I didn’t read the New Yorker much when I lived in NYC. My motto was, dumb people read the Post, smart people read the Times and people who want to look smart read the New Yorker. But now that I’m gone I can indulge…

I found an interesting article in a recent issue on Google and its issues with privacy and its other tribulations in Washington.

There was an interesting quote from Lawrence Lessig, who I have been  reading more and more of (especially his thoughts on how code can effect laws, society, etc.):

Google’s brilliant because it architects its system so that, when people do what they want to do, they give something to Google. When I do a search, I give Google my evaluation of what the best search is. Google profits from that. If I want to send an e-mail, I give Google data.

But isn’t this how all communities should work? Not to sound like Rousseau and espouse social-contract theory, but the best kinds of communities are symbiotic. Open source communities, the good ones, thrive because people get something for free (software, for instance) and then make changes, improvements, etc. and write that back to the core product - typical win-win scenario.

A lot of proprietary businesses (in software and other sectors) seem to think in one direction when it comes to building communities. A lot of people think “Hey, what can we give away to attract visitors/members, etc.?” without thinking about how it should benefit their business in the long run. Others think “Hey, this community will develop or test our product FOR FREE!” without attaching any real value or incentive to such activities. These tend to fail miserably.

The article makes it seem that Google was this sort of magic company that built its empire with a few good ideas. But I know there was a lot of hard work winning people over to be almost unconsciously part of a growing multi-channel community. As much as it scares me in some ways how masterfully it was accomplished, I cannot deny its genius.

..maybe some day?