![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/blogs\/style-blog\/files\/2013\/02\/twitter.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
We have a two-month break<\/a> from self-inflicted government crisis, so let\u2019s use it to take a breather, assess the situation, and cast some shade on rich people. Not because it is cathartic (it is), or because it will prevent the next crisis (it won\u2019t); rather, I think studying the contours of the government-shaped hole of the last three weeks can teach us something about how Silicon Valley views public ownership. This is important because we typically use metaphors[1]<\/a> like \u201cthe commons\u201d or \u201cthe public\u201d to describe their products. These words imply a sense of trust, if not mutually assured disruption: sure a rich guy might own Twitter on paper but it becomes worthless if everyone stops treating it as a (if not the) center of daily life. What do the people that own these service\/spaces think about the de facto<\/i> collective ownership of their product?<\/p>\n First off, I don\u2019t think anyone is surprised that professional rich person Jason Calacanis said this:<\/p>\n https:\/\/twitter.com\/Jason\/statuses\/385798757750562816<\/p>\n Nor do I think anyone is surprised that people like Valleywag contributor Sam Biddle, who still has a grip on reality, replied:<\/p>\n https:\/\/twitter.com\/samfbiddle\/statuses\/385799685916487680<\/p>\n Which, of course, prompted some back peddling:<\/p>\n https:\/\/twitter.com\/Jason\/statuses\/385812885869326336<\/p>\n And concluded with Sam being called an anarchist<\/a>, and him firmly denying it:<\/p>\n https:\/\/twitter.com\/samfbiddle\/statuses\/385836731993305088<\/p>\n As someone who would, on the record, call himself an anarchist, I\u2019m endlessly fascinated by this conversation because 1) I am legitimately impressed by how fast Jason was able to parlay his TED Talk snarking into geopolitical concern trolling, 2) I think government<\/i> and governance<\/i> are being conflated in interesting ways, and 3) this is a picture-perfect view of Silicon Valley\u2019s relationship to government and it is straight-up Reagan era BS. I\u2019ve said all I feel like saying about 1 and I\u2019ll get back to 2 later, so lets talk about 3. Silicon Valley thinks government is the problem, and the solution can be found in their app marketplace. This is what Evegny Morozov called \u201csolutionism\u201d in his latest book To Save Everything, Click Here<\/a>. <\/i>The general premise –that not all social or political problems can or should be solved by a technical fix\u2014is spot-on, but I think there is more going on than a superficial fixes to problems best left untouched.<\/p>\n The stuttering and stopping of the American federal government is both deliberate and, ultimately, has unpredictable long-term consequences. The identification of government not just as a perpetrator of daily problems but as the <\/i>problem of American society (while somehow also going unnoticed when it \u201cshuts down\u201d) is neither coincidental with the rise of a radicalized right, nor is it causally detached from the increasing power and wealth of CEOs.<\/p>\n As an anarchist, its fascinating to see what is labeled \u201cthe government\u201d and what is assumed away as some kind of naturally occurring phenomena upon which a libertarian utopia can be built. In other words, there is no Silicon Valley solution to building roads, but there are plenty of apps for reserving rides that ride atop those roads. The hyperloop is a neat idea, but it will not replace the roads that make up city blocks.<\/p>\n More insidiously, as Silicon Valley\u2019s penchant for corporate subdivisions and campuses<\/a> can attest, these companies are part and parcel of the divestment in publicly held goods and services. They can dodge taxes and demand legislative loopholes with the best Wall Street financial firm. Moreover, there\u2019s an immense and endlessly captivating amount of self-deception in an industry that claims to be<\/a> the place where \u201cvalue is created,\u201d yet contain high-profile companies that have never, ever turned a profit. Ever.<\/a><\/p>\n The idea of success and value first, and profitability second, is absolutely genius and builds massive companies that can effect millions of people\u2019s lives without ever coming up with a fully-baked profit-making strategy. It\u2019s sort of like what the government used to do. The Post Office, municipal water and electricity, even NASA are examples of government using its economically extraordinary position to establish a service at a loss and eventually find the right mix of economies of scale and end-user products that could turn a hefty profit. The city I live in still makes money off of its municipal water supply, the Post Office would be grossing over a billion dollars in profit<\/a> if it weren\u2019t for a 2006 congressional mandate meant to hobble the largely union-organized employer, and NASA isn\u2019t much more than a venture capital clearing house for aeronautics.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n Silicon Valley venture capital companies have hit upon the sort of economic model that literally builds nations and they know it. As Sam Biddle aptly put it,<\/p>\n The public is a\u00a0competitor<\/i>\u2014so when it freezes up, thank God for that. It’s the same instinct that makes\u00a0Sarah Lacy squeal blog enthusiasm<\/a>\u00a0when transit workers are on strike: the problems of humanity are signs that the\u00a0Silicon Cult<\/a>\u00a0has it right. Thinking of anyone but yourself and your network is so Web 1.0. Their new way of life\u2014to rely on a couple years at Stanford and friends in high places for a quick payoff and a stab at novelty\u2014is just superior. Any communal impasse, any shared suffering, is just a chance to stand out with their money while they still have it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n As I\u2019ve said before<\/a>, I don\u2019t think open source is the obvious or apparent way out of this mess. Open source alternatives to proprietary social media networks are just that: alternatives. They are not the default, or the obvious best choice in the same way an anarchist bookshop will never supplant the mall. To ask the former to replace the latter is to misunderstand the appeal of either one. We either need a society that no longer desires private and corporate common space, or open source communities need to build something completely new that\u2019s better than the corporate standard. It is only in this theater of proof that these assholes will have to make a run for their made-up money.<\/p>\n David is definitely still on Twitter<\/a> and Tumblr<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n [1]<\/a> It is crucial <\/i>that we remember that spatial metaphors are just that: metaphors. More importantly they are deeply imperfect metaphors that over-determine the technology\u2019s ability to overcome or supersede social phenomena. PJ Rey has the definitive take on the Myth of Cyberspace.<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n\n