People can change. Why can’t organisations? I suppose people say that they can’t as the automated system of autopilot and profit serving ensures that the rail is laid. However, companies have pivoted in the past, and great minds and great people can transform a service.

Think of Nokia, which originally was a fishing brand (Fishing Boots etc I believe?) they eventually went on to make telecom related infrastructure, eventually into mobile handsets and now back to telecom with IOT and 5G devices.

I like to think about problems or people at the max, at it’s best what is Facebook? It is a platform tool that provides a podium for people to have reach and ability to engage in a market (voicing opinion & selling products). It is the definition of what a system can do to add fluidity and reduce friction from going from 0 to flying. Ultimately a brand or business if of genuine merit will survive, it will find away… but if Shopify or FB get you going fast then its hard not to avail of it.

Advertising is dead in the old way. That is a longer piece and I would advise you read Eugene Wei’s excellent “Status as a Service”. (Link included).

Zuckerberg made a point many months ago that if the US Gov. wanted to break up FB, it would take him months and months to do so, as the underlying code is so intertwined in the systems of Instagram, FB, & WhatsApp etc. He bought himself time.

All things die or fracture. Cells do it everyday. Splitting and starting a new path isn’t a bad thing. Google discovered this a long time ago with Alphabet. Think about the laundry detergent you use? Which one is and isn’t also a P&G product. Wearing Converse? Are you wearing Nike really. Innocent Drinks… That’s a Coca Cola Company (Innocent still gives X amount to charity, is whimsical and produces some the best quality ‘natural’ raw ingredient drinks going). Can good prevail in the shadow of profits?

FB have had the long game planned out for a while. Libra now Diem has been in works for years. and they bought Oculus years ago and are pushing teams and projects hard for the last 2 years. FB released the FB phone and the Portal. Say what you will about monopolies and huge actors in our daily services life… very rarely does a ‘software’ company come along and make good ‘hardware’ on their first go. Google struggled for years and it took buying up part of Motorola and HTC to make decent industrial design but they got there. The point being — FB is well run company by the sounds of it, despite the toxicity which is a by product of a bigger issue that is coming to a head in society.

FB is the definition of Harvey Dent’s you die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain. They have gotten the their ducks in a row. micro services and cheap payment rail systems are nearly there with blockchain and the VR/AR reality is close which will thrive in the Metaverse digital assets world we are entering with NFTs. But is it all too late? The crescendo moment is peaking for FB… but the brand has become poison. The purest form of ‘crypto’ revolution is fighting back against needing platforms like FB… but in reality we want plug and play systems. (that is another huge debate and a excellent thought piece (see also links added for platforms vs protocols).

Do not forget that FB started as a way for college students to connect online and share their IRL’s digitally. The avg. on cusp sub 23 year old would probably view it as a place where their parents hangout now, so it’s not cool, but in reality having a phonebook online is still pretty handy. I still nearly exclusively use FB for those 2 needs — Finding someone I haven’t contacted in a while + Birthday reminders… yet the platform does so much now, and we take for granted that while we might not need to sell goods on a local online market place, or need to send funds to a friend because I live in a area of world were having a smart money app / bank isn’t a option yet. Then this other service, which much like Google Search — is essentially the internet for many.

Google too have been living past their die a hero date… Peak Google Search was lost maybe… about 5 years ago ? (that is just a rough personal estimate). But I feel I could actually use it to find what I wanted. Same with Youtube. but the advertising model has killed that. We are in a horrible loop of funneling the user down not what they want but what we think they want (and unfortunately a little of that misguided intent does rub off even if we think we are better at filtering / curating that effect).

70% or so of Googles revenue was advertising. They know it’s over. This is why they actually own or have a hand in some of the biggest future technology companies in the world. If we go back to the starting point. Should companies let themselves fracture more? Google has been able to run many services as at a loss because they feed the whole grand view. (Google often strangled some services by trying to adorn the G badge over them while also starving some individually branded of the Google Network effect).

Amazon are very clear example of this, with Prime Video until recently being a afterthought. Something that was a nice to have add-on to you getting Prime. But wait until the micro-services and metaverse network effects kick in. Buying music or articles of clothing directly off of a paused screen will happen. (plenty of patents exist on this).

Back to the FB pivot and a piece of industry Amazon has their eyes on with a recent huge online RPG game. Video game culture and AR/VR digital worlds and assets are becoming a reality. What if owning a Echo comes with a geospatial speaker in the virtual world? Maybe our digital assistants will soon become the Navi’s of Link from Legend of Zelda series. (Will we have out of box versions of from big tech and then more private bespoke but technical knowledge needed versions that we train?)

Something that we saw with Apple, is that in the modern digital age, privacy has become a digital luxury. The advertising model has broken down (we critique better in general, the algorithms are warping themselves, we want more privacy, we see through fake influence and seek genuine advocacy). This idea of digital assets that have financial value are becoming essential as the freemium model of giving up data will no longer exist.

Facebook are doubling down on this outcome (and this outcome may very well be essential if the world’s IRL energy and commodity shortage keeps on course — NB. energy consumed by digital living is still high and while their are more efficient ways being developed all the time, they are a few years away. So the question is, are digital artefacts of monetary gain just a way to keep selling us products? because they are a little cheaper to make then harvesting raw material, making them into forms, and shipping them half way around the world?

AR/VR is hard. Look at Magic Leap. But Snapchat are doing great things also and in the bushes silently buying up some the best startups in the tech space for it — Apple will wait until significant market buy-in is established (they need to be careful not to wait too long, as while letting Tesla break open the electric + self driving cars industry, they waited too long to acquire them. Apple generally let others start a trend, then they set it. But they missed the boat with Tesla when they turned down option to buy it. (The question is was it meant? so that Tesla could establish a new industry for them to gallop into… or/and — Apple then discovered that making cars is actually quite hard?).

Facebook have done the same now with digital currencies and the past year has seen a boom in 3D type worlds related to blockchain + NFT related living.

Their new name and branding, and restructuring of company, might be the most important moment yet. When you decide to bury a villain it’s often because you are about to plant new trees on the plot instead.

I would be long FB or whatever the new company is called. If they could acquire Shopify and Discord and add to high end gaming studios. Then they would be up there with Amazon and Google (both of whom are about to have some of their traditional pies eaten).

Lets see if the Square and Twitter and Blockchain/Payments effect work for Jack Dorsey’s vision, which is far closer to open protocols vs platforms (which by their censorship of late does not seem as sure set as the promise hopes us to believe). But the accumulation phase of Twitter has taken root and seems to be breaking out. (FB had to cannibalise the intrinsic values of FB & Instagram to finally start generating revenue as running services and products focused on the users need rather then also make money became impossible — While Twitter ran a simple core fragile but powerful platform who they did very little to tweak until very recently with the rise in value of digital self)

Regardless, the future looks likely to have a digital passport of sorts. Much like we use our FB , Google, LinkedIn, Github, Apple etc to sign and verify. We will likely have a 3 fold version of you online in a blockchain ID wallet, that will store all permissions etc in;

• True Full self (Think tax reasons)
• Pseudonym self (Think Reddit Avatar you) (Scanner Darkly)
• Throwaway Anon. self (100% private, like Burner Money Cards)

Bonus: Keep eyes on the nifty stuff Brave Browser are doing along with Urbit for a new way of doing computer OS’s and network links.

The question is what masks will we choose to wear into the future, and which version of itself will Facebook adorn going forward, as they put their current book back on the shelve and begin to write the next story. (I personally think if it was available for right price that that would be a suitable renaming — Story.

Get Rich / Design Trying

Status as a Service (StaaS) — Remains of the Day — www.eugenewei.com
Editor’s Note 1 : I have no editor. Editor’s Note 2 : I would like to assure new subscribers to this blog that most my posts are not as long as this one. Or as long as my previous one . My long break from posting here means that this piece is a collection of what would’ve normally been a series

Protocols, Not Platforms: A Technological Approach to Free Speech | Knight First Amendment Institute — knightcolumbia.org
After a decade or so of the general sentiment being in favor of the internet and social media as a way to enable more speech and improve the marketplace of ideas, in the last few years the view has shifted dramatically — now it seems that almost no one is happy. Some feel that these platforms have become cesspools of trolling, bigotry, and hatred.1 1. Zachary Laub, Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons, Council on Foreign Rel. (Jun. 7, 2019), https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons. Meanwhile, others feel that these platforms have become too aggressive in policing language and are systematically silencing or censoring certain viewpoints.2 2. Tony Romm, Republicans Accused Facebook, Google and Twitter of Bias. Democrats Called the Hearing ‘Dumb.’, Wash. Post (Jul. 17, 2018), https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/07/17/republicans-accused-facebook-google-twitter-bias-democrats-called-hearing-dumb/?utm_term=.895b34499816. And that’s not even touching on the question of privacy and what these platforms are doing (or not doing) with all of the data they collect.

Facing the Book was originally published in Get Rich or Design Trying on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

> This piece was formed in cover letter for Facebook Privacy & Data Role <

Saving Face(book)

You hear a lot of hyperbole in regards of the death⚰️ of Facebook as a core social platform, but the reality remains that it is immense infrastructure. Much like our cars of today, we take them for granted and detach affinity to them because of the ‘blackbox’ effect of modern vehicles. We cannot fix or customise them to our own needs, people would develop respect and understanding in how to drive a machine when they repaired or altered its parts, they grew to respect the system and operate it in a unison with maintaining it. Without the means to mend, Facebook as a utility opposed to a platform will break.

If we allow people to amplify truth, and present their best selves, enabling self-discovery, the product could return to being a ‘personal platform’ — a podium to project personality.

We make our tools and thereafter they (shield) us

The excellent Cennydd Bowles, an ethical designer who once led design at Twitter UK, now tries to instil a deeper philosophical approach to modern day designers and digital product makers. The very fact that the question of ‘harvesting’ (data) is an open debate, highlights the need to to unpack deeper understanding of data ethics. Enabling society the tools to explore and sanction their data usage, we will move onto a deeper and richer mode of engagement. We are indeed at a tipping point, with many all ready on the tipped end of the scale. With the default value exchange being ‘my data is free-game’, because we get all this freemium content back. Perhaps it’s a tipping point we cannot return from much like the case of How Music Got Free¹, a very worthwhile read about the system view of how music became so cheap to obtain.

Post Privacy

Bowles points to legal scholar (most cited of all time), Richard Posner’s outlook;

people view privacy as ‘concealment of information about themselves that others might use to their disadvantage’.

Expanding from this Bowles postulates to ‘understand modern privacy as control and self-determination.’

“All knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by social interactions,” wrote Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann in their 1966 work “The Social Construction of Reality”

Currently the internet is littered with shards of our fractured selves, but much like an obsessed investigator, gluing line after line of shredded paper, the full spectrum of seemingly meaningless fragments becomes available once pooled together. Humans are poor at seeing into the future, worse again at tracing the trail of thoughts we project. We are far more likely listen to the echos of our social constructs — data relativity rather then objectively sift through our content. We must take care to avoid these dark whirlpools of data surplus.

“ information is not only useless, but potentially dangerous…the old saying that, to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and therefore, “to a man with a computer, everything looks like data.” — Technolopoly
Neil Postman

If Data is Currency, Are We Banks?

As it stands, Privacy as Privilege is the narrative being wrote by Apple — capitalising on privacy being a luxury. Tim Cook has repeatedly expressed his ‘discomfort’ at data practises stating “Privacy in itself has become a crisis…You are not our product…Our products are iPhones and iPads. We treasure your data”. Like all commodities, the rarer the artefact, the more valuable it becomes, those of us throwing the content of our souls into the ether, will have no buying power in comparison to those that keep their cards close to their chests. Ultimately, if we enable and empower people to commoditise their data, they can engage in meaningful exchanges of value with the underlining acknowledgement in this new currency — that we understand its utility in the transparency of the transaction.

Transaction Transparency = Truth

We must learn how to spend our ‘data-coins’, if we intrust too much of it to automation, without understanding the logic of the network, we risk rouge runaway snowballing, as seen on the markets in 2010;

In the chaos of those 25 minutes, 2bn shares, worth $56bn, changed hands. Even more worryingly, many orders were executed at what the Securities Exchange Commission called “irrational prices”: as low as a penny, or as high as $100,000. The event became known as the “flash crash”, and it is still being investigated and argued over years later.

A run on the banks 🏃🏼‍♀️💨

As it stands, we carelessly and unknowingly give up our data, what if we started a run on the data banks? If we all up skilled our understanding, and took steps to be more careful with our data, then the endless stream of cheap ad money dries up. Of course, what becomes of the economy of the world, when this essentially lazy industry ends, like gold rushes ending, we end up with prospectors at loss with their brand new shovels digging for naught. There are those out there who think we should rise up and not just obtain the tools to defend and navigate the complexity, but directly attack with sword in hand. The book Obfuscation is worth a look for such ideology.

Age of Entanglement

Danny Hillis of MIT has speaks about about how we now live in a world of so much complexity, with our rapidly expanding and ever connecting technologies, that we cannot even phantom the possible outcomes. The unintended consequences — far too numerous to predict.

We can no longer understand how the world works by breaking it down into loosely-connected parts that reflect the hierarchy of physical space or deliberate design. Instead, we must watch the flows of information, ideas, energy and matter that connect us, and the networks of communication, trust, and distribution that enable these flows — Danny Hillis

I believe that the best we can hope for, is to create horizons of safe limits. What I mean by this is we must adopt a systems thinking approach and figure out which areas will intersect, not knowing how they interact but focusing on the interoperability of contact points, focus on making loose threads that can stitch together in the moment, rather then ‘seamless seams’ of the past decade. These seams, in regards to data and AI can become ‘deadly / dangerous’ ones, the hand-off that occurs is like jumping off a cliff with no understanding of how to channel a gust of wind. People need to be able to envision the ‘sum of the the parts’ of their digital shadows and trace those rays back to the source where the perspective lens is being cast from.

We can live in our shadows or die facing the sun

Boiling 🐸’s

Like a frog being slowly boiled alive we accepted the status quo. The rapid acceleration of technology and its thirst for progress at the expense of monetising our lives’ has brought us beyond the frog in a pot. We now keep our heads buried in the sand, almost afraid to look at the problem in the shadow. In the constant need for frictionless experiences, the cost of the smoothness of our current ‘seams’ is that eventually the ice you glide on melts away until you have nothing left. Designers must try and introduce friendly frictions into experiences with personal data transfers.

It seems people are very willing to give up their private information in return for perceived benefits such as ease of use, navigation and access to friends and information. — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism

Understanding the flow and transformation of information

Secondly designers need to help pull our heads out of the sand, and shed light on the problem 🔦. The multidisciplinary designer Neri Oxman expands upon the ‘age of entanglement’, providing a methodology for considering such complex moving parts;

“…Science is to explain and predict the world around us; it ‘converts’ information into knowledge…

…Engineering is to apply scientific knowledge to the development of solutions for empirical problems; it ‘converts’ knowledge into utility…

… Design is to produce embodiments of solutions that maximize function and augment human experience; it ‘converts’ utility into behavior…

…Art is to question human behavior and create awareness of the world around us…”

With broader mental models like this, perhaps we can approach things like information flows and its multifaceted states of being more tangibly. This type of philosophy may help us map these complex issues and regain power.

Like economic power and political power, privacy power is a distinct type of power, but it also allows those who hold it the possibility of transforming it into economic, political and other kinds of power. Power over others’ privacy is the quintessential kind of power in the digital age.

Our digital information is inherently violate and far from inert.

Flexible Futures

So with so many possible outcomes, like a myriad of tentacles gliding over one another, an attitude I have adopted from my recent MA is that we must try to flex our minds, stretching both imagination and values. Doing this with the aid of flexible futures. Think of it as a cooked spaghetti thread in the future cone, able to change its pathway. Pressed through a bronze die it’s vector seemingly preordained but waving, changing with heat and time. The usage of Speculative, Fictional and Critical Design practises (known also as Discursive Design) could be particularly useful to invoke discursive provocation with people and their unaddressed values in regards to data exposure and transparency of our transactions.

Existing on the Ridge of Perception

McLuhan outlines in Understanding Media the role of the artist/creative is to live on the edge of society, up upon the hilltops of its valley, looking down with perspective while experiencing ‘living in the moment’ effect of a technology’s impact on us. Akin to wading through waves in water, we cannot anchor ourselves to be still nor allow us to be taken by a rouge wave 🌊, we must be able to adapt to the intensity of the sea of information. There is no on/off — there is only a slider. We must allow users to become data fluid. The sensitivity of our data is precious, and like the word itself (sensitive), describes the need to have varying degrees of pressure or exposure.

It will be difficult to adjust the levels of sensitivity needed, so as not to inhibit our own lives or become drowned in the deluge of data. What is certain is the need to see the problem more clearly, rather than consider it dark magic that we cannot wield for our own needs.

Lack of understanding leads to uncertainty and folk-theories that hinder our ability to use technical systems, and clouds the critique of technological developments — Timo Arnall

Finally perhaps remember, often the most dangerous of us are those who have nothing to lose because they may own nothing in this current technopoly.

>>> These mind ramblings are fresh and mostly jumbled and I intend to expand on some of these topics in future posts. KG <<<

If Data is Currency, are we Banks? was originally published in Get Rich or Design Trying on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Real material while relatively slow to work with, allows for more accidental mistakes to keep. Getting better at design is knowing what mistakes to keep — faster.

It also allows for perspective. Showing people stuff on a screen (always show any work you make for input) can often leave people with the same view. The three-dimensional form allows for angles, shadows and lighting etc. More mistranslation of purpose. It’s organic. Undo is actually another process of creating in the real world. Something lacking in the world today is a level of inference. We are spoon fed polished articles more and more. No opportunity to shine things for ourselves to interpret a little and run with a lot.

Google suffers from a complex problem, they are really good at many things, they have engineers who are walking toolboxes fixing everything in their scope and solving the complicated problems. But they perhaps lacked… not heart! ❤️ … humour was always there… they lacked a certain convection of naive virtuous play in the realm of design.

They had built an all mighty sail to travel the seas, but they had no understanding of the winds that filled those sails. Speeding over waves but unsure in the direction.⛵️ They have established a strong culture of working- we can do it cause we are Google. This, of course, was great but also a hindrance because it makes you think you can attack any problem from out of the blue. With direction, you can tackle big problems out of the blue because you have momentum. Like a boat sailing, with enough speed, it can cut through a rogue wave. 🌊

With so many products under the one umbrella. ☔️s are supposed to keep all the droplets out, instead, it was keeping all the droplets locked in. Diluting the core experience and the core identity. That’s why I’m glad they made Alphabet. It helped them to manage their portfolio of products without feeling the need to conform to a Google identity for everything. A lot non-Google service stuff had Google slapped over it and was confusing for the market and its makers.

Android wanted to be a something to all peoples, but slowly over the years, it has tailored itself to the hardware it lives in. Samsung led the way alongside Google and its Nexus Range, but Google has stepped into the physical world harder than ever. They flirted with AR with Google Glass 👀, a technology with one Industrial Design lead on board at the time. It was an experiment with a coming technology that in reality still needed/needs the UX and UI to be crafted. The technology was too young but the ball was rolling. (Google still run projects with Google Glass and Intel are in on the act with Vaunt).

Fast forward — We now have a child of that AR and VR with Daydream which beckoned in a tactile physical material choice of hessian fabric. It was a statement of clear design direction.

The harsh hard plastic of Oculus and Samsung Gear VR is not the world of tomorrow. A world where technology is intrinsically woven into our lives and in this case; garments. It softens the alien nature of these products literally! Google Home, the translating earbuds and daydream all have a warm tactile nature. Throwing away the sterile plastics of its rivals. Sure other company’s have done excellent jobs before. UE and their very excellent Roll speakers for one designed by Non-Object, but Google released a series of products all with the same aesthetic and material language. They even made a pocket clip camera that doesn’t seem like a spy (Yet) on your chest. Google gets a lot of abuse for failed products and both hardware failed digital ones. Allo + circles etc. (Best to forget the Google Q) But they can afford to fail. They understand where the world is going. The sensors, the software to run & read the data and the aural inputs for our command of AI is something they see coming and they want us to feel at home when it finally arrives. Apple forced you into their ecosystem, Google kind of snuck up on you by being useful and universal. They have us now, and they are starting to turn the screw.

Objects are the Vessels for Voice and AI 👻

Siri, Alexa, Google Assistant — can all sometimes feel like ghosts. A magic voice from the internet, that needs to be embodied in warm present objects to allow us to develop a comfort level with our all-knowing spirit. Also, Alphabet owns Nest meaning Google is entering our lives on every frontier.

KG

I felt like a DJ-ing maestro mixing Adeles Hello into Frank Oceans Pyramids. It felt like the modern-day version of the analogue radial dial of a radio. It for me made the music feel a little less digital and that little bit more human.

Performance vs Magic

Don’t ask how this must have been affecting the performance and bandwidth of the streaming. It must have taken its toll; both simultaneously and in parallel keeping all the tracks buffering to be ready to play and also dual audio mixing too! But someone in the team felt that the magic outweighed the cost.

Apply Some Pressure

It was a funny little feature, one that I felt had been delicately crafted into the system, to create this seamless motion, phasing into one song to the next. You could even leverage your finger between two song titles and lean harder on one or the other to bring both songs into playing, one rising while the other fell away into the background. Finally like an elastic band you were pulling on, you let go it and resume back to the original song.

They say its not about what you do when people are looking, it’s what you do when no one is. I have asked many friends of mine that are either interested in UI/UX stuff or avid audiophiles, and nearly always no one had any idea what I was talking about. For me it is the little things. The little wiggleroom that allows you play and to have ownership in the expirence that makes it great. We all want to share our expirences but we also all want our own little moment withen them too.

BUT!… I don’ t mean true opposites, like Fire and Ice, these tropes are regularly played out, you end up with water as a result, that is too quick an answer, we are going deeper here, more jarring.

Life is not about finding answers, its about learning how to ask the question that no one has the answers to yet. You do not need the answer even. The magic left in this world is the stuff you cant quite describe, but breaths life into imagination.

Take my handle on Twitter and Instagram;

@meltedlaughter

People every once in a while ask me, ‘what the hell is that supposed to even mean ?’ but most just pass it off as me being eccentric… which I most certainly am (more commonly known as being awkward), however when people do inquire, my response is that I wanted to create something that is really hard to picture or define. We have become such passive consumers of content, that we skim so carelessly over words and content now that, as a result we need to cause;

braking for the brain

Interesting book on us being such shallow readers is;

Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains

PLUS+

EQUALS = Me (Or what ever conclusion you’ve come to yourself)

Laughter is a response to funny things, and melting is deformed, decaying, and destructive imagery. I suppose a quick go to would be manic laughter , how would a laugh (a sound) be melted? What do sounds sound like when melted?

Example: The sound of a melting cassette tape (remember them)

It is the ability for things to become mutated, to lose their structure, and transform into something beyond its original intent, but with laughter the hope was of something positive being shaped into something very different but still good. Unlike ice cream which in its whipped, semi-solid state is a pillow of creamy delight texture for our tongues. In its melted state though, it’s just a super sticky sugary milky liquid mess.*

*Baked Alaskas excluded*

The image above and its caption, is a demonstration of how we can tease out complicated thought from simple metaphors, we all know the sum of the parts is greater than anyone individual, but that alone is not enough;

Context is Ben Kingsley — Most things need a suitable environment to grow in as well as a glue. The best ice cream is just rich milk in the sun. Now stick in an igloo and now we are talking.

So why the title?

‘In the Defeat of none’. The whole point of it is to be difficult to understand and conceptualize. It is making you think, ask and answer questions. I want you to actively engage, and participate in the thought process. We all understand fighting for something or someone and trying be victorious for our ambitions friends or families, but what is losing for nothing supposed to mean? Maybe the act of losing is just as important as winning, but usually it comes at a loss of something you wanted, and hence you dealing with that shortcoming, but is it possible to lose without the not winning part? How powerful is it to not be afraid of losing but still wanting to win?

I’ve been Kevin Glynn and I am currently a Designer man actively trying to engage with the culture he one day hopes to help cultivate. Currently being a UX designer (My view on that title will be another post) with the goal to be a comprehensive physical interaction designer curating the experience of emerging technology.

Tune in next time…

Next post will be a hat tipped to Medium and the platform itself in relation to the Marshall Mcluhanism of

‘The medium is the message’

How format, structure and set creation tools start to write and present the content before a single thought is expressed.