However, there is one comment that Robert makes at the end of his piece that demonstrates that we in the Social Semantic Web space have a ways to go to get our message across. He states that:

If Facebook wants to be trusted it must make a privacy contract with its users that will have real consequences if Zuckerberg throws it under the bus. I don’t know what that looks like. This is why the alternatives to Facebook just don’t matter either. They all could break their privacy contract with us. Even Google or Microsoft could and we all know it. So, we’re just going to have to live in this new world where privacy is a myth.

As someone who is tapped into the pulse of the InterWebs, Scoble’s statement was somewhat of a shock. How can Robert Scoble not have heard about the promise of distributed social networks powered by the Semantic Web? How can he not understand some of the virtues of a fully-actualized Social Semantic Web?

What he states is true only for Facebook alternatives that offer more of the same—the closed data silos that remain under the control of an entity other than its users. What he fails to mention are those proposals that will put each user back in control of their own identity, privacy, and data. The only way that a privacy contract could be broken in that scenario is if a user breaks it with him or herself.

There are a number of us Semantic Web / Linked Data folks who are working on bringing this ideal to fruition. As an example of one such proposal, see my article, A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging. Another recent proposal that has received significant attention is diaspora.

User-centric, distributed platforms like these will remove the issue of who owns our data and who decides its fate as it will be each individual who controls, who owns their data. These platforms will be the next evolution of the Web. As I conclude in my article, A Flock of Twitters:

It’s time to return to the original concept of the Web-based Internet—an interconnected, decentralized and distributed, open and independent cacophony of individuals who control their own Webspace, operate their own communication channel, and freely communicate with others without having to worry about a central point of failure…The only way [for that to happen] is by leveraging the power of the Semantic Web.

The promise of a fully-actualized Social Semantic Web is to firmly place the control of one’s identity and privacy back into the hands of the Web’s citizens. If our work in making that dream come to reality is going to succeed, we must better craft our message, we must better communicate the virtues of a user-centric, user-controlled Social Semantic Web.

Related Articles

Regaining Control of Privacy and Identity: It’s up to Each Individual
Privacy in the Facebook Era
Flocking To the Stream

Personal freedoms, control over one’s privacy, and the ability to manage one’s identity on the Web have never been in more jeopardy. With Facebook’s continued war on personal privacy, the day when a user no longer has any rights to control their own data is closer at hand. The question is, How should society respond?

Of course, Facebook–or any other corporation–is free to offer services and manage their user base in anyway that benefits their stakeholders—as long as they do not break the laws under which they are obligated to operate. Individuals have the freedom to decide whether or not they agree with Facebook’s policies, in particular as they pertain to privacy and the use of their personal data. They can choose not to use Facebook, Twitter, or any other Social Web network.

I have no issue with corporations making a profit, I am a businessman myself. My argument is that society should not feel comfortable when a few individuals (or in this case a single person) make broad, sweeping decisions about how an individual’s data is managed.

Society should not be complacent when a large corporation like Facebook continues to assail personal privacy on one front while purporting to be the de facto provider of Web-based identity on the other. Free societies should strive toward assisting individuals to gain control over their personal data.

Currently, there are inherent barriers to providing users with an easy-to-use mechanism that grants fine, granular control over personal data on the Internet and Web. Most users have their personal data strewn throughout myriad, disparate data silos, across different closed social networks. This makes it difficult to create tools that offer users an efficient and effective way to manage their data, to manage their on-line identity.

Some of the initiatives that open a user’s data up to other applications and networks–the Open Stack, for instance–begin to address this issue. But, as long as users’ personal data remains effectively siloed in government and corporate databases, this vision will not be obtainable.

As the Web matures and new technologies such as Semantic Web protocols and tools become available, solutions to the proverbial Privacy 2.0 and Identity 2.0 debate are possible. Whether corporate adoption rates of those solutions will be sufficient to make them viable is unclear. This is were the wishes and desires of a free society come into play. If there is a sufficient cry to adopt new identity-management protocols, then perhaps we can effect change.

In my article, “A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging”, I offer one such path to a user-driven, user-centric identity management and privacy solution. It does not rely on corporate adoption but instead puts the power back in the hands of individuals.

But there are other solutions that offer great business opportunities to companies that truly listen to users’ concerns over the usurpation of their personal privacy and identity. In the coming decade, those companies that build new interfaces and provide new services that facilitate user-centric identity and privacy management will find their visions rewarded. There is plenty of room for both open source and proprietary solutions in this space.

Whereas Facebook has shown great acumen at growing their small business into a global behemoth, it has lost sight as to the roots of its success—their users’ trust. If the Web’s citizens take a stand and demand that their personal privacy and identity remain their domain, and not the domain of corporations or governments, then companies like Facebook could very well end up being a relic of a Wild-west Web, a bygone time where anything and everything was acceptable in the name of profit.

It is up to society, to the Web’s citizens, to decide how the issue of privacy and identity will turn out. If only a few voice their opinions, if only a few are cognizant of this crisis and its negative ramifications, then Facebook and other corporations will decide how privacy and identity are managed.

If you think privacy and identity are too important to let the few decide how they are managed, then it’s time for you to act. Write about it on your blog, tweet about it, retweet my article, do whatever it takes to get those who trust you in your various social networks to take note, to listen, to understand, and to ultimately act.

UPDATE: May 8, 2010: Jeff Jarvis published an interesting article on this topic. See Confusing *a* public with *the* public.

It is interesting how some people quickly jumped to conclusions and made sweeping assumptions based on a single blog article, or worse yet, blog title. Although the majority of people who have taken the time to comment or tweet about this post have been positive about my efforts, a small minority (across the age spectrum), have been negative, even seemingly offended.

I’ve concluded that this latter group must not have read the post in its entirety. In fact, it is very possible that they got emotionally thrown-off guard by the title and didn’t bother reading the post at all. The other likely scenario is that they only read the first half of the post and found it disagreeable so they did not finish reading the rest.

Either way, it is a shame when people make accusations–are prejudiced–based on a few words. It is an unfortunate fact that some people will judged you on little more than a few words or sentences. They will not take the time to learn more about who you are before rendering an opinion.

Now I have thick skin. When you’ve been through a life-threatening illness, not sure whether you would live another year, you learn what is truly important and are able to filter out most impacts of personal attacks, illogical drivel, and emotionally-charged, incorrect assertions.

Marketing Message

Although the title of my post was somewhat sensational, it did speak directly to the issue of ageism in the VC-funding of web startups. This is a real issue.

But, my article only used that issue to build a bridge to the larger point—that what matters in startup founders in not age, but their experience, skills, and maturity. In fact, near the end of my piece I state this:

Now, I am not an ageist by any stretch of the imagination. So, if you’re an exceptional under-35 year old who is interested in this opportunity, send an email convincing me that you’re the one I should pick. You will still be required to meet all the requirements except age.

So, when it comes to my search for exceptionally-talented startup partners, this post is really not about age. I’ll gladly consider anyone, regardless of their age—although when choosing a founder, the experience-bar must be set higher.

Rash Decisions Are Not Good Decisions

The fact that someone tweeted today calling me “utterly pompous” for my statements in that article, does not surprise me nor upset me. Whenever someone sends a negative tweet about something I’ve said or written, I always engage them in respectful debate. Some will reply, a few simply ignore my tweets. My purpose is to better communicate my original message and learn what in particular set them off.

When I received that tweet this morning, I sent off three, quick tweets encouraging him to read the whole article and explaining that the major point of that piece was that I’m looking for two experienced people with the skills to be founders. I told him that it was really not about age at all.

He eventually sent another tweet back but has not yet recanted his remark. That’s fine. He’s entitled to his opinion. I have big enough shoulders. If I’m ever in need of the services his firm offers, I’ll fully assess the firm’s strengths and weakness. I will not jump to conclusions based on the little interaction that I’ve had with one of its partners.

This experience made me realize another essential quality of a great leader—to be slow to judgement. If you are too quick to judge, then you are likely a person that misses key information that could make a difference to your business’ success. You may be prone to letting emotions influence your judgement too much. Instead of making a rash assumption about a person, project, or opportunity, do your homework. Properly assess the situation so you know as much of the truth as possible before making your decision.

Whereas it is clear that a person who can be classified as a reluctant leader is currently a bad fit for the position, the brunt of the responsibility falls on the shoulders of that person’s immediate superior. Should they have been hired or promoted to project manager in the first place? Did they receive proper guidance and training? Were clear expectations and responsibilities proactively communicated?

Project Manager versus Managing a Project

In smaller firms, a person who is called a project manager may actually be a single person working on a single project. In that case, whereas they are managing a project, they are not truly a project manager. Project mangers usually oversee more than one project at a time and have a team of people whom they lead.

When a company’s backlog grows large enough, it is crucial to appoint a few, results-oriented project managers. Each project manager leads their own team of people. Each project team is tasked with handling a number of the firm’s overall projects in the backlog. The project manager will delegate various chunks of a project’s workload to the team, only keeping a small portion of the project work to his or herself.

Signs of a Reluctant Leader

To me, one of the telltale signs of a reluctant leader is that they would rather be doing the “real” project work and not that “other stuff”. How is that desire communicated? In different ways, but often like this.

When sitting in a meeting discussing a project issue, that project manager seems uncomfortable, maybe even frequently looking at their watch. They finally get the guts to say, “I need to get to work on the project,” or “can we end this discussion because I have to get back to work.”

It is not uncommon for reluctant leaders to assume that all the other duties of a project manager are subordinated to the project work itself. What they fail to realize is that successful project managers have many responsibilities that must equally be performed. Their share of an overall project’s work is just one of many duties.

Successful Project Managers

Successful project managers need to be proficient multitaskers. They need to accept as well as give constructive feedback; proactively communicate with clients and employees; build motivated, results-oriented project teams; sell their vision to their team, to clients, and to recruits; have a passion for leadership; and derive a good portion of their energy from coaching team members and helping each member reach their potential.

In addition to these basic requirements, successful project managers need to manage project chargeability (if measured), organize and lead team meetings, and oversee their share of an organization’s strategic plan. They also need to be results oriented, handle difficult employee issues, and oversee project QA/QC.

A project manager needs to respond in a timely fashion to all team-member inquires—even if it is uncomfortable to them based on his or her communication style. It is imperative that project managers provide clear guidance and direction, effectively delegate the work load, and, finally, perform their share of the project work—what reluctant leaders call the “real” project work.

What Makes a Project In Itself Successful?

Well, that depends on the overall goals for a given project. But a general definition is as follows: hitting the profitability goal, completing the project on time and on budget, and achieving more than satisfactory results for all parties.

In the end, it is up to a project manager’s superior to hold them accountable for project successes and failures. By doing so, it increases the success rate of future projects and can help mold a reluctant leader into a successful project manager.

Since I am not hiring employees, I am not breaking anti-discrimination laws. I am not making job offers. I am searching for business partners with whom to start a business. So, I can use whatever criteria I want in selecting my startup partners.

In the days that followed that post, Dave brought up more issues of ageism—in particular venture funding in the realm of tech startups. On Wednesday, January 13, 2009, Dave tweeted this quote, taken from an article about Douglas Leone, a partner at Sequoia Capital:

“Sequoia focuses on younger entrepreneurs because people over 30 aren’t innovative.” http://r2.ly/red7

Wow! I guess Pablo Picasso, Richard Feynman, Steve Jobs, James Cameron, and hundreds of thousand of other post-30 innovators, never realized that their creativity and innovative spirits had dried up once they hit 30. Shame on them. They all should have been sent to the Soylent Corporation’s processing plant once they hit 30-years old.

If you read the article linked to in the tweet, you’ll get the full picture of what was being said. But the point is, that when it comes to web startups, especially those in the social media space, ageism is an issue.

( N.B. If you have made it this far in the article and your blood is beginning to boil, read this newer post for a sneak peek at the message behind the headline.)

Fifty is the New Forty; Thirty is the New Twenty

So, why am I looking for founding partners 35-plus years of age?

In my two previous jobs, I managed teams of people; I managed managers who managed teams of people. It was a rare exception when I found someone under the age of 30 who was sufficiently focused, task-oriented, dependable, experienced, and knew what they wanted. When I did find someone like that, I knew that I had a potential project manager and someone who might be able to be mentored to become a possible future executive.

Now that does not imply that most people over the age of 30 have what it takes to manage projects, to lead a team of people, to start a company. Most of them do not. It is simply that my empirical evidence convinced me, when it came to a professional life, most people under the age of 30 still had some growing up to do—and some of those had a long ways to go.

All under-30, professional-level employees have fewer than 10 years of work experience. Most are still very green and have much to learn about work ethos, teamwork, project management, and leadership. The other big issue is that many under-30 employees have yet to perfect an effective, proactive communication style. Finally, experience comes with discipline, hard work, learning from mistakes, and age. And experience is more valuable than raw, young talent in my book.

Don’t get me wrong. Young employees are important to a healthy, vibrant business. But a company full of only young employees is a company that is most likely inefficient and prone at making mistakes that a business with a diverse, well-seasoned workforce would never make. This applies to old firms as well as new startups.

The Company, The Opportunity

My startup is in the Publishing 2.0 space. That is all I will say for now.

I have an detailed concept paper describing the underlying vision and functionality. It is not a business plan. At this stage in a startup’s life, business plans are not necessary. If you don’t understand that statement, or understand why, then this opportunity is not for you.

You must know the differences between working at a startup and working for a small business. Whereas all startups are (usually) considered small businesses, very few small businesses are startups. If you do not clearly understand the differences, then this opportunity is not for you.

Each founder is required to provide their own hardware and software. As we will be using a number of Open Source tools for designing, coding, implementing, managing, and running the platform, the need for proprietary software should be limited.

The earliest stages of this startup will be self-funded. It should not require much initial infusion of capital beyond what is needed for hosting and membership in a few select collaborative services. I plan to run a very lean startup. The mid-term goal is to bootstrap the startup, thereby not requiring any angel or venture funding. However, I am not opposed to either if it makes sense down the road.

As this is a startup with zero outside investment and will initially have zero cash flow, founders will not receive any salary or benefits at first. You must be able to meet adequately your personal financial responsibilities and have a sufficient savings cushion to live in this way for at least 6 to 12 months. If that is not possible, if that concerns you, then this opportunity is not for you.

Founders will be owners of the company. Percent ownership will be negotiated with me on an individual basis. Stock options will also be made available.

Our company will strive to determine as quickly as possible the right fit of functionality and service for our intended target demographic. We will do this through analyzing metrics and customer development data obtained over a series of incremental launches (iterations of our platform). The initial goal will be to get a minimally viable service built as quickly as possible so that we can begin this process. We’ll then scale up our platform and service, leveraging our learned intelligence.

What I’m Seeking

In particular, I’m looking to create an energetic team that will function as generalist. We will build the initial, working technology platform, and create the business foundation.

Whereas each member of our team will have a specific, unique skill set that complements the overall startup process, there will be necessary overlap in the area of coding knowledge. This means that each team member must have sufficient Web coding experience, although only one of us truly needs to be an expert-level developer.

In the earliest stages of a Web-based startup, generalists often perform better than specialists. But, as we begin to successfully acquire members and bootstrap the business, we will hire (additional) specialists.

Here are the basic requirements (not listed in any particular order of importance):

Required of all Founders

• Must be 35-plus years of age
• High energy, positive personality
• A killer work ethic (days will be long)
• Ability to work independently
• Adept at creative problem solving
• Proven creative, innovative, independent thinking
• Ability to work initially for zero salary or benefits (this could last 6 or more months)
• Sufficient comfort level with back-end PHP coding and front-end design
• Project management experience
• Must live in the contiguous United States—for travel purposes
• Must be a citizen of the United States—for legal purposes
• Must have a computer with a video camera and high-speed Internet access
• Thrive in taking measured risks
• A healthy savings from which you can survive off of for at least 12 months
• Respectful, proactive communication style
• Easy to communicate with and a good, active listener
• Understanding that there are no guarantees of success
• Must be willing to travel to meet in person a few times in the first 6 months
• You cannot be in arrears with local, state, or federal tax institutions
• You cannot be a defendant in any pending or active lawsuit
• Founders will share corporate risk and liability
• Founders will sign shareholders’ agreement
• Must be results-oriented, focused, tenacious, and driven

More Specific Requirements—Coder, lead-developer

• At least one coder with significant experience in OOP MVC Python-based frameworks (PHP considered as well)
• Experience and knowledge of DB design theory and practice—ERDs, normalization, sharding, etc.
• Experience with PostgreSQL
• Experience with Web security
• Experience with agile development

More Specific Requirements—Designer

• CSS and HTML guru
• Ability to resolve browser-specific rendering issues
• Keen eye for clean, uncluttered, Web-2.0 style design
• A stickler for designs that validate
• User-friendly UI/UX maven

Not Required but a Plus (one or more)

• Previous startup experience as a founder
• Previous early-stage startup experience as an employee
• Extensive, high-level contacts in the New York book publishing Industry
• Understanding of Semantic Web and experience with semantic technologies
• Past P&L responsibility
• Previous position as CTO
• Law or MBA degree
• You are a Mac person

Not An Issue

• Married/unmarried with kids
• Desire not to relocate
• Desire to get some sleep each night
• It’s okay if you’re a PC person

I spent years in the PC world designing custom database solutions for big companies, I now prefer Macs. In fact, I have three Macs that I use for development. I no longer own a PC—which I have found to be a nice relief.

Now, I am not an ageist by any stretch of the imagination. So, if you’re an exceptional under-35 year old who is interested in this opportunity, send an email convincing me that you’re the one I should pick. You will still be required to meet all the requirements except age.

If Interested, Here’s What you Need to Know and Do

If you are not a highly-motivated, creative, driven, risk-tolerant, tenacious, tireless worker, then this opportunity is not for you.

This is not a job posting. It is a potential opportunity to become a startup founder.

If you are interested in being considered for a slot as one of three founders, ping me here no later than February 6, 2009.

In the body of your (brief) email tell me why this opportunity intrigues you and what experience and skills you bring to the table. Please include a link to your “About Me” page on your website (I prefer that over a digital resume). Include your Twitter and LinkedIn usernames. Finally, include your Skype or iChat contact details so that, if I think it desirable, we can have a video conference.

I will seriously review each potential candidate and make a short list of those with whom I wish to have a video conference. I retain the right to make the final decision on selection of partners. I do not guarantee that I will select any of the candidates who apply. I will not add another founder until I’ve found the right fit.

With the recent meltdown in the global-financial system, it became apparent that risky-trading behavior is a rampant, real issue in financial markets. Whereas requiring strict disclosure and transparency may help ameliorate risky trading in general, a new study explains a possible genetic link to risky economic behavior. Taking measured risks in business are necessary. But it is never wise to make financial gambles. This is exactly what happened and continues to happen today.

How can corporations accrue some of the advantages of the open market while better insulating themselves from banking and insurance firms that literally game the system? I believe that the current two-part equity system–private or public–does not currently make that goal possible. The two-part system does not offer corporations–who choose to take advantage of the benefits of “going public”–a sufficient level of fiduciary control over their capital structures.

What if another option existed? What if corporations could decide the terms with which their stock would be publicly traded?

I propose that the SEC create a new type of stock market—the semi-public market. In this market, corporations would decide the listing terms of their stock from a SEC-predefined list of market-trading options.

Options might include:

• Whether or not the stock would be allowed to trade on the derivatives market
• Whether or not the stock could be shorted
• Whether or not the stock could be bought on margin
• The number of days the stock had to be held before it could be sold: (zero – ?)
• Whether the stock traded on a third-party market or on the corporation’s own, regulated trading platform
• The maximum percentage ownership of the float allowed to various entities: institutional investors, private equity, hedge funds, individual investors
• The terms of their IPO

In summary, I propose that companies are offered three structures for issuing their stock:

1. private
2. semi-public
3. public

Allowing corporations the ability to customize the market environment in which their shares trade offers three obvious advantages to stakeholders. First, potential shareholders will have a wider selection of investment options that better suit their risk profiles. Second, corporations will regain an acceptable level of fiduciary control over their capital structure while still having an option to go public. Third, some of the market manipulation that publicly-trade companies currently face can be alleviated which will result in increased insulation from some forms of systemic risk.

What do you think? Should corporations have three options for issuing their stock instead of the current two?

Here’s why I ask. Over the past several years, whenever Facebook has made a change to its privacy policies, it has caused great uproar—not only with civil liberties advocates (as you would expect), but also with Facebook’s user base.

The recent brute-force change to the privacy settings of all 350 million of its users is just the latest in a series of moves that exposes more of Facebook’s users’ information.

According to the above linked article, here’s what Zuckerberg said about the recent change:

Doing a privacy change for 350 million users is not the kind of thing that a lot of companies would do. But we viewed that as a really important thing, to always keep a beginner’s mind and what would we do if we were starting the company now and we decided that these would be the social norms now and we just went for it.

That last statement, “we decided that these would be the social norms,” is the telling truth. It is not that lack of privacy has become a social norm. It is that Facebook believes that it should be.

It is as if Facebook issued a decree to its global citizens. Privacy is no longer something you should request. Privacy is not in the best interests of our society (as in Facebook’s “society” or corporate mission).

Exposing more of its users’ data to the world is, of course, attractive to Facebook’s business alliances. It offers a number of new opportunities for profit. To a company rumored to be heading toward an IPO in 2010, new revenue streams and growing profits are a good thing.

But open data and opening up of personal data are two different issues. What pieces of your data should be open? Where do we draw the line? In general, as long as they are not breaking any laws, I believe it should be up to individuals to decide which pieces of their personal data are made public.

In a free society, we should strive toward letting individuals, not governments or corporations, be in control of their personal data. Collectively society should “own” the data with individuals given control over a subset of their personal data.

There are compelling reasons why opening up personal data to the world is desirable. But it should not be up to governments or corporations to make that choice on behalf of their citizens and users. In a free society, it should be the citizens who drive the push toward more open data, not a few elite power players who force the issue.

What do you think? Is Facebook engineering the expectation of lack of privacy? Are they forcing the issue and making it become a social norm by brute force? Is this truly what their users want? What rights should individuals have to control their personal data?

UPDATE February 24, 2010: See my article A Flock of Twitters: Decentralized Semantic Microblogging to see how users can take control of their own on-line communication streams.

UPDATE March 19, 2010: As this year’s keynote speaker at South by SouthWest Interactive (SXSWi), Danah Boyd presented a very thought-provoking keynote presentation on privacy in social media: Making Sense of Privacy and Publicity.

UPDATE May 2, 2010: The Electronic Frontier Foundation recently published a very illuminating article on this topic, Facebook’s Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline.

UPDATE May 8, 2010: An interesting graphic depicting what I call the devolution of Facebook privacy.