyle is working on his VisBug Chrome extension:

Adam made this GIF just for this article!

Sold as a visual browser development tool that makes your browser viewport work more like a design tool, I think this thing is a peek at what the future will bring in terms of web design: The browser itself being the design canvas, and server-powered tools like WordPress’ Gutenberg editor being old hat.

7. Open Source Ideology is D/Evolving

Open source rules the web world. Open source is also experiencing some long-overdue internal strife. Without going into too much detail, Richard Stallman, considered the originator of open source ideology, has stepped down from his various leadership roles in the open source and free software communities due to accusations of decades of problematic behavior. You can read more about this in various news outlets and opinion pieces (and you should, this stuff is important).

Here’s my abbreviated take: It’s high time problematic characters like Stallman are removed from their positions of power in the open source community because their influence has been detrimental to the participation in these communities for many marginalized groups. Moreover, it opens the door to a deeper conversation about the core ethos of open source ideology and whether the radical understandings of terms like “freedom” by a group of entitled white men is a sound foundation to build equitable and inclusive communities moving forward.

I’m going to write more about this in a separate post, but my long-held opinion on open source ideology (and I say this as an open source creator, contributor, and proponent) is open source in its present iteration is exclusionary and privileged. Why? Because it’s based on the assumption that those who have something worthwhile to contribute also have the time, money, and necessary tools and access to be able to contribute. From there follows that anyone who is not contributing, for whatever reason, does not have anything valuable to contribute (which is utter nonsense) and that those who contribute the most (usually because they are paid by corporations to do so – see below) are the best people to lead the project. “Decisions are made by those who show up” really means “decisions are made by those with enough privilege to show up” which is not an equitable nor inclusive base to rest an entire ideology on. Follow Christie Koehler for more on that story.

Then there’s the whole “open source is value neutral” and “open source licenses can’t have morality clauses” thin which deserves an entire article its own. Follow and support Coraline Ada Ehmke in their efforts to debunk that nonsense.

Bottom line: Open Source ideology is being redefined right now. Your participation in that conversation decides whether it’ll be an evolution or a devolution. Your voice matters, so use it! Forward the equitable and inclusive open source revolution!

8. Corporate Control of Open Source is the New Black

Guess what: Open Source is super valuable. No wonder large corporations want their piece of the pie. Actually, they want all the pieces of the pie and they want you to bake it, for free! Yes, yes, I work for LinkedIn which is part of Microsoft etc. But I’m believe in open source, and I’m deeply concerned about the corporatization of the open source space.

Here’s the gist: The core idea of free libre open source software was to effectively flood the commons with free (as in you don’t pay) open source software so the large corporations who sold expensive licenses for proprietary software went out of business. Don’t believe me? Go read the GNU Manifesto (and keep in mind everything I said above). The idea was we would use open source software in the capitalist world to earn money, thereby keeping the software itself without value and only putting value to the services rendered with the software.

So what happened? Corporations figured since all the open source contributors didn’t derive value from their software, the corporations could do it instead! And without paying a dime for it. Literally get people to work for free and then make money from that work.

Sure, that’s an oversimplification, but it is also the reality on the ground. The corporatization of open source, in particular large projects like WordPress and Drupal and NPM, is a reality, and it’s only going to get bigger. If there is value in a project, a big corporation will be made to turn some of that value into cold hard cash. See the aforementioned Gatsby.

Some say this is a good thing. Some say it’s not. I think we need to start thinking more about where we want to go than how we can turn free contributors into cash cows.

Bottom line: The open source community has failed in its mission to change the status quo, choosing instead to double down on good old capitalism. If you don’t like it, do something about it. Also, go read Cory Doctorow’s “Walkaway“.

9. The Tech Ethics Reckoning

The Pope felt it necessary to invite Silicon Valley to the Vatican to talk to the tech industry about morals, ethics, and the common good:

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know #techethics is hot shit, and for good reason: Turns out moving fast and breaking things breaks people, communities, even our democracy.

Here’s the problem: The tech and design communities are largely autodidact. There is no board of ethics for tech or design, and everyone is allowed and encouraged to do whatever they want in the name of disruption, innovation, and creation. Put bluntly, we are working in a non-ethical industry.

Why does this matter? Because in lieu of the tech and design industries regulating themselves, or at the very least adopting and enforcing some basic form of ethics, governments will regulate us without our input. Which is what’s happening right now.

This is especially bad for open source because unlike large corporations and their walled gardens, who spend millions on lobbyists to sway politicians to lock everything down and hand the keys to the highest bidder, open source developers live in some reality dysfunction where they think politics and political involvement are irrelevant.

Trust me when I say they are not. They are the life blood of modern civil society, and choosing to stand aside and let things happen without your input is the same as letting other people carve out the path you need to follow into your future.

Bottom line: Unless we figure out the whole ethics thing for tech and design right now, we are going to be regulated into a walled garden of corporate surveillance of our own making.

10. The Next Generation

Looking around at my industry I see two things:

  1. Old white men like myself wringing our hands and saying “man, we really messed this up, I wish we could roll back the clock and do some things differently.”
  2. Young diverse community members trying to make make a living out of an industry emerging from its adolescence and realizing it now runs the world and needs to do a better job at it.

This gives me hope.

I believe in the next generation of creators on the web, and I believe they have what it takes to turn this chaotic mess we call “tech” into what it can be: A new path forward for a more equitable and diverse society with values rooted in the idea of common goods distributed through free and open commons.

Bottom line: The future keeps arriving. The future is already here. It is our job to ensure the next generation gets to experience the same freedom of creation and discovery on a free an open internet so they can build a robust and inclusive society for all of us.

Postscript: Your turn

This is what I see. I’m just one person, and I have strong opinions about things. To move forward, a discourse is required. We need to share our thoughts, ideas, hopes, and concerns, and figure out how to move forward together.

What do you think about all this? What trends are you seeing? Where are we headed next, and where do you think we should be headed?

Add your thoughts in the comments, or in your own posts, and let’s find paths into the future we design together!

Cross-posted to LinkedIn.

Categories
My Opinion

2018, a personal inventory

Morten and Leo, exploring the forests of Nesodden, Norway, December 2018

2018 marked the completion of my 40th lap around the sun. I remember when my parents turned 40 years old, and I remember how old I thought they were back then. Yet last October, when I crossed this arbitrary temporal marker myself, I did not feel old. I felt tired and jaded.

As I entered the statistical last half of my life, a friend commented in jest “What do you buy for your midlife crisis if you hate cars?” (I hate cars, or rather, I have no interest in cars other than as a mode of transport. The idea of owning a flashy red sports car is to me as foreign as that of going swimming in a tuxedo: It can be done, but I don’t see any reason why.) “I don’t know,” I answered honestly. “I guess maybe I should buy myself a therapist?”

For future reference: that’s a great way of stopping a fun conversation dead in its tracks.

Melancholy and the Internet Sadness

Throughout my life, the people around me have sorted themselves into two very general groups: Those who think I’m happy and smiling all the time, and those who think I am a stern, serious, and brooding person. This seeming dichotomy is probably caused by my habit of compartmentalizing everything. Some people know me in contexts where I am happy and smiling, others know me in contexts where I am focused and ready to work. The latter often think of me as “stern” and “brooding” because I have what you could call “Angry Resting Face”: my neutral expression is rather stern. But I digress.

2018 was the year I realized those two perceived Mortens were bleeding into each other and the stern version was taking over. But it was more than that. Where before I was able to say “work is over, let’s have fun” I now felt waves of melancholy wash over me to dampen the mood and bring the darkness I felt all around me into every interaction.

It was during a conversation with Jeremy Felt at WordCamp Vancouver in late summer I finally realized something was amiss. I can’t remember what the conversation was about, but at some point Jeremy added a pinch of black humor to the mix and I immediately converted it to a black hole, sucking everyone down with me. Jeremy raised his eyebrows and said something to the effect of “Dude. That’s darker than where I wanted to go.”

Months later I had a long chat with my wife in which I tried to put my finger on where this darkness was coming from. “I don’t understand how you don’t know,” she said. “It’s obvious! You are pouring all your emotional energy into trying to fix the internet, but you can’t fix it on your own!”

And she was right, as she always is.

For more than fifteen years, I’ve spent a fair bit of my professional and personal time thinking, writing, speaking, and teaching about how the internet shapes us as people. I’ve taught hundreds of thousands of people all over the world how to publish their thoughts, ideas, and creations on the web, and spoken to anyone willing to listen about the importance of making ethics an essential part of the design and development processes that build the web and the internet. At the same time, I’ve seen the web and the internet weaponized against its users, for money, for political power, for no other reason than to hurt others and destroy their lives. And more and more I’m feeling like I am part of the problem.

When asked about it, I used to say “the internet is a thin veneer of amazing covering an infinite abyss of the worst of humanity.”

Five years ago, that comment was met with surprise, confusion, and a lot of shaking of heads. A friend called me “The Doomsday Prophet of the Web” and we all laughed.

Today, people just nod in resignation and walk away carrying a small piece of the darkness I just dealt them. And every time, the hole left by the darkness I hand to someone else doubles in volume and is re-filled. Because in seeing the recognition of what I think we have become in others, I see verification of my own worst fears for the future our son will have to live in.

I have become a catalyst.

That’s not good.

Everything, all the time

I used to joke I burnt my candle at all ends, and from the middle. Turns out I was telling the truth, at least emotionally. If the past year has taught me anything, it is that I need help learning how to walk away from things.

Which is why in 2018 I nearly walked away from the WordPress Open Source project.

Reading this, some will think it was because I disagreed with the Gutenberg project. Not so. I am a firm believer in the idea of block-based editing in WordPress, and the Gutenberg project has been long overdue. I have been critical of the decision making and management processes around the project and how it was rolled out, but that was not the reason for my near departure.

Reading this, some will think it was because I disagreed with how accessibility has been handled in WordPress in the past few years. Not so. To me, bringing accessibility to WordPress is a long journey, one which has yet to meet its final conclusion. Much has been done, much still needs to be done, and I believe WordPress can become the benchmark for web accessibility in the not-too-distant future.

Reading this, some will think it was because of responsive images, or ImageFlow, or documentation, or LTS versions, or internationalization, or any of the myriad of other issues I bring up and talk about in various WordPress fora. Again, not so.

My reason for almost leaving WordPress was the realization my participation in the project, or rather the way I chose to take part in the project, was hurting me and by association those around me, most notably my wife and our son.

I’m not going to try to describe or adjudicate the past year of WordPress politics here. Suffice it to say the emotional weight of watching my community turn on itself over poor communication, forced divisions, turf wars, and misunderstandings inflating to gigantic problems became too much. And I know I’m not alone.

At the end of my rope, I reached out to my coworker Stephanie Evans. “You have to draw a line!” she said. “When you’ve done everything within your power and it isn’t working, you can’t do anything more. You have to step away.” And I tried to explain to her why I couldn’t; that this community has become so much part of my personal and professional identity that I simply cannot walk away. And as I said this I realized it was true, not just for WordPress, but for the web.

I, the person who tells people their work does not define them, that your work should support your life, not the other way around, have defined myself by my work and become so involved I have trouble separating the emotional weight of what happens in my community from the emotional weight I myself carry.

That’s not good. It is also not sustainable.

The Landing

Moving into 2019, I have made some decisions.

Primarily, I will look out for number one, which in my case is our son Leo who needs a father who is not lost in a black hole of melancholy. I have to be better for Leo, and that means I have to be better for myself.

To get there, I am refocusing my work on what I do best: Finding ways of empowering people to use the web to improve their personal and professional lives. That’s what my job at LinkedIn Learning empowers me to do, and that’s why I am excited about what we will make together in the coming year.

2019 will see a significant shift in my focus away from WordPress and toward web standards and emerging technologies. This has always been where I thrive, and I am excited to immerse myself in where the web and the internet is headed next.

What does this mean for my involvement in the WordPress community? I will focus my efforts on two projects: The WordPress Governance Project and the development of WP Rig. These are projects I have direct influence over where I believe I can do the most good for the open source project and the community. I will still attend WordCamps including WordCamp Europe and US, and continue creating courses and writing tutorials and opinion pieces about the software. What will change? My time invested in battles I can’t win. Interpret that as you like.

Underneath all this, I have work to do on myself. I cannot be someone who doles out parcels of darkness to those around me. To get there, I must rid myself of the darkness within. What form that process will take is yet to be determined, but it will definitely include professional help.

Down on the Upside

Looking back at 2018, I see a year of significant professional achievements and personal experiences. I released some of my best courses on LinkedIn Learning, got to speak at both Smashing Conference Freiburg and WordCamp Europe in Belgrade, Serbia about ethics, the subject closest to my heart, and had the privilege of launching WP Rig, a new open source project to benefit WordPress. My wife and I watched Leo develop into an inquisitive and profoundly interesting 2-year-old, and together the three of us spent the year exploring the world and everything in it. Life, by any measurable standard, is good.

And that, I guess, is the lesson: When the darkness comes from inside, there is work to be done. That’s what 2019 will be for me: Better myself so I can be better to those around me. Because 2018 was a lot. And we can all do our part to make 2019 better, for everyone.

Categories
My Opinion WordPress

The End of 80/20 and the Future of WordPress

History is filled with events that at the time seemed like footnotes but in hindsight revealed themselves as pivotal turning points. Such an event may have occurred Friday March 3rd, 2017. Buried in the comments section of a post on WPTavern a comment from WordPress co-creator and project lead Matt Mullenweg reads:

It might be time to retire 80/20 from the philosophy page, as it is seldom used as intended.

Below the surface of this short sentence lies a highly stressed fault line, and what Mullenweg seems to suggests is to deliberately trigger its release, causing a tectonic shift that will permanently change how WordPress is developed and as a consequence how content is published online.

For the record I do not know what Mullenweg thinks about the 80/20 rule beyond this single sentence. The following is my personal thoughts and reflections around the 80/20 rule. I am merely using his comment as a starting point for a discussion.

tl;dr: The 80/20 principle as applied in the context of current WordPress development is an ideal without a tether to reality. However much we say we develop the application for 80% of users, the reality is we know almost nothing about 99% of WordPress users. That means at best the rule is without consequence, at worst it is doing harm. The big question is how do we change our philosophy to solve this issue?

I have some thoughts, and I’d also like to hear yours. But first, a short primer:

What is the 80/20 rule, and why does it matter?

The 80/20 rule is a term you’ll hear a lot in business circles. It is called the Pareto Principle and goes as follows: “for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes” so for example “80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients.” This principle shows up everywhere. As an example Microsoft found that “fixing the top 20% of the most-reported bugs, 80% of the related errors and crashes in a given system would be eliminated.

The Pareto Principle is also sometimes used in reverse, as is the case in the WordPress Philosophy (my highlighting):

“The rule of thumb is that the core should provide features that 80% or more of end users will actually appreciate and use. If the next version of WordPress comes with a feature that the majority of users immediately want to turn off, or think they’ll never use, then we’ve blown it. If we stick to the 80% principle then this should never happen.”

This version of the 80/20 principle is a good one, both from a development and a business standpoint: Build solutions that work for 80% of the user base, and let the remaining 20% find or build extensions to meet their needs.

The Challenge

As WordPress continues to grow in popularity and user base, changes made to the application and related services like the WordPress.org website are met with tighter scrutiny and critique. Many WordPress users are expressing a feeling of disconnect between themselves and the people who build the application, and changes are often criticized for being imposed in a “top-down” fashion without taking end-users into consideration. This is what the post on which Mullenweg left his comment was about. There are many reasons for this (most of which I will not get into here), including how the 80/20 principle is used when decisions are made.  

For the 80/20 principle as described in the WordPress Philosophy to work, the design and development team must have a firm fact-based understanding of the entire user base so they can identify the needs and abilities of the 80% and build solutions for them. That in turn requires data. The problem for WordPress is that data does not exist. As a result, any decision made under the banner of the 80/20 principle is actually a decision made based on the educated guesses of the development team and their immediate circle of contributors. This is even stipulated in the WordPress Philosophy (my highlighting):

“while we consider it really important to listen and respond to those who post feedback and voice their opinions on forums, they only represent a tiny fraction of our end users. When making decisions on how to move forward with future versions of WordPress, we look to engage more of those users who are not so vocal online.”

When Mullenweg says the 80/20 principle “is seldom used as intended” I am fairly certain this is what he’s referring to. Put bluntly, we can’t say we’re building solutions for the 80% because we don’t have the data to back that claim.

The Fork in the Road

When Mullenweg suggests removing the 80/20 principle from the WordPress Philosophy page, I think he is really suggesting replacing the 80/20 principle with something more practically feasible that moves the project forward. Lacking any further details, I’ll extrapolate the two possible paths I think this move could lead us down:  a Contributor-centric approach and a User-centric approach.

Contributor-centric

If we simply remove the 80/20 principle from the philosophy page, we will effectively end up where we are right now, with a Contributor-centric approach: WordPress is designed and developed by the people who contribute to the project, and user testing is done primarily on contributors and active community participants. This is already stipulated in the WordPress Philosophy:

“We do this (engage more of those users who are not so vocal online) by meeting and talking to users at WordCamps across the globe, this gives us a better balance of understanding and ultimately allows us to make better decisions for everyone moving forward.”

This Contributor-centric approach is common in open source communities, and has its origins in how open source projects come about: A small group of contributors build a solution for the contributors and anyone else interested. Even when the actual users outnumber the contributors, this dynamic remains because it’s what made the project successful.

It is important to understand the Contributor-centric approach is not based on a “we know what’s best for the user” attitude, rather “we know the application better than anyone, and we do what’s best for the application because we want it to grow and succeed.”

The overarching principle here is one of meritocracy: decisions are made by those who show up, and those who contribute the most have the most sway when decisions are made. This stems from the reality that open source contributors typically volunteer their time and are more likely to work on things they care deeply about. Allowing them to choose their own focus, and keeping a flat/no management structure is thought to ensure they have a continued vested interest in the project. In the background of all this there is also a real concern that limiting the autonomy of contributors may lead them to move on to other less restricted projects.

The Contributor-centric approach leaves itself open to critique that it is rooted in privilege: to have influence and “show up” requires availability of free time and a fairly high level of technical expertise, neither of which we can reasonably expect or demand from the average user. When the barrier to entry, or even constructive feedback, is high (as is the case with WordPress), the only voices heard are from the experts. The Contributor-centric approach solidifies this development model, and if that’s the path we choose to take, it needs to be explicitly stated.

User-centric

If we either commit to the spirit of the 80/20 principle or replace it with a similar principle, we are adopting a User-centric approach. User-centered design is a well-established method of iterative design based on extensive user testing and data gathering. From Wikipedia:

“user-centered design tries to optimize the product around how users can, want, or need to use the product, rather than forcing the users to change their behavior to accommodate the product”

The User-centric approach is what most major software and service vendors use to develop their products. It typically involves large-scale quantitative data gathering through telemetry, surveys, and other statistical methods as well as qualitative user testing on individuals and groups. A common argument against the user-centric approach is that it’s costly and slow, but in my experience the major challenge with it is that it tends to cause cognitive dissonance in stakeholders: User research often concludes that what designers and developers think is the best solution is not what the end-user prefers. This sometimes leads back to the “we know what’s best for the user” argument which is why some development teams cycle back and forth between the two approaches.

Another common critique of the User-centric approach is that the user does not always know what they want or need, and maybe more importantly, they don’t know what’s possible. The extreme version of this argument is Steve Jobs’ famous quote “A lot of times, people don’t know what they want until you show it to them.”

The User-centric approach requires rigorous discipline and careful management to work: Research and data gathering has to be unbiased and statistically sound and significant. At the same time, too much research and data, or research and data that has little value, can cause stagnation and confusion. And to top it all off, the User-centric approach will result in contributors having to work on projects they are not passionate about or even disagree with simply because they are not building solutions for themselves but the end-users.

In many ways the User-centric approach is a walk across a tightrope: Success is only achieved with training, planning, focus, and constant corrections. For the WordPress community, this would be a whole new way of doing things requiring a radical shift in attitudes.

The Duty of Care

Before we can make a decision about where to go next, we need to consider our Duty of Care: When we add, augment, or remove a feature in a tool used by someone else, we have a duty of care to that person to ensure your actions do not negatively impact them. The Decisions, Not Options principle comes into play here. From the WordPress Philosophy:

“Every time you give a user an option, you are asking them to make a decision. When a user doesn’t care or understand the option this ultimately leads to frustration.”

On the surface, the duty of care outlined here is to protect the user from confusion and frustration. Deeper down, we find the duty of care when making a decision on behalf of the user. The reasonable expectation from a user is that the application (and by extension its designers and developers), makes decisions that are in the best interest of the user.  

Which begs maybe the most important question:

How do we, the people who build WordPress, best meet our duty of care to the people who rely on WordPress in their personal lives, their communities, and their businesses?

Where do we go from here?

Whatever decision is made, it will cause a tectonic shift in how WordPress moves forward. That’s why every voice needs to be heard.

It is no secret that I land firmly on the side of the User-centric approach. From my experience user research is an integral part of any successful project, and the larger the user-base, the more important this research gets. I agree with Mullenweg that the 80/20 principle is not working, and I believe the solution is to realign the WordPress project to a more user-centric approach. This is not a quick and easy pivot, and it will require fundamental changes to how WordPress development is done on all levels. For one, we will need to gather large volumes of data on the existing user base and implement statistically sound methods for large-scale user testing of redesigns and new features. The first step in that process is to implement telemetry for the core application, a proposal that has already been shelved by Mullenweg.

Now you know what my answer is, but I’m just one of thousands of contributors, one of tens of thousands of active community participants, one of millions of WordPress users. I want to know what you think. Everyone who uses, interacts with, or contributes to WordPress has a stake in the project, and this is a decision that needs your voice. So, speak up and share your thoughts. I am listening, and I guarantee I’m not the only one.

Cross-posted on LinkedIn Pulse.

Categories
My Opinion

Rearview Mirror: A look back at 2016

Earlier today I was asked to share with my team what accomplishments I was most proud of in 2016. Rolling back the tape and looking at everything that’s happened in this year, I realized I should do some sort of year in review / inventory to document what I’ve done and challenge myself to do better in the coming year. So, borrowing a page from fellow Lynda.com/LinkedIn Learning author and person I aspire to be more like Carrie Dils’ blog, here is my 2016 Year In Review / Inventory / Reflection:

Lynda.com / LinkedIn Learning

In addition to regular updates of WordPress Essential Training and other related courses, I developed several new courses including Foundations of UX: Content Strategy, Responsive Web Design In the Browser, CSS Grid: First Look, Web Icons with SVG, and Advanced Layouts and Filtering with Isotope.js.

For 2017 I plan on continuing this trend, releasing advanced courses on WordPress development centered around the WP REST API, and broadening my base of courses on web standards and advanced development tools and techniques.

2016 was also a year for dabbling in new publishing formats. There’s a good chance you are reading this article on LinkedIn Pulse where I’ve published a steady stream of content touching on web development and related areas, and I’ve also contributed to the LinkedIn Learning Blog at various times. You can expect to see more material from me on these platforms and on my personal blog at mor10.com in 2017.

WordPress Contribution

One of my major goals for 2016 was to become an active contributor to WordPress, and in particular WordPress core. I’ve been a “soft” contributor for some time, but rarely got any deeper than speaking at conferences, producing learning materials, and providing input to tickets and new features.

In the summer, I got a chance to speak at WordCamp Europe, a personal goal of mine since the conference was first announced, and I took the opportunity to bring the conversation about empathy and acceptance in design and communities to my own community. The talk was well received and I’d be honored if you watched it and read the accompanying article.

As for contribution, I invested my hours in contributing code and opinions to the new default theme to ship with WordPress 4.7 called “Twenty Seventeen” and some of the new features in WordPress core including Post Type Templates, reorganization of the tools in the WYSIWYG TinyMCE editor, and better discoverability of keyboard shortcuts.

In 2017 I hope to continue, and ideally increase, my level of contribution to WordPress because I believe the application and the community are important contributors to the future development of a free and open web.

Personal Things

2016 started with the best of news: In January we confirmed my wife was expecting a baby boy. This meant a drastic restructuring of our lives, and we prepared for his arrival in late September. Little did we know nature had little regard for our plans. Right at the start of August, only two weeks after our return from WordCamp Europe in Vienna, our son Leo Roar decided to make his appearance 6 weeks early. And with that, whatever structure existed went out the window. We spent a total of 4 weeks in the hospital before brining home our amazing little baby, and it was only thanks to the support of my amazing team at Lynda.com/LinkedIn Learning and the equally amazing team at the hospital NICU that the Mortangela train didn’t totally derail.

Four months later and all I can say is we owe a life’s debt to modern medicine and socialized health care. Without them we would not have the pleasure of spending every day with what in my totally objective opinion is the cutest and most amazing little child ever to be born.

On a broader note, 2016 was the year that reawakened my long slumbering political self. Watching political schisms turn to impassable chasms and the civil discourse of our modern society give way to extreme partisanship and hate fueled anger left me despondent and fearing for the future. Once upon a time, I was an aspiring politician, but in a moment of deep self reflection I realized my energy was better spent outside parliamentary board rooms. For the next several years I willingly excluded myself from the political process, but now I realize that was suppressing a vital part of my being. So, in 2017 I will get involved once more, though in a much different manner than before.

Does this mean I’ll join a political party or become a partisan? No. That will not help anyone. Moving forward I’ll use my experience in politics and web technologies in whatever way I can to help heal the divide and encourage more healthy discussions about politics and our society. What exactly that looks like I am not entirely clear on yet, but as one who evangelizes the powers and potential of the web, I must also be one who helps make it better and moves our society forward using this amazing technology. More to come on that front as our journey around the sun commences once more.

Final thoughts at the end of the year

We are at an amazing time in history. Information is available at our fingertips in a way and with an ease unlike anything we ever dared dream. With that comes great responsibility. I truly believe we are straddling a 10 year demarcation line in history – separating the time before the connected self to the time after. What we see on the web, the internet, and in the world today are the beginnings of a new society shaped first and foremost by our ability to connect to anyone, anywhere, at any time. This is an ability our species and our society was never built to handle, and much of the turmoil we see both online and off is a direct result of our infantile first steps in this new world mostly unexplored. As we cross fully into this new reality, we must take stock of ourselves and ask some important questions, questions well deserving of a late night conversation at the end of the year:

  • What impact does language, location, and culture have on individuals and our global connected culture?
  • Who are we building technologies for, and how do we know what they need?
  • How do we measure value in a world where content distribution is free and every person with a digital soap box can reach anyone on the globe in a matter of seconds?
  • How do we use our newfound connectedness to move the whole world forward?

Thank you for reading, for watching, for engaging, and for being you. Happy end of 2016, and I look forward to working with you to build amazing things that make the world a better place for all in 2017.

Ærbødigst,
Morten

This post is also available on LinkedIn Pulse.

Categories
My Opinion

On Freedom and Speech

Three events spurred on the final publication of this post, which has lived as various drafts on my blog for the better part of two years: This week, Sarah Palin accused American politicians of wearing (…) political correctness kind of like a suicide vest,” a group including Facebook launched theOnline Civil Courage Initiative, aimed at curbing online hate speech, and a proposal for a Code of Conduct for the PHP community was withdrawn after a flood of online rage.

I am not going to discuss Palin, Facebook, or the PHP community. Instead I’ll share some of my thoughts on Freedom of Speech, Hate Speech, and the idea of speech as an act. It should be pointed out that I come at this from the perspective of a philosopher, not a constitutional scholar or one of international law.

I invite you to take part in this conversation. Keep it civil and on topic.

The Right to Speak

At an event late last year, I took part in a lively discussion among friends about Codes of Conduct and how to enforce them. One of the participants brought up a common argument: “I will always defend your right to offend me.” This is a variant of the standard argument against any type of moderation, control, or censorship of speech, and it stems from a fundamental belief that Freedom of Speech is an absolute freedom:

Freedom of Speech means you can say whatever you want without fear of repercussions.

This belief stems from the core idea that every person has the right to hold their own beliefs and express those beliefs. Thus follows the conclusion that any attempt at moderating, controlling, or censoring speech is in fact an attempt at moderating, controlling, or censoring opinion.

We find clear-text versions of these ideals in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Various countries also have their own, more specific, versions of these rights that grant further rights and freedoms.

Reading these definitions, in particular Article 19, it is easy to think that we do have the right to say whatever we want. And we do. However, that right neither trumps nor infringes upon other rights in the declaration. This, I think, is where the confusion arises and much of the current debate is stuck.

The Right to Safety

Articles 3,  5, 12, and 29(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are of import here:

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 29. 
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

What these rights lay out is a framework under which all humans are granted equal rights to protection; from challenges to their security; from mistreatment; from interference; and under which each human is responsible for protecting and upholding the rights of others.

There is an apparent juxtaposition here, between the rights to believe and say whatever you want, and the rights of the audience to be protected from acts that interfere with their security, which may result in mistreatment, etc.

I say “apparent,” because there is no conflict here. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a singular declaration, not a combination of individual articles. The right to expression is there as long as that expression does not interfere with any of the other rights granted the audience. Freedom of Speech is not the primary right; it is part of a larger whole that in totality provides us all with freedom.

Political Correctness

This is where critics moor their concerns over the “Tyranny of Political Correctness”. An example of this argument would be something like “I’m not able to say what I think because you use your claim of being oppressed by my speech as a tool to silence my valid opinions.”

In my view, this is a severe and deliberate misinterpretation of the idea of rights and protections. It malforms a specific set of rules set out to protect humans from direct infringements on their rights to safety and protection, and portrays it as an arbitrary tool used to infringe on the freedoms of expression of others.

When we talk about harmful speech, we are not typically referring to general expressions of opinion. Harmful speech is highly contextual, and occurs when a speech act is directed towards the recipient and the recipient’s status is changed because their rights are infringed upon.

Take the following situation:

During the recording of a reality TV show, a host, reveling in the excellence of a dance performance by an amateur, exclaims: “Shut up! I’ll stab you in the eye!”

In the context of the conversation, there is no perceived threat, and although the statement is somewhat odd, it is not an infringement on the rights of the recipient to life, liberty, and the security of person. In fact, in the context this statement can be interpreted as a strong and sincere compliment.

Now change the situation:

An unknown person sends a message to a person over social media stating “Shut up! I’ll stab you in the eye!”

In this context, the recipient has no way of knowing whether this is a random statement, a poor attempt at a joke, or a genuine threat of violence. In this case, one could argue that the recipient’s rights to life, liberty, and the security of person have been infringed upon because their status has changed. In the conversation, they are no longer a participant, but a possible target of future violence.

Free speech supporters will immediately stop here and say “The recipient can’t assume they are under threat here. Words are just words.” I disagree.

If a call is made to a public building with a statement suggesting a bomb or other violent attack, that statement will be taken at face value and precautions will be put in place. Whether or not the statement reflects a genuine intent to commit a violent act is irrelevant. The status of the people in the building in question has changed from people going about their business to possible targets of future violence. And the person calling in the statement will be under scrutiny and quite possibly prosecuted and convicted of uttering a threat.

In this circumstance, words are not just words. They are actions. And there is no substantive difference between this threat and one against a single person, issued over social media.

Speech Acts

To me, this all boils down to speech acts and their consequences. When we say or write words, we are not merely stringing syllables or letters together to form coherent meaningful sentences. We are enacting change on the world. When Romeo professes his love for Juliet, his words are not merely sounds, they are a tool used to project his feelings onto Juliet with the intent of changing her status from conversational partner or friend to romantic partner, and this can only happen if his words actively change the way she sees herself. This is an act in every sense of the word, as much as a promise, a commitment, a judgement, a command, is an act.

When we talk about speech and oppression, it is easy to fall into the “words are just words” trap because on the face of it, words seem harmless and can always be excused. In the end, only the speaker knows the true intent of their words, and any interpretation can be called a misinterpretation. This is a problem, but it is not an unsolvable one.

Where Is The Line?

When we look at situations in which a person claims words have infringed on their rights, we should start by looking at the speech act and its consequences. One way to do this is to ask questions:

  1. What was said?
  2. What was heard?
  3. What was the reaction of the recipient?
  4. What is the relationship between the speaker and the recipient?
  5. What was the context in which the utterance occurred?
  6. Can we objectively conclude that the recipient would be able to understand the intent of the speaker?
  7. Was the status of the recipient changed in a negative or significant way due to the utterance?

The purpose of these questions is to unpack the situation and investigate both what happened  (the saying / writing of the words), and what the consequences were (how did this change the status, or perceived status, of the recipient). A major part of this process is the acceptance of the recipient’s reaction and immediate response to ensure the person feels heard and respected, regardless of the eventual outcome. Likewise, the process must treat the speaker fairly and leave room for the reality that many conflicts are caused by misunderstandings or misinterpretations. It is important to defuse and de-escalate the situation to ensure any harm done is limited to the interaction in question and does not have secondary effects.

In the process of evaluating the situation, impartiality and objectivity are paramount qualities: Is the status change of the recipient objectively recognized, meaning if someone else in the same context and with the same relationship to the speaker was subjected to the same utterance, would their status change in the same way?

This last part is the most complex component, because it appears to be a challenge of empathy while in reality being a challenge of acceptance: When judging the consequences of a speech act, we cannot simply “put ourselves in the recipient’s shoes” because every person is unique, and we know little about their previous experiences and cannot see the world from their point of view. Instead we have to accept their disclosure as genuine, investigate what led to this reaction, and effort to generalize these prior experiences enough that we can make an impartial objective judgement.

For this to work, cool heads and a focus on de-escalation are paramount. As empathic creatures, we are programmed to react immediately and strongly to these types of situations, and we tend to make snap judgements based on our own personal experiences. To judge a situation objectively, we have to step outside ourselves and look at the situation from the outside, consulting with others in similar situations, and making every effort to map out how the group the recipient belongs to would react given a similar set of circumstances.

This in turn is a process with serious flaws. Objectors will argue that groups with specific agendas can hijack such processes to impose unjustifiable limitations on other groups. While this is true, it is also hard to pull off without everyone around seeing what is going on.

Take the example of harassment of women online through social media: An objective study of statements directed toward women online, which include threats of violence, sexual harassment, the publishing of personal information online, ongoing harassment of individuals, their friends, and their families, etc, will conclude these are direct violations of these women’s rights, including their rights to life, liberty, and the security of person. In spite of arguments from the speakers that it is their right to Freedom of Speech that is being infringed upon and that so-called “Social Justice Warriors” are conspiring against them, there is no question that the acts listed above are beyond the protections of “freedom of opinion”. These statements are not “just words”, they are deliberate acts with a deliberate desired consequence in mind: To change the status of the recipient from that of conversational partner to that of person in fear of their life and safety.

Freedom of Civilized Speech

Let me return to the statement from my friend:

“I will always defend your right to offend me.”

At this point I hope I’ve been able to explain why this statement is neither a challenge to the adoption of Codes of Conduct nor a necessary protection of Freedom of Speech. When we talk about moderating speech or eliminating hate speech online, we are not creating a proverbial “slippery slope” that will lead to outright censorship. We are codifying a framework under which a civil discourse can take place without participants having to fear attacks from others. I would argue Codes of Conduct are introduced to push us back up the slippery slope that brought us to a point where personal insults and threats of violence are considered an acceptable part of public discourse.

Most arguments against Codes of Conduct fly under the umbrella of protection of freedom of speech, but are in reality arguments stating that verbal attacks on discussion partners are not just expected, but required for a discourse to take place. Any attempt at keeping the conversation civil is thus branded as oppression and censorship in the name of “Political Correctness.” This is patently false. You do have the right to your own opinions, and you do have the right to voice those opinions in any way you want. You do not have the right to use attacks on other people or groups as a tool to silence them or put their opinions in a bad light. You do not have the right to infringe on other people’s right to partake in the discussion on an equal footing. You have a responsibility to ensure your speech does not turn into acts that change the status of your conversational partners, especially if that status change results in a removal of their rights.

If you have an argument you want to put forward, it has to be on topic, not an attack on another person or group of people. Discussions of matters of importance should be conducted in a civilized way that ensures every view is heard and the conversation is focussed on substance, not the subjects taking part.

Codes of Conduct are in place to protect everyone’s rights: They ensure a space in which a civil discourse can take place without anyone resorting to personal attacks and creating an environment that becomes inaccessible or actively hostile to participants or groups. Codes of Conduct ensure open spaces for freedom of expression.

Categories
My Opinion

On Faith In Humanity

“How do we know they are not terrorists?” the woman at the gym asked. We were discussing an acquaintance wanting to open her basement suite to a family of Syrian refugees. “We know they are not,” I answered as a man sitting nearby shook his head. “They are not terrorists; they are running away from terror,” I clarified. “People are not terrorists.”

I wonder how she feels today. I wonder if, come Monday when I meet her again, she will walk up to me and say “See? We can’t know if they are terrorists. Look what happened in Paris!” Or she might sit there making small talk while thinking the same thoughts: “We can’t trust them. They might be terrorists.”

Here’s the thing: We can’t know whether someone who comes to our country is a terrorist or not, just like we can’t know if our neighbor who has lived in the same house all their life, is a terrorist. It is quite possible that among the millions of men, women, and children fleeing from war, terror, and oppression in Syria and Iraq, there are terrorists. It is equally possible that among those same desperate people, we will find the person who cures breast cancer, invents the next iPhone, or finds a solution to the pervasive conflicts in the Middle East. And while it is possible that among these millions of refugees, there may be a few with bad intentions, we cannot turn them all away. Modern society is built on tolerance. It is what we teach our children. We don’t judge an entire group based on the actions of a few individuals.

How do we know they are not terrorists, whomever “they” are in our minds? We take it on statistics and on faith in human decency. For every terrorist, there are millions of people who abhor terror and want nothing more than for terror to disappear from their lives. And every person we welcome into our lives and treat like a human being is a person that will stand up to terror and let compassion and love for all humans lead the way.

To the woman at the gym I want to say this: “Rather than ask yourself how you know they are not terrorists, ask yourself how you know they are not the people who will stop the terrorists.”

Photo: Heart shaped lock on Pont des Arts in Paris by the author. Original on Flickr.

Categories
My Opinion

One of Us: The Book You Need To Read

One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in NorwayNever before have I had such a visceral sensation of my faith in humanity draining from my body as it did about three quarters of the way through Åsne Seierstad’s One of Us: The Story of Anders Breivik and the Massacre in Norway. The previous day I watched my better half deep in our couch, her face covered in tears, forcing herself through the same section of the book that more than any other has changed me. In a section of the book covering over 100 pages, Seierstad recounts minute-by-minute in gruesome detail, the worst act of terrorism enacted on Norwegian soil since World War II. This attack left 77 people dead, most of them youth shot point-blank by a white right-wing terrorist. The story, of a confused man on a mission of terror, of young people cut down with bullets for believing in a fair and just world, and of a thousand things going wrong at the same time with the worst possible outcome, is equal parts terrifying and enraging. And out of the fear, anger, and sadness caused by reading it is a powerful sense of purpose in community: We must never let this happen again.

More than a document of terror, One of Us is a reflection of us: the society we’ve built, how we see and treat our fellow human beings, and how hatred and alienation, left unchecked, can lead people to do unspeakable things. One of Us is the story nobody wants to hear that everyone needs to be told.

Terror, by any other name…

In the years since that fateful day in 2011, I’ve resigned to the reality that outside Norway and Europe, these terror attacks and its perpetrator will be forever referred to as the “Oslo bombing” and “Utøya shootings,” perpetrated by a “mass shooter” or “lone gunman.” The terrorist ABB (whose name I will not dignify by using) does not fit the current understanding of the word “terrorist,” at least not in the eyes of North Americans. He is an “ethnic Norwegian” with blue eyes, blonde hair, and pink skin. A christian with right-wing conservative political views, he was the very essence of all that is considered “not a terrorist.” Except he built a bomb, blew up the government quarters, and shot 100 people, most of them several times, at close range, while dressed as a police officer, to start a war and protect Europe from a “Muslim invasion”. Had he been of any other ethnicity, any other faith, or hailed from any other nationality, “terrorist” would be the first word out of everyone’s mouth.

And it was, on the 22nd of July, 2011 when news first broke. I was at home in Vancouver, Canada, about to go to the gym, when my phone started pinging with updates from Norway about an explosion. Several of my friends worked in the government quarter and I spent the next hour trying to get a hold of them when Tweets started appearing from Utøya about shots being fired. At that time, all the major news networks were speculating about Al Quaeda’s involvement, but when it became clear that people were being killed on Utøya, it was equally clear that this was not Al Quaeda.

I spent the following hours on Twitter explaining to anyone who would listen that this must be a right-wing extremist group – that Utøya is a sanctuary for the Norwegian Labor Party’s youth movement. I was shouted down by countless Tweets who were later deleted, told I “knew nothing” about Norway, that terrorism is always perpetrated by Muslims, that this was “inevitable” and “fitting” because of Norway’s “naive” attitude toward Palestine and the Muslim world. When news broke hours later that the perpetrator was indeed a white ethnic Norwegian, the word used in the media changed from “terrorist” to “lone gunman” and everyone began grasping at familiar straws, about mental illness, coercion, sudden psychosis. The cognitive dissonance of being confronted with one of “us” being a terrorist was simply too strong. Meanwhile, in Norway the perpetrator was charged with terrorism and eventually convicted.

The Story of Us

When I finished the book I turned to Angela and said “I’m not sure it was a good idea to read this. I kind of regret it.” She had finished a few days earlier and responded “I think it’s made me a better person.” A few days later, I knew what she was talking about.

Coming out of the haze left by the intensity and brutal reality of what I had read, I felt my thoughts realigning. In a subtle way, it had guided my confused and frustrated thoughts about this event into a clearer understanding of not only what happened, but why, and to whom.

You see, One of Us is not only a book about the terrorist and his actions. It’s a book about the people he attacked, about the lives of those he affected, about the society he grew up in, about multiculturalism, hope, fear, loneliness, togetherness, love, and hate. Seierstad has done meticulous work piecing together the story of ABB from birth, through his radicalization, the attacks, the trial, and his current existence as a prisoner of the state with no hope of freedom. But she spends just as much time telling the stories of some of his victims, their rise through the political youth organization, their hopes and dreams, their tumultuous journey through the teenage years, and in one case, the all too common experience of being a refugee trying to fit in with a new culture.

Reading their stories, you become close to the people. They cease being abstractions tied to headlines from a country far away, turning instead into human beings. It is said we should not speak of the people who commit heinous acts of violence and terrorism but instead of their victims. Seierstad rides this line masterfully, and does so with sensitivity and care. They are not merely characters in a larger story. They are real people, with real lives, and they are just like you and me.

Perspective and acceptance

The book sparked many long discussions about the event. “What is so alarming to think about” Angela said, “is that this guy is the same age as you, from the same place. And had you not moved to Canada, you might have been there, right in the middle of everything.” This is true, and it makes it all the more real for us.

I spent much of my youth in and around Oslo, I walked through the government quarters on a regular basis, and aspired to work there some day just like several of my friends do today. I visited Utøya several times, I know people who went to school with the terrorist, one of the lead characters in the book lived a few kilometers from my parents house and went to my high school. Earlier this year, Angela and I visited the government quarter, where 5 years later the devastation from the bomb is still clearly visible.
This is where the challenge lies, for Seierstad and the book. To an international, and especially a North American audience, Norway is a mythical place of oil, socialism, lutefisk, and polar bears. It’s a weird place nobody visits and few can pin on a map without help, which only shows up in the media when something extraordinary happens. Norway and its culture is so foreign to North Americans that many passages in the book will seem absurd or otherworldly. Like the fact that the terrorist was offered a cup of coffee only minutes after being arrested. Or that police are not armed. Or that his mother was interviewed and released in short order. Or that he now serves a life sentence of 21 years in prison (to be extended indefinitely). To me, this all makes sense, but without the context of being Norwegian, or even European, I wonder if readers will find this too difficult to identify with and too hard to accept.

When I was first introduced to the book, it was through a similar feeling of bewilderment, described by a professor at the University of Oslo and friend of my brother. “It is ununfathomable,” he said, “just how badly prepared we were for this. Like the story of the boat. My Lord, the boat. What incompetence!”

In the aftermath of the attacks, questions were asked about why the police took so long to respond to the event, and why even after arriving at the shores of the lake that surrounds the island, it took an eternity for the police to apprehend the terrorist. This has become one of the centerpieces of Seierstad’s account, and it is the reason for the tears of frustration and incredulity felt by most readers. This is also the only place in the book where Seierstad’s otherwise expertly objective perspective falters and you see glimpses of her personal feelings. Like everyone else, she is incredulous, furious even. Because Norway was unprepared for this, and the police response (or lack thereof) played a large part in increasing the numbers of victims. As you read it, know that those questions you ask yourself, of how reports of an armed man walking away from a bomb and shootings at a summer camp can be ignored by 911 dispatchers, were and are asked by us all. And know that things have changed. But be equally aware that one reason the response took so long was the fact that this terrorist did not fit the expectation. Norway was unprepared for terror, but it was especially unprepared for terror from within.

So, before you pick up the book (and you should), prepare yourself. Norway is a small country with a far more relaxed attitude toward threats, real or imagined. It is perfectly normal for children to walk to school by themselves in the 1st grade, go on trips unsupervised by adults, and join political organizations that end up taking them away from school before they are 18. Education, even post-secondary education, in Norway is state funded and provided to everyone, and very few students drop out of high school. The politicians in Norway are just regular people with regular jobs. You see them walking on the street, going to movies, even shopping at the local store. Violent crime is exceptionally rare, and the criminal justice system is based on rehabilitation and restitution rather than punishment. It is a nation of builders and cooperators: Norwegians are trained to have “Dugnadsånd” or “dugnads spirit” (‘dugnad’ being an untranslatable word that means something like “coming together to do work for the betterment of the community without renumeration or reward”), and are a welcoming people who strive to see the best in everyone. But even in this seemingly idyllic utopia, there are strong undertones of discontent. One of the more popular political parties has been running on a platform of fear and hatred toward “foreigners” and stokes the fires of cultural purity and anti-islamism whenever they have the chance. And many Norwegians feel the government is too much of a nanny state and takes too much of their money.

Like all countries, Norway is complicated. But it is real, and to truly understand this book, you have to accept that life there in the northern part of Europe is fundamentally different from North America.

Once you’ve read the book, you should go on the web and look up some of the central characters. You’ll discover photos and videos of many of the victims and see what Utøya and the surrounding area is like. There is even video of the island only hours before the attack when former prime minister Gro Harlem Brundtland held a speech about multiculturalism, women’s rights, and the welfare state – all the things the terrorist wanted to destroy. Seeing the photos and watching the videos will make it all more real. Just be warned, there are many photos you’ll find on the web that you’ll wish you never saw.

What we can learn

Like I said earlier, more than anything else, this book is about us, the people who share this earth today. It’s about how our lives intertwine, how our society evolves, how walls and borders are broken down and rebuilt, and how our society is working to redefine itself in an ever more globalized world.

In a subtle but important way, it is also the story of the internet. And this is where I want to end this article. Seierstad makes a valiant effort to explain why the terrorist did what he did, but in the end only he will know. Though he is not clinically insane, his world view is so fundamentally distorted that it is hard for anyone who does not share his particular understanding of the world to comprehend his actions as anything other than insanity. Yet while reading this well documented account, it becomes impossible to ignore the reality that this was a premeditated act of political terrorism, planned and executed to enact lasting change in the structures of our society. He was not crazy. We need to dig further.

As someone who works on and with the web on a daily basis, it is this part of the story I find most chilling. ABB was self-radicalized on the internet. Through blogs, message boards, chats, and other tools, he slowly sank into one of the many echo chambers of hatred and extremism that thrive just below the surface of our common information source. After the attacks, I spent some time researching his sources and realized that while ABB may be the only person so far to have moved from ideas to violent actions, there are thousands, maybe millions of people on the web who agree with him. I like to say that the web is a veneer of amazing ideas covering an endless abyss of the worst of human nature. Follow ABB down the rabbit hole and you’ll realize the biggest threat to modern society is not religious fundamentalists from far away lands, but right-wing anti-government extremists from your own neighborhood. And unlike the “foreign threats” the news media falls over themselves talking about all day long, few talk of the seething hatred that is reaching a boiling point right in our midst – against feminists, against muslims, against atheists and socialists and women and trans people and gays and aboriginals and anyone who is not “just like us”. The biggest threat we face today is complacency about the hatred online. And the worst terror attack on western soil since 9/11 was committed by one of us.

Categories
Events My Opinion

Why Codes of Conduct Matter

“We have a few things we need to take care of first, and then we’re going to dive right into our presentations.”

It is 9:55am on a Wednesday morning, and Steve Fisher is midway through his opening remarks for the inaugural Design and Content Conference. On the screen behind him, a picture of a red t-shirt with the word “STAFF” printed in large white caps and an emergency phone number is prominently displayed.

“A big deal here is safety. We want you all to feel safe and included in this. We have a code of conduct that everybody that’s here had to agree to to attend. In case you didn’t read that, you should probably go to the website and read it at some point, but if I could sum it up, it’s that we all need to take care of each other; we need to feel safe. Inclusion is important. So regardless of age, race, gender, anything, everyone should feel welcome. Just as a way of us agreeing to that, could we give another round of applause?”

The applause is loud and heartfelt. There are cheers. From the back of the room I see heads nodding, people turning to each other in conversation.

Categories
My Opinion WordPress

On Trust and Opacity

Yesterday Tom McFarlin published an important article titled The WordPress Community (A Comedy of Drama, Ego, Oligarchies, and More). If you work with WordPress or the WordPress community, it is mandatory reading and worth some serious reflection. Tom shines a light on some of the darker parts of flat-structure communities and asks poignant questions about communication, language, and leadership among other things. There is a lot to latch onto here and I have no doubt there are many articles being written in response as I type this out.

Here I want to focus in on a small part of this conversation and contribute my own perspective on something I think lies at the heart of much of the conflict Tom addresses: Trust and Opacity.

The Customizer and the Pyre

In WordPress, like any grassroots political organization, the level of conflict and partisan strife increases with its size and power. WordPress is now so big and powerful that I’m surprised we’re not starting to see breakout groups and organized factions trying to exert their will on the overall project. This is likely due to the spirit of Open Source, and we should count ourselves lucky that it has not happened. Yet.

However, there are clear signs of fracture within the community, exemplified by the furious anger directed toward the Customizer and the team that works on it.

Long story short, the Customizer (which moves many of the theme customizing features into a preview panel for direct experimentation and application) has always been controversial because it does not fit every use case. For the release of WordPress 4.3, the Customizer will be extended to include the Menu Editor (and here it’s important to note that the original Menu Editor view will remain in the admin panel). This inclusion has caused a vocal and often aggressive response that at times devolves into personal attacks on named contributors in the project.

There are people in the WordPress community who hate the Customizer with a passion, and they want to have it their way: Burn the Customizer. With Fire.

The common argument can be paraphrased thus:

“I/my clients don’t use the Customizer. Its inclusion goes against what I/my clients need and therefore has no place in WordPress.”

When work continues unabated in spite of this opposition, the objectors feel like their concerns are being ignored by whomever is calling the shots, they get angry, and sometimes lash out. This is neither new nor surprising. But it is disappointing, especially when it devolves to personal attacks, or even worse, sexist remarks and verbal assaults. These things do not a healthy community make.

On Trust

Underlying the vitriolic assaults on the Customizer lies a lack of trust; in contributors; in leadership; in the community. To many, even those involved in WordPress contribution, it can appear as if there is a hidden “inner circle” of leadership in the community – a WordPress Illuminati if you will – that calls the shots. And to some, that imagined group may appear to be running an agenda that goes counter to their interests:

“I don’t use the Customizer. Its inclusion goes against what I need and therefore has no place in WordPress. Even so, someone has decided it must be there in spite of my objections. Clearly there is an imbalance of power here. My voice does not seem to matter.”

What we have here is a classic case of mistrust. When questions are asked about the expansion of the customizer, the answers are forthcoming (again, paraphrasing here):

  • User testing and research shows that the Customizer is better understood by the average user.
  • The Customizer provides a better user experience.
  • Users appreciate the ability to see their changes in real time in the real site before publishing it live.
  • Users often voice frustrations when having to switch back and forth between back- and front-end and experiment with things like menu ordering on their live site.
  • Etc.

The response to such statements are questions like “Who are these users?” or “Who did these tests?” or “That doesn’t fit with my experience.” or “I don’t care. It is not what my clients want.”

Again, this is about trust. When presented with valid (if unsubstantiated) reasons, many opposed to the idea of the Customizer (or any other controversial feature, like auto-updates of plugins) have trouble trusting those that who make the decisions.

“Who are these people, and who gave them the power to decide what’s best for me and my clients?”

This is a problem, and it is one that every grassroots political organization has to face at some point. People want their way. And when they don’t get their way, even if they are in a minority position, they will fight tooth and nail to impose their will on the rest of the organization. Sometimes that is a good thing. Most of the time it is a problem.

On Opacity

Much of this distrust stems from the relative opacity of meritocracies. On the face of it, meritocracies are as open and transparent as is possible, but in reality they are only open and transparent if you are actually taking part and observing the day-to-day goings on.

I spend most of my time working with and researching WordPress, and even I can’t speak with much authority about how a release lead is picked or who the next core contributor will be. I can make an educated guess: Release leads are picked from core contributors based on skill, availability, and willingness to take on the responsibility. Core contributors are promoted based on the quality of their previous contributions. In other words, a meritocracy.

But who picks the Release lead? And who promotes core contributors? That is a question left unanswered, and I think this is where the idea of this mythical “leadership group” stems from.

Like a cascading waterfall, the transparency of meritocracies is made opaque by the volume and force of information that runs through it.

From the outside it appears there is a group that is in charge of WordPress. It is not listed anywhere, it is not elected, it is not given a mandate, it just is. And when a controversial decision is made (like adding the Menu editor into the Customizer), it is easy to imagine a group of evil faced conspirational dictators sitting around a table discussing how to screw the community over by moving everything into the Customizer.

Which is total nonsense.

I know some of these people, and some better than others. I’ve observed their work, observed their interactions with the community, observed their dedication to the project and their relentless pursuit of making WordPress better for all who use it. What I’ve found is that the people who sit atop of our meritocratic pyramid are humble, dedicated, and fiercely passionate about what they do. They also think far ahead – as in far ahead – to what is coming down the pipe in the next several years. They have my trust because I see my thoughts about WordPress and its future in theirs. But that’s just me. I can also see how someone who disagrees with them would feel like their project was being run by a dispassionate group of dictators who hand down decrees like the emperors of times past.

Trust and Transparency – Leadership and Vision

I mentioned grassroots political organizations earlier, and I firmly believe that WordPress is a grassroots political organization in all but name. But that’s not the topic of my current argument.

Regardless of how you define it, the WordPress community can learn a lot from grassroots political organizations. Like I said, the problems we are facing are not unique, and they have been solved before.

Our problems with trust and opacity are both symptoms of the very essence of what makes WordPress (and Open Source) great: Flat-structure meritocracies. At some undefined point, the machine grows so large that it becomes hard for anyone to see what is going on unless they dedicate all their time to this pursuit. As a result, those who find themselves in lower levels of the meritocratic pyramid start feeling disenfranchised and ignored by those higher up and they eventually start rocking the structure and consider moving their blocks elsewhere.

The way this is solved in grassroots political organizations is through the introduction of clear leadership structures and a clearly defined vision and path forwards. This is a colossal project that causes conflict and controversy, but the result is always the same: A structured democratic system that actually works.

Can this be done in an Open Source project like WordPress? Impossible to say; it has never been tried on anything this scale. Is it a good idea to try? I’m not sure.

What I do know is if we pretend everything is OK and brush the problems under the carpet, conflicts will fester and grow until they cause a major split.

So what do we do? I have two preliminary suggestions:

  1. Make the leadership of the WordPress project public record. The immediate response to this suggestion will be “but there is no leadership”. Seriously. That is not true and we all know it. Meritocratic leadership is still leadership. By explicitly listing the current Release Lead, core contributors, and most importantly other people with decision making power, people can clearly see who is in charge and where to direct questions.
  2. Create a public long-term vision for WordPress. This one is going to be a real challenge. The vision of WordPress currently is too vague and haphazard. There is a lot of ground to cover between “democratize publishing” and “80/20 rule”. Is WordPress primarily for the average user or for enterprise? What is the goal of WordPress once we reach 25% market share? Who should drive the bus? Where do we go from here? Should WordPress be a leader in web standards and accessibility? Should we get involved in the W3C? A community of our size needs direction. Otherwise everyone will go their own way and people will be left flailing or feeling like they are not being heard.

These are my thoughts. Take them at face value from someone who has experience working with grassroots and political organizations. There are solutions here. They may not be mine, they may not be yours, but if we work together we can find them, and our community will be better for them. The only thing we can’t do is pretend everything is OK and tighten down our blinders.

Epilogue: The Customizer is a Good Thing. Accept it and Move On!

For completeness, I should voice my opinion on the Customizer controversy:

The arguments for the permanent inclusion of the Customizer are, from my experience, valid and in line with the independent research I’ve done on the matter. The average WordPress user benefits greatly from the ability to preview their theme changes before taking them live. The inclusion of the Menu Editor in the Customizer will be a massive improvement to the WordPress User Experience and will take frustration away from millions of users. 

Yes, there are edge cases (typically large business and enterprise installations) where the Customizer is not ideal, but because WordPress is Free Open Source Software, an enterprise site is worth no more than a blog nobody ever visits to the project itself. All sites are created equal. So even though the need of an enterprise site to not have the Customizer seems to carry more weight than the need for millions of bloggers to have it, in reality it is the bloggers that matter. WordPress is powerful because of the millions of people who use it to throw their thoughts, feelings, hopes, and desires onto the web with abandon. The big business that chooses WordPress to back their online publications is the exception that proves the rule.

Categories
My Opinion WordCamp

It is time to rename the “Happiness Bar”

tldr: The “Happiness Bar” needs a new name. I’ll start the brain storming here:

  • Help Desk
  • Help Bar
  • Admin Bar
  • WordPress Help
  • Q&A Desk
  • Support Desk
  • Support Bar
  • Service Bar
  • Oracle Bar

I’ve been a volunteer at the Happiness Bar of close to 10 WordCamps in the last 5 years. The experience of interacting with and helping others working with WordPress has been educational, entertaining, and often enlightening. There is no better place to see first hand the incredible diversity of our community and to experience WordPress through the eyes of other users.

Even so the Number One takeaway from my Happiness Bar stints is this:

“Happiness Bar” is a name nobody understands.

Unless you have volunteered to stand behind the desk at a Happiness Bar in the past or you are a WordCamp organizer there is little chance you know what a “Happiness Bar” is, so let me introduce you to the concept:

The Happiness Bar is a desk at a WordCamp (or other WordPress-centric conference or event) staffed by volunteer WordPress experts where you can ask questions and get help with WordPress. The name “Happiness Bar” probably comes from the thought that getting help and finding solutions to your problems will make you happy.

The problem, which is pretty obvious, is that the name “Happiness Bar” says nothing about what is being provided.

The most important task of giving a service a name is to ensure the name communicates what the service does to the uninitiated. And while a help desk may induce happiness, that is not the function of the help desk. The help desk is there to provide help. The name “Happiness Bar” is more befitting a bar where they hand out cotton candy, hugs, or free jokes.

Talking to WordCamp attendees and asking them what the “Happiness Bar” is I’ve gotten every answer but the correct one:

“Is it where they hand out swag?”
“It’s a place where they give you life advice?”
“It’s a desk where they have life/business/happiness coaches?”
“You go there to get a massage?”
“Do they give away candy?”

When I co-organized WordCamp Vancouver I refused to have a Happiness Bar because I already knew the name was misleading and nobody would use the service. Nobody even noticed. Having staffed Happiness Bars in different cities before and since just validated my suspicions: Calling the Help Desk the “Happiness Bar” is a surefire way of confusing the audience enough that those who could actually use the help won’t ever find it.

I think historically the name makes a bit of sense, but that is irrelevant. The use of the name today is an anachronism at best and self-defeating at worst. What is meant to be cute, fun, and non-conventional, is in reality confusing, non-explanatory, and misleading. When WordCamp attendees are looking for help and can’t find it even when they are standing directly in front of a huge sign saying “Happiness Bar!” any marketer would tell you there is something off about the branding. That happens. All the time. At Every. Single. WordCamp. Old-timers like me know what the “Happiness Bar” is. The rest of the attendees think it’s a place where they hand out swag. Or candy. Or massages. Or some unknown substance that provides happiness.

I think we should have a Happiness  Bar that hands out swag, candy, massages, and free hugs. But if we are going to continue offering WordPress help at WordCamps we need to give the help desk a befitting name. My vote is “Admin Bar”, but that’s just me.

Categories
My Opinion

My Connected Device is Listening

My Android phones have been listening to me for years. I have no doubt about this. When I started talking about something absurd late last year – “can you use hand lotion to condition a leather chair” – and then decided to look it up on my phone, the first suggestion google makes upon entering “Can you use” was “Can you use hand lotion to condition leather products”. And that’s just one example.

People call me paranoid for saying this, but I’m not. I just understand (or at least pretend I understand) what’s going on inside our connected devices.

Speech Recognition in the Cloud

If you have an Android phone with the Google+ Launcher applied, try this: Turn it on and just say “OK, Google”. This automatically opens the voice to text search box where you can talk to the device and get it to do things like a search or send an email or whatever. I’m sure the Fruit Company phone can do the same thing. And the one from Macrohard. It’s amazingly unamazing in a world where rapid technological advancement has made us jaded.

What’s actually happening here is really quite amazing: The phone is constantly listening for specific voice queues, and when they are triggered it starts doing stuff. It gets even more impressive when you start dictating. You can actually see the phone guessing and correcting itself in real time as it does to make sure it gets everything exactly right. And watching this happen it’s clear there is a lot of contextual semantic processing going on out there in the cloud.

What we have here is the dream of speech recognition come true in the cloud. And now that we have it people are (and should be?) terrified.

Your Samsung TV is Eavesdropping on Your Private Conversations

Earlier this week the tech media and everyone else suddenly got very interested in connected devices and their listening capabilities. In the Terms of Service for Samsung’s Smart TVs a line was discovered that said:

Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party

The reporting was quickly followed by a statement from Samsung saying:

If a consumer consents and uses the voice recognition feature, voice data is provided to a third party during a requested voice command search. At that time, the voice data is sent to a server, which searches for the requested content then returns the desired content to the TV

George Orwell fans with better memories than me immediately caught on to the striking similarities from the book 1984:

And the world burned for days.

The Clash of Dreams and Reality

What we have here is a clash of dreams and reality. In our dreams we want to be able to talk to our devices and have them do our bidding. In Star Trek they had the Universal Translator. You can now get much the same feature by downloading the Google Translate app on your smartphone. Try it. It’s absolutely mind blowing. But for this technology to work we can’t just rely on our phones or computers or TVs. Language is complex and can’t be simplified to algorithms that can run on our local devices. For this technology to work we need the Cloud. And that means literally recording and sending your conversations over the web to a server that then parses the data, gleans the meaning of it, and acts according to your instructions.

In short, when you talk to your device your device needs to actually understand what you are saying. Which is why your Samsung Smart TV and your cell phone and probably your computer and any other connected device in your house is in fact listening to you all the time

The Question Isn’t If You are Being Recorded, But Who Listens

Most people will find this revelation rather unsettling, but the reality is this is not new. It’s been going on for years. And it’s a direct response to what we as consumers have been asking for.

The bigger question is who’s listening. The device and service companies are pretty much unanimous in saying they are not recording and not listening. The recordings are purely for the computers. And in a way it is probably believable (unless you are talking about that website that wants to sell your face on a book. They are totally listening). I don’t actually fear the companies (much), but I do question their encryption algorithms.

Post-Snowden we have confirmation of what many of us have known all along: If you put it on the Internet the US intelligence system will be listening in. So does this mean that someone is sitting in a bunker somewhere in the US (or elsewhere) listening to our conversations while we watch TV, or eat dinner, or chat with our phones within reach? Not unlikely.

Somewhere George Orwell is shaking his head in shame while dictating his next novel through his phone.

Categories
My Opinion

The Spirit of Flickr and the Problem of Intent

I’m trying something new here: Audio versions of my essays. So, if you want to listen to me read this essay rather than read it, hit the play button below and let me know what you think about this idea!

Over the weekend a conversation has started over the move by photo sharing site Flickr to start selling canvas and other prints of photos published under various Creative Commons (CC) licenses with attribution but in some cases without financial benefit to the artist. The story started at Wall Street Journal, got picked up and went viral with Dazed, and gained further traction when authoritative figures like Jeffrey Zeldman chimed in.

I’m not going to argue the legalities of this issue. As has been stipulated by pretty much everyone who has spoken about it, Flickr – and by ownership Yahoo! – are well within their rights to do what they are doing from a legal standpoint. If you publish content under the CC-BY license you are explicitly granting anyone the rights to republish that content in any way including commercially (under which selling for money would fall) without reimbursing the original creator as long as they provide proper attribution to the same creator. By contrast the CC-BY-NC license grants anyone the right to republish that content under the same guidelines only for noncommercial purposes. If they wish to publish it for commercial purposes (including sale) they must be granted a separate individual license from the creator. (There is a lot more to Creative Commons and I urge you to educate yourself about this type of license, but that’s the gist of this particular story.)