Throughout my career, I have had the honor and privilege of leading several organizations.  One of the principles I applied during my tenure in each position was the right of those under my supervision to disagree with or challenge anything we did.  However, it was incumbent on those who voiced disapproval to also provide an alternative.  I thought about this management approach when my wife responded to my last post by saying, “You were pretty hard on Facebook.”  She was right.  What was my solution for the 1.4 billion daily users whom I had urged to cancel their Facebook accounts?

If you have not figured it out by now, many of my posts are grounded in analogies, comparing the sujet du jour (topic of the day)  to a totally unrelated reference.  Enter the 16th president of the United States Abraham Lincoln.  If the 2016 election and its association with groups like Cambridge Analytica were the “Gettysburg of the on-line era,” how would Honest Abe have honored those who were swept up in this monumental battle between a desire to build a sense of community and the right to privacy.  With apologies to the Great Emancipator…

Eight score and 13 months ago, Harvard students brought forth a new computer program, conceived in their dormitory room, and dedicated to the proposition human beings need a forum on which they can expose and share every aspect of their lives which marketers and politicians will use against them to promote useless products and divisive discourse.

Now we are engaged in a conflict, testing whether that application, or any application so conceived and dedicated, can long endure.

The world will little note nor long remember what the pundits said about how so many individuals were “zuckered” into believing shareholders would put our collective appetite for community before their personal gain.  It is for us, with the benefit of experience and hindsight, to be here, dedicated to the task remaining before us–a better application of the users, by the users and for the users.

Thus the proposed name “OurSpace,” an application not only populated by the users, but wholly owned and operated by those same individuals.  Here is how it might work.

1. OurSpace would be established as a 501(c)(6) non-profit corporation (similar to a chamber of commerce or professional association).   All revenues would be used for administration of the program..
2. There is no such thing as a free lunch.  OurSpace would be funded with a one-time $10 membership fee.  If it attracted just 10 percent of the current 2.1 billion Facebook accounts, this would generate a  permanent capitalization totaling $2.1 billion.  If invested with even a modest 3.0 percent return, the corpus would generate $63 million annually.  This would be the application’s sole source of revenue.  No paid advertising.
3. Employees would be compensated based on a schedule commensurate with other non-profits.  It could even use the federal GSA grade designations.  In this case, even the CEO would be limited to a salary of $400,000/year equal to that of the president of the United States.
4. The board of directors would consist of paid members and be representative of the user base.
5. The board would establish criteria which governed what constituted acceptable material members could post to the site.
6. A compliance review committee, again made up of paid members, would review cases where users may have violated the acceptable material criteria.
7. Under no circumstances would user profiles or other information be shared with third parties.

All of the tools (e.g. crowd sourcing sites) to create OurSpace already exist.  All that is missing is one or more individuals who have the commitment and energy to prove the ability to connect people on-line can be achieved without having to sell out the users.  If only I were 20 years younger.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

On Monday night’s installment of “Late Night,” host Seth Meyers and guest Amy Adams discussed how they felt about their children following in their footsteps.  Meyers hoped his young son would not, like his father, desperately need “the validation of strangers.”  My first thought?  Had Meyers coined the 21st century version of Blanche DuBois’ classic line from A Street Car Named Desire, “I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.”  Except in Meyer’s situation, it was not about physical necessities, but mental dependency.

[NOTE:  In almost every case when you Google a word or phrase, the search engine most likely returns pages of references.  However, when I searched for the phrase “validation of strangers” there were only TWO relevant entries.  Of the two, the most interesting, written by Brian Newton, a licensed clinical psychologist, was not based on research but from his own personal experience.  Newton felt those who knew him personally, whether they had a positive or negative impression, would bring that bias to their assessment of his work. Only the stranger would judge his performance solely on its merits.]

Yet, as the phrase continued to bounce around in my head, I soon realized Meyers may have stumbled on a motivating force of human nature that transcends the entertainment business.  As a blogger, I periodically check the number of unique visitors who read each article.  Is that not also a desire to know whether individuals, most of whom I’ve never met from locations around the globe, find my writing to be of value?  Besides the monetary compensation associated with their enterprises, one has to believe Jeff Bezos (Amazon) or Mark Zuckerberg (FaceBook) get a certain satisfaction knowing millions, if not billions, of anonymous patrons value what they offer.

With the exception of service providers who work with clients face-to-face, the “validation of strangers” is an untapped key to success.  In most enterprises, one’s market consists overwhelmingly of strangers.  Guy Kowasaki, CEO of Garage.com, tells aspiring entrepreneurs to offer products which your customers love even if the non-buyers hate it.  Each purchase is a validation by a stranger.  In this sense, validation of strangers is the nuclear energy which encourages inventors, entrepreneurs and entertainers to satisfy the needs of individuals they will never meet.

Yet, the validation of strangers, like nuclear technology, has the potential to  be a destructive force.  On the same evening, Meyers introduced the concept to his audience, Donald Trump filled an 8,000 seat Tampa, Florida auditorium with strangers.  Strangers who cheered when he:

• Accused Florida Senator Bill Nelson of “putting criminal aliens over American citizens.” (LIE)
• Said Democrats are trying to give illegal aliens the right to vote. (LIE)
• Claimed his approval rating was higher than any Republican president. (LIE)
• Pegged the trade deficit with China at $500 billion a year. (LIE)
• Took credit for the “biggest tax cuts and reform in American history.”  (LIE)
• Ignorantly suggested Americans need a photo ID to buy groceries. (LIE)
• Continued his attack on the free press and once-again labeled the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election a “rigged witch-hunt.”

When 8,000 strangers validate this nonsense, not only is it an incentive to repeat lies.  It is a license to voice even more outrageous claims and escalate the hostile tone of the discourse.  Not to mention the validation of  63 million voters who pulled the lever for Trump  in 2016 (even though it was a minority of total votes cast) or his 32.4 million Twitter followers (not all of whom are Trump supporters).

Hillary Clinton unfortunately made a tactical mistake by calling them “deplorables.”  The more appropriate label is “validator.”  So, when farmers in the Heartland see the markets for their crops diminish as a result of Trump tariffs or a family in rural Tennessee realizes the cheap TrumpCare insurance policy they bought does not cover the medical treatment they need, do not be surprised if they ask, “Who let this happen?”  Simply hand them a mirror.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP