I was on vacation last week when a16z launched Future, but some quick thoughts about that and the broader frictions between Silicon Valley and the media...
So far Future isn't close to being a rival of mainstream news outlets. It seems like a good niche magazine for people in (and interested in) the tech sector. But if the goal is to shift the balance of tech coverage in a more positive direction, a few essays won't do it.
The power of mainstream media comes from the fact that they cover a broad range of topics, and hence draw in a broad cross-section of the public. Given that most people are not directly involved in tech, most people are going to get their news about tech from mainstream sources.
Tech people complain that the press frequently makes mistakes in their coverage of their industry. They are not wrong. But this isn't unique to tech. If you talk to people in any technical field (doctors, lawyers, marine biologists) you'll get a similar story.
On any beat, there's a mix of reporters with deep expertise in their subjects and reporters who don't really know what they're talking about. The people who run major news outlets are (by necessity) generalists who can't easily tell the difference.
Until recently I worked at @arstechnica, a publication that tries, and I think largely succeeds, in only hiring reporters with deep expertise and only doing work that subject matter experts respect.
But the result is a publication that is extremely popular among subject matter experts (software engineers, scientists, etc.), but is too in-the-weeds to be interesting to the broader public. Most people get their tech news from elsewhere.
We can and should try to do better. I have some ideas for building a network of newsletters that might help with this problem. But there's a fundamental tradeoff between depth and breadth that's never going to be fully solved.
The fundamental problem is that high-quality, deeply-researched content is more expensive to produce than superficial stuff. And it doesn't make business sense to produce the high quality stuff if the audience can't tell the difference.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Census Bureau asked me to participate in the National Survey on Children's Health. I'm generally inclined to participate in stuff like this since survey data is valuable but man do they make it a pain.
There are dozens of questions about whether each child has various ailments. Instead of giving me a list and letting me check the ones they have (which is basically none of them) they make me answer 1-3 yes/no questions per page and then hit the next button.
Also a bunch of questions for my 3-month-old baby that are obviously not applicable. All of which turns what could be a 15-minute survey into like 3 times that long.
The New York Times paywall works great for the New York Times, but the same strategy hasn't worked as well for smaller publications. rethinking.news/a-simple-marke…
Substack-style newsletters are based on the same try-before-you-buy marketing logic as a soft paywall, but they work a lot better for small publications.
Mid-sized, ad-supported publications are in a tough spot as both the NYT and Substack lure away their most prominent writers. rethinking.news/a-simple-marke…
I feel like I have a better sense for why contact tracing hasn't gone well in the US after being on the receiving end a couple of times. In recent weeks each of my two kids has had a covid case in their classrooms. (They didn't get it.)
In DC, the first thing a contact tracer does after introducing themselves is to demand that you give them your kid's date of birth and home address. They won't tell you anything about why they called until then.
I found this a little offputting, especially since they hadn't authenticated themselves to me. I didn't seriously doubt they were legit since we had just had a covid case, but still it seems unnecessary since they're mostly seeking information from me.
This is my favorite metaphor from @juliagalef's book. This kind of thing happens constantly in political debates.
Responses to this thread for example. Liberals pointed out a number of differences between these two issues. They aren't crazy arguments and I'm sure liberals believe them sincerely.
I'm also sure that in a world where MySpace was the dominant social platform and Rupert Murdoch was de-platforming Democratic politicians, liberals would be calling for social media to be regulated as common carriers and conservatives would be invoking the First Amendment.
There's some... tension between the 2011 progressive view that the Supreme Court was wrong to rule corporations had free speech rights in Citizens United and the 2021 progressive view that corporations have an absolute First Amendment right to deplatform politicians.
I'm not going to say the positions contradict each other because there are coherent distinctions you could draw between and spending and moderation policies. But it's a bit jarring.
A similar point applies with respect to net neutrality. "Net neutrality infringes telecom providers' free speech rights" used to be a right-wing position, whereas "no, telecoms are common carriers" was the left-wing response.
Thread! I talked to a dozen well-connected people in the patent world about who Biden might pick as the next director of the Patent Office. Rumors suggest the administration is considering three candidates with dramatically varying backgrounds. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20…
Some important background: in 2011, Obama signed a bill creating a new process called Inter Partes Review that's become a key way for defendants to get rid of bad patents. Trump's pick to lead the patent office, Andre Iancu, limited defendants' access to IPR process.
Sources tell me that two leading leading candidates for the job are Ellisen Turner and Jannie Lau. Both have spent much of the last decade representing companies that make almost all of their money from patent licensing fees.