Chris Sacca

following

I first met Chris a couple of years ago at the Silicon Valley Comes to Oxford, an event in which the best minds of the Valley educate Oxford students about technology innovation and business creativity. What I liked about him then, as now, was his pugnacious humility, his very vivid memories of failure and poverty, his uniquely American optimism, and his unashamed commitment to global social justice.

The Wall Street Journal cited Sacca as "possibly the most influential businessman in America". But what they forgot to add was that he's also amongst the most provocative businessman in this country - a perennial start-up guy who can cram more ideas into a five minute interview than most corporate execs can come up with in a lifetime.

If the Web 2.0 age of the first decade of the 21^st century was about user-generated-content, the Social Media age of the second decade of the century is about the way in which technology is changing our lives. Yesterday's Web 2.0 was all about data; today's social media is all about people.

An increasingly collaborative and social Internet appears - at least to those who believe in its efficacy - to be becoming the vehicle with both society and business can be radically transformed.

Two important books published last month, Clay Shirky's Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age and Charlene Li's Open Leadership: How Social Technology Can Transform the Way You Lead both make this point eloquently.  In his Cognitive Surplus, Shirky - who teaches at New York University and is the author of the 2007 hit Here Comes Everybody - argues that the collapse of a centralized mass media ecosystem frees us up from watching television and allows us to become more creative and generous citizens. Li - the Founder of the Altimeter Group and the coauthor of the 2008 bestselling Groundswell - argues that social media technology is enabling business leaders to make their companies more effective, decisive and thus profitable.

We used to have a problem in this town saying this,"But piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing [merchandise]."

;"This is not just about the new 'Robin Hood' movie, it's not just about creative talent...It's about whether a Kevlar [bulletproof] vest we are putting on some guy and whether it works or not."

I had dinner last month in San Francisco with a cultural rebel, a young Internet activist friend of mine with fashionably subversive views about media. We dined South of Market, and after we'd polished off a bottle of Burgundy, I could tell he wanted to shock me.

"You know, I'm against intellectual property. My generation is never going to pay for content again," he said, raising his empty wine glass and smiling at me. "Big media is bad media. Your world is finished."

Whereas in the '60s, the divisive generational issues were free love and marijuana and Vietnam, today the great culture war between the young (him) and the old (me) is the economic and cultural value of traditional intellectual content. Members of my analog generation remain comfortable paying for their newspapers, books, movies and music. But many of his digital generation, having grown up on the cornucopian commons of free online content and semi-legal piracy, have been unwilling to spend money subsidizing what they consider to be obsolete large media companies.

"So how should journalists or creative artists be paid?" I asked.

And that, of course, is the crux of the problem. If hardly anyone younger than 50 has been paying for content on the Internet, and online advertising is failing to subsidize content (even YouTube is still struggling to make money), how does any media company - big or small, good or evil - survive?

But here is where he really surprised me. Rather than dance around my question, he actually had an answer, a solution that really shocked me and would, no doubt, shock most Americans with faith in the efficacy of the free market.

"The government is the solution," he said. "Media must be nationalized. We need the government to invest in high-quality journalism and in online culture."

Unfortunately, the young activist isn't alone in turning to Washington, D.C., to subsidize free media. More and more Internet radicals now see a government takeover as the solution to the economic crisis of traditional media. Take, for example, Free Press, a Washington group that promotes network neutrality and recently has come out in favor of large-scale government subsidization of online journalism. Indeed, at the Personal Democracy Forum conference in New York City two weeks ago, I debated Josh Silver, president of Free Press, who called for an enormous government investment in a BBC-style American public broadcasting company.