Last month, I was lucky enough to attend Ashoka's Tech4Society conference in Hyderabad, India, as a writer for the AshokaTech blog. Since then, I've continued to write at AshokaTech about technological innovations in the nonprofit and social enterprise sectors. This post originally appeared there.

Ashoka hosts a monthly, Twitter-based chat called SocEntChat, in which anyone can participate and discuss issues surrounding social enterprise. It's a great place to share ideas. This month's chat was all about technological innovations, hosted by Ashoka's Tom Dawkins. Along with the usual crowd, Tech4Society organizer (and Twitter newcomer) Rosa Wang was there to share reflections from the conference. You can read the full transcript here.

Tom's first question was, "What breakthrough invention do you think will reshape the lives of the poor?" There were a lot of good answers - mobile phones, solar power, clean water - but I wondered if perhaps the question was too broad for there to be any one good answer. In a Tech4Society panel on mobile phones, for example, Ashoka-Lemelson fellow Madan Mohan Rao said that the increase in mobile phone use in rural India has the unintended consequence of limiting women's ability to communicate, as over 90% of family mobiles are carried by men. According to Rao, social equity still requires landline phones. In this way, what's more important than a specific technological solution is a willingness to pay attention to the needs you're meeting. The high-tech solution isn't always the better one, even if the low-tech one is more difficult.

Also published on the TechSoup Blog and AshokaTech.

I wrote a blog post a few months ago about Fab Lab, a network of community-operated workshops springing up all over the world. I was excited about Fab-Fi, Fab Lab's name for the simple directional antennas they're using to build a mesh wireless network all over Jalalabad, Afghanistan.

Originally published on the TechSoup Blog.

Are you ready to start using social media in your organization? It's a more complicated question than you might think: adopting new media necessarily means giving up a certain degree of control over your message, and there's a host of reasons not to loosen the reins. On the other hand, losing that control can bring your message to exponentially more people than were previously possible. Consider the story of Mister Splashy Pants (via):

Originally published on AshokaTech.

One of the many sessions in Hyderabad that I'm really excited about is a discussion on intellectual property with Richard Jefferson of Cambia, John Wilbanks of Science Commons, Phil Weilerstein of the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance, and Ashoka fellow Bright Simons of mPedigree.

Here's a great interview with Richard Jefferson that ABC TV Australia ran a few months ago. Jefferson explains how Cambia is enabling biotech innovation by rethinking how scientists deal with IP issues. He makes the alluring point that open source - something we often think of as a recent development - has actually existed for millennia, much longer than proprietary technologies.

Originally published on the TechSoup Blog.

I've recently been enjoying Two Bits, Christopher M. Kelly's study of the cultural significance of free and open-source software. There are many books about FOSS' history and future, but where Two Bits really succeeds is in Kelly's perspective as an anthropologist. He places FOSS in a broader cultural context of rethinking intellectual property: his book examines not only free software, but also free music, free text, and free education. (via)

One great point Kelly makes is that organizations and companies committed to open source implicitly prioritize their content over their own longevity. Projects continue to grow even as the organizations supporting them shuffle in and out of the picture:

Being radically open means that any other competitor can use your system - but it means they are using your system, and this is the goal. Being open means not only sharing the "source code" (content and modules), but devising ways to ensure the perpetual openness of that content, that is, to create a recursive public devoted to the maintenance and modifiability of the medium or infrastructure by which it communicates. Openness trumps "sustainability" (i.e., the self-perpetuation of the financial feasibility of a particular organization), and where it fails to, the commitment to openness has been compromised.

The book was published by Duke University Press, but Kelly has put his money where his mouth is by offering the entire book for free in several formats. He encourages readers to notate the online version with their own comments or even rewrite it.

Originally posted on the TechSoup Blog.

Here's a photo of a directional antenna that can transmit Wi-Fi Internet several miles. Anyone can build one with materials from a hardware store; you can even download the blueprint online for free. Over the past 18 months or so, the antennas have been appearing around Jalalabad, a former Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan. Of the ways in which it differs from a traditional wireless access point, the most profound is that it lacks an electronics company logo. It wasn't created by a government either, but it could become the new symbol of infrastructure rebuilding in Afghanistan and around the world.

The organization behind the antennas is Fab Lab, an international network of community workshops. Fab Lab helps residents install the antennas and, even more importantly, learn how to use them. These may not be the most sophisticated antennas, but they work. They're inexpensive and easy to repair, qualities more important in Afghanistan than a good warranty.

Originally published on the TechSoup Blog.

There's been a lot of discussion over the past week about Causes leaving MySpace and becoming a Facebook-only application. In a sense, the news isn't that surprising (being a for-profit company, Causes must focus on platforms generating the most commercial interest), but it's raised a lot of questions about how closely the nonprofit community aligns itself with commercial tools.

My colleague Amy wrote in a Stanford Social Innovation Review column, "The debate around social media and the Internet in general as a leveling force is still heated from all sides. Yes you can claim that anyone has the power to blog, but that's really only the people who have access to the tools and the time and the empowerment. The access debate aside, the removal of Causes from MySpace where there are active communities of supporters means 'equal opportunity activism' is defined by only certain communities." If nonprofits have the goal of making more resources available to more people, what happens when the tools we're using seem to undermine those goals? Amy points out danah boyd's much-discussed research on the socioeconomic and racial differences between MySpace and Facebook users. Justin Massa goes so far as to call the move redlining: "Causes' justification sounds an awful lot like what financial institutions and the real estate industry used to say about poor and minority neighborhoods."

Marshall at ReadWriteWeb snaps:

Causes co-founder Sean Parker poses sitting with crossed legs in his photo on the company profile page; his mission statement begins with the words "According to the historical Buddha..." It's hard to imagine a beneficent religious figure that would ditch MySpace for Facebook, isn't it? Perhaps "the historical Buddha" would choose to pull up stakes from the 11th most popular website in the world if the people were too shallow and go to the hip social network where the money-raising action is.