Berin Szoka

PFF Launches Center for Internet Freedom

The Progress & Freedom Foundation has just launched the new Center for Internet Freedom.  CIF offers an alternative to the proliferation of advocacy groups calling for government intervention online by offering timely analyses and critiques of proposals that diminish the vital role of free markets, free speech and property rights.  We aim to drive the Internet policy debate in new directions by emphasizing a layered approach of technological innovation, user education, user self-help, industry self-regulation, and the enforcement of existing laws consistent with the First Amendment.  Such an approach is a less restrictive—and generally more effective—alternative to increased regulation.  

Here are some of the issues I’ll be working on as CIF’s Director in conjunction with my esteemed colleagues Adam Thierer, Adam Marcus, and adjunct fellows: 

  • Defending online advertising as the lifeblood of online content & services, especially in the “Long Tail”;
  • Emphasizing market solutions to problems of privacy protection, especially regarding the use of cookies and packet inspection data;
  • Protecting online speech and expression both in the U.S. and abroad;
  • Defending Section 230 immunity for Internet intermediaries;
  • Opposing online taxation and legal barriers to e-commerce and digital payments, especially at the state and local levels; and
  • Ensuring that Internet governance remains transparent and accountable without hampering the evolution of the Internet.

October 24, 2008 | Comments |

Viewing 4 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    What about defending immunity for Internet intermediaries under section 512 of the DMCA?
    • ^
    • v
    The Progress and Freedom Foundation commendably advocates "Freedom". But there is no explicit statement concerning the nature of this "Freedom". Clearly there is a pro-business orientation as the language used speaks of the fostering the "online sector". This vague language implies a double standard. Freedom for some, but not for others. Freedom for the business community to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and without accountability. What about the consumer? Evidently the consumer is simply viewed as a corporate "revenue unit" with no rights. The ISPs may "own" the hardware, but without the consumer providing dollars they would not be in business. So we need to have a middle ground.

    The post notes the "proliferation of advocacy groups calling for government intervention online". Government regulation results when the private sector ignores/abuses the consumer. To avoid this situation, the PFF can take proactive measures. Missing from the mission statement of the PFF is a commitment to respect the rights of the consumer, the property rights of the consumer, and the freedom of the consumer. Freedom for all, not for some.
    • ^
    • v
    Steve.. We at PFF believe in "freedom for all" as in freedom from onerous government regulation. We aren't anarchists; certainly we need some minimal rules of the road. But, generally speaking, we support the freedom of consumers AND companies to act autonomously, without fear of suffocating government regualation. When their actions harm others, that's when government intervention is authorized.

    Thus, your statement about "Freedom for the business community to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, and without accountability" is not what we advocate. No one, and no entity, has a right to do whatever it wants without regard to consequence. But government intervention -- which, at its core, is fundamentally tied up with the ugly thuggishness of state coercion -- should be kept to a minimum and only relied upon when individuals or organizations clearly violate the rights of others. I'm sorry that you favor coercion over voluntarism as the primary organizing principle of society, but it's a shortcoming that many in our modern statist society share with you.
    • ^
    • v
    TechDirt article: No Surprise Here: PFF Blasts Jammie Thomas Judge For His Mistrial Call

    Mike Masnick writes: "We've written plenty of times about the so-called "think tank" the Progress & Freedom Foundation. The group, which has called itself a "free market" think tank appears to be anything but free market when it comes to intellectual property issues. For years, it's been a huge supporter of increasingly strengthening gov't granted monopolies, often resorting to highly questionable arguments, such as suggesting that fair use harms innovation and that the DMCA shouldn't be changed because that would be gov't meddling in the free market -- ignoring, of course, that the DMCA itself is actually meddling in the free market."
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus