[This is a draft of a section of a forthcoming study on “A Flexible Governance Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” which I hope to complete shortly. I welcome feedback. I have also cross-posted this essay at Medium.]

Debates about how to embed ethics and best practices into AI product design is where the question of public policy defaults becomes important. To the extent AI design becomes the subject of legal or regulatory decision-making, a choice must be made between two general approaches: the precautionary principle or the proactionary principle.[1] While there are many hybrid governance approaches in between these two poles, the crucial issue is whether the initial legal default for AI technologies will be set closer to the red light of the precautionary principle (i.e., permissioned innovation) or to the green light of the proactionary principle (i.e., (permissionless innovation). Each governance default will be discussed.

The Problem with the Precautionary Principle as the Policy Default for AI

The precautionary principle holds that innovations are to be curtailed or potentially even disallowed until the creators of those new technologies can prove that they will not cause any theoretical harms. The classic formulation of the precautionary principle can be found in the “Wingspan Statement,” which was formulated at an academic conference that took place at the Wingspread Conference Center in Wisconsin in 1998. It read: “Where an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.”[2] There have been many reformulations of the precautionary principle over time but, as legal scholar Cass Sunstein has noted, “in all of them, the animating idea is that regulators should take steps to protect against potential harms, even if causal chains are unclear and even if we do not know that those harms will come to fruition.”[3] Put simply, under almost all varieties of the precautionary principle, innovation is treated as “guilty until proven innocent.”^[4] We can also think of this as permissioned innovation.

The logic animating the precautionary principle reflects a well-intentioned desire to play it safe in the face of uncertainty. The problem lies in the way this instinct gets translated into law and regulation. Making the precautionary principle the public policy default for any given technology or sector has a strong bearing on how much innovation we can expect to flow from it. When trial-and-error experimentation is preemptively forbidden or discouraged by law, it can limit many of the positive outcomes that typically accompany efforts by people to be creative and entrepreneurial. This can, in turn, give rise to different risks for society in terms of forgone innovation, growth, and corresponding opportunities to improve human welfare in meaningful ways.

St. Thomas Aquinas once observed that if the sole goal of a captain were to preserve their ship, the captain would keep it in port forever. But that clearly is not the captain’s highest goal. Aquinas was making a simple but powerful point: There can be no reward without some effort and even some risk-taking. Ship captains brave the high seas because they are in search of a greater good, such as recognition, adventure, or income. Keeping ships in port forever would preserve their vessels, but at what cost?

Similarly, consider the wise words of Wilbur Wright, who pioneered human flight. Few people better understood the profound risks associated with entrepreneurial activities. After all, Wilbur and his brother were trying to figure out how to literally lift humans off the Earth. The dangers were real, but worth taking. “If you are looking for perfect safety,” Wright said, “you would do well to sit on a fence and watch the birds.” Humans would have never taken to the skies if the Wright brothers had not gotten off the fence and taken the risks they did. Risk-taking drives innovation and, over the long-haul, improves our well-being.^[5] Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

These lessons can be applied to public policy by considering what would happen if, in the name of safety, public officials told captains to never leave port or told aspiring pilots to never leave the ground. The opportunity cost of inaction can be hard to quantify, but it should be clear that if we organized our entire society around a rigid application of the precautionary principle, progress and prosperity would suffer.

Heavy-handed preemptive restraints on creative acts can have deleterious effects because they raise barriers to entry, increase compliance costs, and create more risk and uncertainty for entrepreneurs and investors. Thus, it is the unseen costs—primarily in the form of forgone innovation opportunities—that makes the precautionary principle so problematic as a policy default. This is why scientist Martin Rees speaks of “the hidden cost of saying no” that is associated with the precautionary principle.[6]

The precise way the precautionary principle leads to this result is that it derails the so-called learning curve by limiting opportunities to learn from trial-and-error experimentation with new and better ways of doing things.[7] The learning curve refers to the way that individuals, organizations, or industries are able to learn from their mistakes, improve their designs, enhance productivity, lower costs, and then offer superior products based on the resulting knowledge.[8] In his recent book, Where Is My Flying Car?, J. Storrs Hall documents how, over the last half century, “regulation clobbered the learning curve” for many important technologies in the U.S., especially nuclear, nanotech, and advanced aviation.[9] Hall shows how society was denied many important innovations due to endless foot-dragging or outright opposition to change from special interests, anti-innovation activists, and over-zealous bureaucrats.

In many cases, innovators don’t even know what they are up against because, as many scholars have noted, “the precautionary principle, in all of its forms, is fraught with vagueness and ambiguity.”[10] It creates confusion and fear about the wisdom of taking action in the face of uncertainty. Worst case thinking paralyzes regulators who aim to “play it safe” at all costs. The result is an endless snafu of red tape as layer upon layer of mandates build up and block progress. The result is what many scholars now decry as a culture of “vetocracy,” which describes the many veto points within modern political systems that hold back innovation, development and economic opportunity.[11] This endless accumulation of potential veto points in the policy process in the form of mandates and restrictions can greatly curtail innovation opportunities. “Like sediment in a harbor, law has steadily accumulated, mainly since the 1960s, until most productive activity requires slogging through a legal swamp,” says Philip K. Howard, chair of Common Good.[12] “Too much law,” he argues, “can have similar effects as too little law,” because:

People slow down, they become defensive, they don’t initiate projects because they are surrounded by legal risks and bureaucratic hurdles. They tiptoe through the day looking over their shoulders rather than driving forward on the power of their instincts. Instead of trial and error, they focus on avoiding error.[13]

This is exactly why it is important that policymakers not get too caught up in attempts to preemptively resolve every potential hypothetical worst case scenarios associated with AI technologies. The problem with that approach was succinctly summarized by the political scientist Aaron Wildavsky when he noted, “If you can do nothing without knowing first how it will turn out, you cannot do anything at all.”^[14] Or, as I have stated in a book on this topic, “living in constant fear of worst-case scenarios—and premising public policy on them—means that best-case scenarios will never come about.”[15]

This does not mean society should dismiss all concerns about the risks surrounding AI. Some technological risks do necessitate a degree of precautionary policy, but proportionality is crucial, notes Gabrielle Bauer, a Toronto-based medical writer. “Used too liberally,” she argues, “the precautionary principle can keep us stuck in a state of extreme risk-aversion, leading to cumbersome policies that weigh down our lives. To get to the good parts of life, we need to accept some risk.”[16] It is not enough to simply hypothesize that certain AI innovations might entail some risk. The critics need to prove it using risk analysis techniques that properly weigh both the potential costs and benefits.^[17] Moreover, when conducting such analyses, the full range of trade-offs associated with preemptive regulation must be evaluated. Again, where precautionary constraints might deny society life-enriching devices or services, those costs must be acknowledged.

Generally speaking, the most extreme precautionary controls should only be imposed when the potential harms in question are highly probable, tangible, immediate, irreversible, catastrophic, or directly threatening to life and limb in some fashion.^[18] In the context of AI and ML systems, it may be the case that such a test is satisfied already for law enforcement use of certain algorithmic profiling techniques. And that test is satisfied for so-called “killer robots,” or autonomous military technology.[19] These are often described as “existential risks.” The precautionary principle is the right default in these cases because it is abundantly clear how unrestricted use would have catastrophic consequences. For similar reasons, governments have long imposed comprehensive restrictions on certain types of weapons.[20] And although nuclear and chemical technologies have many important applications, their use must also be limited to some degree even outside of militaristic applications because they can pose grave danger if misused.

But the vast majority of AI-enabled technologies are not like this. Most innovations should not be treated the same a hand grenade or a ticking time bomb. In reality, most algorithmic failures will be more mundane and difficult to foresee in advance. By their very nature, algorithms are constantly evolving because programs and systems are being endlessly tweaked by designers to improve them. In his books on the evolution of engineering and systems design, Henry Petroski has noted that “the shortcomings of things are what drive their evolution.”[21] The normal state of things is “ubiquitous imperfection,” he notes, and it is precisely that reality that drives efforts to continuously innovate and iterate.[22]

Regulations rooted in the precautionary principle hope to preemptively find and address product imperfections before any harm comes from them. In reality, and as explained more below, it is only through ongoing experimentation that we find both the nature of failures and the knowledge to know how to correct them. As Petroski observes, “the history of engineering in general, may be told in its failures as well as in its triumphs. Success may be grand, but disappointment can often teach us more.”^[23] This is particularly true for complex algorithmic systems, where rapid-fire innovation and incessant iteration are the norm.

Importantly, the problem with precautionary regulation for AI is not just that it might be over-inclusive in seeking to regulate hypothetical problems that never develop. Precautionary regulation can also be under-inclusive by missing problematic behavior or harms that no one anticipated before the fact. Only experience and experimentation reveal certain problems.

In sum, we should not presume that there is a clear preemptive regulatory solution to every problem some people raise about AI, nor should we presume we can even accurately identify all such problems that might come about in the future. Moreover, some risks will never be eliminated entirely, meaning that risk mitigation is the wiser approach. This is why a more flexible bottom-up governance strategy focused on responsiveness and resiliency makes more sense than heavy-handed, top-down strategies that would only avoid risks by making future innovations extremely difficult if not impossible.

The “Proactionary Principle” is the Better Default for AI Policy

The previous section made it clear why the precautionary principle should generally not be used as our policy default if we hope to encourage the development of AI applications and services. What we need is a policy approach that:

• objectively evaluates the concerns raised about AI systems and applications;
• considers whether more flexible governance approaches might be available to address them; and,
• does so without resorting to the precautionary principle as a first-order response.

The proactionary principle is the better general policy default for AI because it satisfies these three objectives.[24] Philosopher Max More defines the proactionary principle as the idea that policymakers should, “[p]rotect the freedom to innovate and progress while thinking and planning intelligently for collateral effects.”^[25] There are different names for this same concept, including the innovation principle, which Daniel Castro and Michael McLaughlin of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation say represents the belief that “the vast majority of new innovations are beneficial and pose little risk, so government should encourage them.”^[26] Permissionless innovation is another name for the same idea. Permissionless innovation refers to the idea that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default.^[27]

What binds these concepts together is the belief that innovation should generally be treated as innocent until proven guilty. There will be risks and failures, of course, but the permissionless innovation mindset views them as important learning experiences. These experiences are chances for individuals, organizations, and all of society to make constant improvements through incessant experimentation with new and better ways of doing things.[28] As Virginia Postrel argued in her 1998 book, The Future and Its Enemies, progress demands “a decentralized, evolutionary process” and mindset in which mistakes are not viewed as permanent disasters but instead as “the correctable by-products of experimentation.”^[29] “No one wants to learn by mistakes,” Petroski once noted, “but we cannot learn enough from successes to go beyond the state of the art.”^[30] Instead we must realize, as other scholars have observed, that “[s]uccess is the culmination of many failures”^[31] and understand “failure as the natural consequence of risk and complexity.”^[32]

This is why the default for public policy for AI innovation should, whenever possible, be more green lights than red ones to allow for the maximum amount of trial-and-error experimentation, which encourages ongoing learning.[33] “Experimentation matters,” observes Stefan H. Thomke of the Harvard Business School, “because it fuels the discovery and creation of knowledge and thereby leads to the development and improvement of products, processes, systems, and organizations.”^[34]

Obviously, risks and mistakes are “the very things regulators inherently want to avoid,”^[35] but “if innovators fear they will be punished for every mistake,” Daniel Castro and Alan McQuinn argue, “then they will be much less assertive in trying to develop the next new thing.”^[36] And for all the reasons already stated, that would represent the end of progress because it would foreclose the learning process that allows society to discover new, better, and safer ways of doing things. Technology author Kevin Kelly puts it this way:

technologies must be evaluated in action, by action. We test them in labs, we try them out in prototypes, we use them in pilot programs, we adapt our expectations, we monitor their alterations, we redefine their aims as they are modified, we retest them given actual behavior, we re-direct them to new jobs when we are not happy with their outcomes.[37]

In other words, the proactionary principle appreciates the benefits that flow from learning by doing. The goal is to continuously assess and prioritize risks from natural and human-made systems alike, and then formulate and reformulate our toolkit of possible responses to those risks using the most practical and effective solutions available. This should make it clear that the proactionary approach is not synonymous with anarchy. Various laws, government bodies, and especially the courts play an important role in protecting rights, health, and order. But policies need to be formulated such that innovators and innovation are given the benefit of the doubt and risks are analyzed and addressed in a more flexible fashion.

Some of the most effective ways to address potential AI risks already exist in the form of “soft law” and decentralized governance solution. These will be discussed at greater length below. But existing legal remedies include various common law solutions (torts, class actions, contract law, etc), recall authority possessed by many regulatory agencies, and various consumer protection policies. Ex post remedies are generally superior to ex ante prior restraints if we hope to maximize innovation opportunities. Ex ante regulatory defaults are too often set closer to the red light of the precautionary principle and then enforced through volumes of convoluted red tape.

This is what the World Economic Forum has referred to as a “regulate-and-forget” system of governance,[38] or what others call a “build-and-freeze model” or regulation.[39] In such technological governance regimes, older rules are almost never revisited, even after new social, economic, and technical realities render them obsolete or ineffective.[40] A 2017 survey of U.S. Code of Regulations by Deloitte consultants revealed that 68 percent of federal regulations have never been updated and that 17 percent have only been updated once.^[41] Public policies for complex and fast-moving technologies like AI cannot be set in stone and forgotten like that if America hopes to remain on the cutting edge of this sector.

Advocates of the proactionary principle look to counter this problem not by eliminating all laws or agencies, but by bringing them in line with flexible governance principles rooted in more decentralized approaches to policy concerns.[42] As many regulatory advocates suggest, it is important to embed or “bake in” various ethical best practices into AI systems to ensure that they benefit humanity. But this, too, is a process of ongoing learning and there are many ways to accomplish such goals without derailing important technological advances. What is often referred to as “value alignment” or “ethically-aligned design” is challenged by the fact that humans regularly disagree profoundly about many moral issues.[43] “Before we can put our values into machines, we have to figure out how to make our values clear and consistent,” says Harvard University psychologist Joshua D. Greene.[44]

The “Three Laws of Robotics” famously formulated decades ago by Isaac Asimov in his science fiction stories continue to be widely discussed today as a guide to embedding ethics into machines.[45] They read:

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

What is usually forgotten about these principles, as AI expert Melanie Mitchell reminds us, is the way Asimov, “often focused on the unintended consequences of programming ethical rules into robots,” and how he made it clear that, if applied too literally, “such a set of rules would inevitably fail.”[46]

This is why flexibility and humility are essential virtues when thinking about AI policy. The optimal governance regime for AI can be shaped by responsible innovation practices and embed important ethical principles by design without immediately defaulting to a rigid application of the precautionary principle.[47] In other words, an innovation policy regime rooted in the proactionary principle can also be infused with the same values that animate a precautionary principle-based system.[48] The difference is that the proactionary principle-based approach will look to achieve these goals in a more flexible fashion using a variety of experimental governance approaches and ex post legal enforcement options, while also encouraging still more innovation to solve problems past innovations may have caused.

To reiterate, not every AI risk is foreseeable, and many risks and harms are more amorphous or uncertain. In this sense, the wisest governance approach for AI was recently outlined by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in its initial draft AI Risk Management Framework, which is a multistakeholder effort “to describe how the risks from AI-based systems differ from other domains and to encourage and equip many different stakeholders in AI to address those risks purposefully.”[49] NIST notes that the goal of the Framework is:

to be responsive to new risks as they emerge rather than enumerating all known risks in advance. This flexibility is particularly important where impacts are not easily foreseeable, and applications are evolving rapidly. While AI benefits and some AI risks are well-known, the AI community is only beginning to understand and classify incidents and scenarios that result in harm.[50]

This is a sensible framework for how to address AI risks because it makes it clear that it will be difficult to preemptively identify and address all potential AI risks. At the same time, there will be a continuing need to advance AI innovation while addressing AI-related harms. The key to striking that balance will be decentralized governance approaches and soft law techniques described below.

[Note: The subsequent sections of the study will detail how decentralized governance approaches and soft law techniques already are helping to address concerns about AI risks.]

Endnotes:

[1]     Adam Thierer, Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom, 2nd ed. (Arlington, VA: Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2016): 1-6, 23-38; Adam Thierer, Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2020): 48-54.

[2]     “Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle,” January 1998, https://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/precaution-3.html.

[3]     Cass R. Sunstein, Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005). (“The Precautionary Principle takes many forms. But in all of them, the animating idea is that regulators should take steps to protect against potential harms, even if causal chains are unclear and even if we do not know that those harms will come to fruition.”)

[4]     Henk van den Belt, “Debating the Precautionary Principle: ‘Guilty until Proven Innocent’ or ‘Innocent until Proven Guilty’?” Plant Physiology 132 (2003): 1124.

[5]     H.W. Lewis, Technological Risk (New York: WW. Norton & Co., 1990): x. (“The history of the human race would be dreary indeed if none of our forebears had ever been willing to accept risk in return for potential achievement.”)

[6]     Martin Rees, On the Future: Prospects for Humanity (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018): 136.

[7]     Adam Thierer, “Failing Better: What We Learn by Confronting Risk and Uncertainty,” in Sherzod Abdukadirov (ed.), Nudge Theory in Action: Behavioral Design in Policy and Markets (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016): 65-94.

[8]     Adam Thierer, “How to Get the Future We Were Promised,” Discourse, January 18, 2022, https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2022/01/18/how-to-get-the-future-we-were-promised.

[9]     J. Storrs Hall, Where Is My Flying Car? (San Francisco: Stripe Press, 2021)

[10]    Derek Turner and Lauren Hartzell Nichols, “The Lack of Clarity in the Precautionary Principle,” Environmental Values, Vol 13, No. 4 (2004): 449.

[11]    William Rinehart, “Vetocracy, the Costs of Vetos and Inaction,” Center for Growth & Opportunity at Utah State University, March 24, 2022, https://www.thecgo.org/benchmark/vetocracy-the-costs-of-vetos-and-inaction; Adam Thierer, “Red Tape Reform is the Key to Building Again,” The Hill, April 28, 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3470334-red-tape-reform-is-the-key-to-building-again.

[12]    Philip K. Howard, “Radically Simplify Law,” Cato Institute, Cato Online Forum, http://www.cato.org/publications/cato-online-forum/radically-simplify-law.

[13]    Ibid.

^[14]    Aaron Wildavsky, Searching for Safety (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1989): 38.

[15]    Thierer, Permissionless Innovation, at 2.

[16]    Gabrielle Bauer, “Danger: Caution Ahead,” The New Atlantis, February 4, 2022, https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/danger-caution-ahead.

[17]    Richard B. Belzer, “Risk Assessment, Safety Assessment, and the Estimation of Regulatory Benefits” (Mercatus Working Paper, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Arlington, VA, 2012), 5, http://mercatus.org/publication/risk-assessment-safety-assessment-and-estimation-regulatory-benefits; John D. Graham and Jonathan Baert Wiener, eds. Risk vs. Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).

[18]    Thierer, Permissionless Innovation, at 33-8.

[19]    Adam Satariano, Nick Cumming-Bruce and Rick Gladstone, “Killer Robots Aren’t Science Fiction. A Push to Ban Them Is Growing,” New York Times, December 17, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/17/world/robot-drone-ban.html.

[20]    Adam Thierer, “Soft Law: The Reconciliation of Permissionless & Responsible Innovation,” in Adam Thierer, Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2020): 183-240, https://www.mercatus.org/publications/technology-and-innovation/soft-law-reconciliation-permissionless-responsible-innovation.

[21]    Henry Petroski, The Evolution of Useful Things (New York: Vintage Books, 1994): 34.

[22]    Ibid., 27,

[23]    Henry Petroski, To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design (New York: Vintage, 1992): 9.

[24]    James Lawson, These Are the Droids You’re Looking For: An Optimistic Vision for Artificial Intelligence, Automation and the Future of Work (London: Adam Smith Institute, 2020): 86, https://www.adamsmith.org/research/these-are-the-droids-youre-looking-for.

[25]    Max More, “The Proactionary Principle (March 2008),” Max More’s Strategic Philosophy, March 28, 2008, http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/03/proactionary-principle-march-2008.html.

[26]    Daniel Castro & Michael McLaughlin, “Ten Ways the Precautionary Principle Undermines Progress in Artificial Intelligence,” Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, February 4, 2019, https://itif.org/publications/2019/02/04/ten-ways-precautionary-principle-undermines-progress-artificial-intelligence.

[27]    Thierer, Permissionless Innovation.

[28]    Thierer, “Failing Better.”

[29]    Virginia Postrel, The Future and Its Enemies (New York: The Free Press, 1998): xiv.

[30]    Henry Petroski, To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design (New York: Vintage, 1992): 62.

[31]    Kevin Ashton, How to Fly a Horse: The Secret History of Creation, Invention, and Discovery (New York: Doubleday, 2015): 67.

[32]    Megan McArdle, The Up Side of Down: Why Failing Well is the Key to Success (New York: Viking, 2014), 214.

[33]    F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty (London: Routledge, 1960, 1990): 81. (“Humiliating to human pride as it may be, we must recognize that the advance and even preservation of civilization are dependent upon a maximum of opportunity for accidents to happen.”)

[34]    Stefan H. Thomke, Experimentation Matters: Unlocking the Potential of New Technologies for Innovation (Harvard Business Review Press, 2003), 1.

[35]    Daniel Castro and Alan McQuinn, “How and When Regulators Should Intervene,” Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Reports, (February 2015): 2 http://www.itif.org/publications/how-and-when-regulators-should-intervene.

[36]    Ibid.

[37]    Kevin Kelly, “The Pro-Actionary Principle,” The Technium, November 11, 2008, https://kk.org/thetechnium/the-pro-actiona.

[38]    World Economic Forum, Agile Regulation for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Geneva: Switzerland: 2020): 4, https://www.weforum.org/projects/agile-regulation-for-the-fourth-industrial-revolution.

[39]    Jordan Reimschisel and Adam Thierer, “’Build & Freeze’ Regulation Versus Iterative Innovation,” Plain Text, November 1, 2017, https://readplaintext.com/build-freeze-regulation-versus-iterative-innovation-8d5a8802e5da.

[40]    Adam Thierer, “Spring Cleaning for the Regulatory State,” AIER, May 23, 2019, https://www.aier.org/article/spring-cleaning-for-the-regulatory-state.

[41]    Daniel Byler, Beth Flores & Jason Lewris, “Using Advanced Analytics to Drive Regulatory Reform: Understanding Presidential Orders on Regulation Reform,” Deloitte, 2017, https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/public-sector/articles/advanced-analytics-federal-regulatory-reform.html.

[42]    Adam Thierer, Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium, American Enterprise Institute (April 2022), https://platforms.aei.org/can-the-knowledge-gap-between-regulators-and-innovators-be-narrowed.

[43]    Brian Christian, The Alignment Problem: Machine Learning and Human Values (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020).

[44]    Joshua D. Greene, “Our Driverless Dilemma,” Science (June 2016): 1515.

[45]    Susan Leigh Anderson, “Asimov’s ‘Three Laws of Robotics’ and Machine Metaethics,” AI and Society, Vol. 22, No. 4, (2008): 477-493.

[46]    Melanie Mitchell, Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2019): 126 [Kindle edition.]

[47]    Thomas A. Hemphill, “The Innovation Governance Dilemma: Alternatives to the Precautionary Principle,” Technology in Society, Vol. 63 (2020): 6, https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v63y2020ics0160791x2030751x.html.

[48]    Adam Thierer, “Are ‘Permissionless Innovation’ and ‘Responsible Innovation’ Compatible?” Technology Liberation Front, July 12, 2017, https://techliberation.com/2017/07/12/are-permissionless-innovation-and-responsible-innovation-compatible.

[49]    The National Institute of Standards and Technology, “AI Risk Management Framework: Initial Draft,” (March 17, 2022): 1, https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework.

[50]    Ibid., at 5.

According to a report today from SAI Business Insider, “The Federal Trade Commission is actively investigating Twitter and the way it deals with the companies building applications and services for its platform.”  Apparently the agency has reached out to some competing application / platform providers to ask questions about Twitter’s recent efforts to exert more control over the uses of its API by third parties. [The Wall Street Journal confirms the FTC’s interest in Twitter.]

It remains to be seen whether this leads to any serious regulatory action against Twitter by the FTC, but such a move wouldn’t necessarily be surprising considering the more activist tilt of the agency recently. It’s even less surprising considering that Columbia University law professor and prolific cyberlaw scholar Tim Wu was appointed as a senior advisor to the FTC earlier this year. When the announcement of Wu’s appointment was made, the Wall Street Journal kicked off an article with the warning, “Silicon Valley has a new fear factor.”  It seems the Journal may have been on to something!

It’s impossible to know how much of an influence Tim Wu is having on the agency, but as I have noted here before, Prof. Wu is man with a healthy appetite for regulatory activism. [See all my essays about Wu’s work here.] Moreover, he’s a man who has already determined that Twitter is a “monopolist” in his November 13, 2010 Wall Street Journal op-ed, “In the Grip of the New Monopolists.”

That essay prompted a fiery response from me [“Tim Wu Redefines Monopoly“] as well as a far more reasoned essay by antitrust gurus Geoff Manne and Josh Wright [“What’s An Internet Monopolist? A Reply to Professor Wu.”] Prof. Wu was kind enough to swing by the TLF and respond to my criticisms in an essay “On the Definition of Monopoly,” which he said served as a “corrective” to my earlier essay [even though I continue to believe that what I said fairly reflected the last four decades of economic wisdom on competition policy and that it is Wu who is well off the reservation with his expansionist views of antitrust enforcement].

Regardless of what one thinks about that exchange, if the FTC is moving forward with a case against Twitter, three practical questions need to be considered: (1) What’s the relevant market? (2) Where’s the harm? and (3) What’s the remedy?

I’ll briefly discuss each question below but should also mention that I already explored many of these issues in my essay,  “A Vision of (Regulatory) Things to Come for Twitter,” so I apologize in advance for the repetition.  I will then discuss all this in the context of Tim Wu’s latest law review article on “Agency Threats” and what he approvingly refers to as regulatory “threat regimes.”

On Market Definition

As I noted in my previous essays, it’s very much unclear how to define the contours of the market Twitter serves. After all, Twitter is only a few years old and it competes with many other forms of communication and information dissemination. For me, Twitter is a partial substitute for blogging, IMs, email, phone calls, RSS feeds, and even radio and television news. Yet, like most others, I continue to use all those other technologies and those technologies continue to pressure Twitter to innovate.

Whatever market it serves, however, Tim Wu is apparently willing to write off that market as already “in the grip” of Twitter. But does Wu really believe that nothing better will come along to compete against Twitter or even replace it entirely?  It reminds me of all the hand-wringing we heard about AOL a decade ago when people predicted its “walled gardens” would someday rule the Internet and IM.  And we all know how that turned out.

If you ask me, this episode again reflects the short-term, static snapshot thinking we all too often see at work in debates over media and technology policy. That is, many cyber-worrywarts are prone to taking snapshots of market activity and suggesting that temporary patterns are permanent disasters requiring immediate correction. Of course, a more dynamic view of progress and competition holds that “market failures” and “code failures” are ultimately better addressed by voluntary, spontaneous, bottom-up responses than by coercive, top-down approaches. [More on that conflict of visions in my book chapter on “The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 2 – Saving the Net From Its Supporters.”]

Regardless, I just don’t see how Wu or the FTC can claim Twitter has monopolized a market that is still so young that we can’t even define it.

On Harm

Even if one accepted Wu’s premise that Twitter was a monopolist, where is the harm? At least in theory, antitrust law is supposed to be about protecting consumer welfare, not competitors. If this whole thing is about UberMedia losing out in some bidding wars for alternative Twitter platforms, well, that’s just pathetic. UberMedia is free to develop or bid on alternative Twitter applications or work with others to develop entirely new services. It’s not like there’s a shortage of them out there.

If the theory is that consumers are being harmed by Twitter exerting more control over its API, I would just remind everyone that (a) we don’t pay a cent for the service that Twitter provides and (b) Twitter is still scrambling to find a way to monetize its service for the long-haul. There are also some legitimate security issues in play here that cut against the claim that what Twitter is doing is anti-consumer.

In sum, it is hard to understand where the harm lies in Twitter taking greater control of its API, and there’s certainly nothing stopping rival innovators from tying to offer a competing service.  140-character text messages aren’t exactly the stuff of traditional “information empires,” as Wu would call them.

On Remedies

Finally, we come to the thorny issue of remedies. I suppose the easiest remedy would be a prohibition on Twitter acquiring any third-party applications provider that currently relies on Twitter’s API. In other words, downstream vertical integration would be forbidden. But there’s about 40 years of antitrust literature explaining why such integration is generally pro-innovation and pro-consumer and shouldn’t be made illegal by antitrust law. Tim Wu may not buy that–and if you’ve read his recent book The Master Switch, you know he absolutely rejects it–but it is standard thinking in the field of industrial organization and antitrust economics today. Most of the economists at the FTC and DOJ could tell him as much.

Another alternative remedy might be Jonathan Zittrain’s “API neutrality” idea, proposed in his 2008 book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. Zittrain suggested that API neutrality–essentially a variant of Net neutrality but for application protocols–might be needed to ensure fair access to certain services or platforms to guarantee that digital “generativity” was not imperiled. On pg. 181 of the book, Zittrain argued that:

“If there is a present worldwide threat to neutrality in the movement of bits, it comes not from restrictions on traditional Internet access that can be evaded using generative PCs, but from enhancements to traditional and emerging appliancized services that are not open to third-party tinkering.”

After engaging in some hand-wringing about “walled gardens” and “mediated experiences,” Zittrain went on to ask: “So when should we consider network neutrality-style mandates for appliancized systems?” He responds to his own question as follows:

“The answer lies in that subset of appliancized systems that seeks to gain the benefits of third-party contributions while reserving the right to exclude it later. … Those who offer open APIs on the Net in an attempt to harness the generative cycle ought to remain application-neutral after their efforts have succeeded, so all those who built on top of their interface can continue to do so on equal terms.” (p. 184)

This might be a fine generic principle, but Zittrain implies that this should be a legal standard to which online providers are held. At one point, he even alludes to the possibility of applying the common law principle of adverse possession more broadly in these contexts. He notes that adverse possession “dictates that people who openly occupy another’s private property without the owner’s explicit objection (or, for that matter, permission) can, after a lengthy period of time, come to legitimately acquire it.” But he doesn’t make it clear when it would be triggered as it pertains to digital platforms or APIs.

Nonetheless, one could imagine it would be one remedy antitrust officials might look to when considering what to do about Twitter exerting greater control over its API. Essentially, Twitter would become the equivalent of a public utility that all would have access to on regulated terms.

As I noted in the first of my many reviews of Zittrain’s book, there are many problems with the logic of API neutrality or the application of adverse possession in these contexts. Here’s my critique of the “API neutrality” notion (again, this is from 2008 so it now sounds a bit dated):

First, most developers who offer open APIs aren’t likely to close them later precisely because they don’t want to incur the wrath of “those who built on top of their interface.” But, second, for the sake of argument, let’s say they did want to abandoned previously open APIs and move to some sort of walled garden. So what? Isn’t that called marketplace experimentation? Are we really going to make that illegal? Finally, if they were so foolish as to engage in such games, it might be the best thing that ever happened to the market and consumers since it could encourage more entry and innovation as people seek out more open, pro-generative alternatives. Consider this example: Now that Apple has opened to door to third-party iPhone development a bit with the SDK, does that mean that under Jonathan’s proposed paradigm we should treat the iPhone as the equivalent of commoditized common carriage device? That seems incredibly misguided to me. If Steve Jobs opens the development door just a little bit only to slam it shut a short time later, he will pay dearly for that mistake in the marketplace. For God’s sake, just spend a few minutes over on the Howard Forums or the PPC Geeks forum if you want to get a taste for the insane amount of tinkering going on out there in the mobile world right now on other systems. If Apple tries to roll back the clock, Microsoft and others will be all too happy to take their business by offering a wealth of devices that allow you to tinker to your heart’s content. We should let such experiments continue and let the future of the Internet be determined by market choices, not regulatory choices such as forced API neutrality.

I think the same critique would apply to efforts to impose API neutrality on Twitter.  Regardless, would such a remedy be imposed through targeted regulatory action, an antitrust consent decree, or perhaps through what Tim Wu calls “agency threats”?

Wu’s “Threat Regime” Model of Internet Governance

Prof. Wu recently published a law review article on “Agency Threats” and what he approvingly refers to as “threat regimes.” The paper is a “defense of regulatory threats in particular contexts.”  Here’s a portion of the abstract:

The use of threats instead of law can be a useful choice — not simply a procedural end run. My argument is that the merits of any regulative modality cannot be determined without reference to the state of the industry being regulated. Threat regimes, I suggest, are important and are best justified when the industry is undergoing rapid change — under conditions of “high uncertainty.” Highly informal regimes are most useful, that is, when the agency faces a problem in an environment in which facts are highly unclear and evolving. Examples include periods surrounding a newly invented technology or business model, or a practice about which little is known.

I’m extremely troubled by this reasoning and can think of a couple of alternative labels for such behavior by government agencies: unaccountable, above-the-law, unconstitutional, anti-democratic, thuggery, regulatory blackmail, and so on.

But what’s even more troubling about Wu’s thinking about “threat regimes” is that he assumes this arbitrary mode of governing-by-intimidation makes even more sense in fast-moving high-tech industries. That seems counter-intuitive. If a given sector finds itself in a state of “high uncertainty” as Wu calls it, doesn’t that mean, by definition, it is dynamic and subject to forces that might bring about beneficial change? And shouldn’t we assume that those are the last sectors we would want regulators monkeying with since bureaucrats lack the requisite knowledge of how to best guide the evolution of complex information technologies?

Wu seems to believe that regulators possess a crystal ball and a set of magical dials that can guide the evolution of technology markets to a better equilibrium through the use of constant Sunstein-ian “nudges” (or perhaps shoves).  I think that’s poppycock.

Regardless, once we realize that this is the way Tim Wu thinks, an FTC investigation into Twitter’s current business practices starts to make a lot more sense. It’s about creating a “threat regime” that intimidates Twitter into to playing by the arbitrary rules of Washington bureaucrats instead of responding to marketplace demands and developments in a natural, evolutionary way. In fact, in his “threats” essay, Wu explicitly rejects that model:

The second option—“wait and see”—may sound attractive because it allows the industry to develop in what might be called a natural way. This approach, however, makes a great sacrifice: the public’s interest may be entirely unrepresented during the industry’s formative period. The risk is that the industry’s norms and business models will, effectively, be set without any public input. Waiting for the industry to settle down may result in undesirable practices that prove extremely hard to reverse or influence with rules issued later. To state the matter more colloquially, the industry may be “baked” by the time there is any real oversight or public input.

In essence, Wu desires a “mixed economy” model for high-tech sectors in which decision are guided at every juncture by the supposed wisdom of techno-cratic philosopher kings like himself. We must trust that he and his fellow regulators will guide us and our economy down an more enlightened path. And we must accept that some “threats” may be necessary to get the job done.

I find this mode of thinking disturbing in the extreme because of the rank hubris at the center of it. Regardless, Twitter appears to be well on its way to becoming a test case for Wu’s “threat” model of Internet governance.

I’m currently plugging away at a big working paper with the running title, “Argumentum in Cyber-Terrorem: A Framework for Evaluating Fear Appeals in Internet Policy Debates.” It’s an attempt to bring together a number of issues I’ve discussed here in my past work on “techno-panics” and devise a framework to evaluate and address such panics using tools from various disciplines. I begin with some basic principles of critical argumentation and outline various types of “fear appeals” that usually represent logical fallacies, including: argumentum in terrorem, argumentum ad metum, and argumentum ad baculum.  But I’ll post more about that portion of the paper some other day. For now, I wanted to post a section of that paper entitled “The Problem with the Precautionary Principle.” I’m posting what I’ve got done so far in the hopes of getting feedback and suggestions for how to improve it and build it out a bit. Here’s how it begins…

________________

The Problem with the Precautionary Principle

“Isn’t it better to be safe than sorry?” That is the traditional response of those perpetuating techno-panics when their fear appeal arguments are challenged. This response is commonly known as “the precautionary principle.” Although this principle is most often discussed in the field of environment law, it is increasingly on display in Internet policy debates.

The “precautionary principle” basically holds that since every technology and technological advance poses some theoretical danger or risk, public policy should be crafted in such a way that no possible harm will come from a particular innovation before further progress is permitted. In other words, law should mandate “just play it safe” as the default policy toward technological progress.

The problem with that logic, notes Kevin Kelly, author of What Technology Wants, is that because “every good produces harm somewhere… by the strict logic of an absolute precautionary principle no technologies would be permitted.”^[1] Or, as journalist Ronald Bailey has summarized this principle: “Anything new is guilty until proven innocent.”[2] Under an information policy regime guided at every turn by a precautionary principle, digital innovation and technological progress would become impossible because trade-offs and uncertainly would be considered unacceptable.

This is why Aaron Wildavsky, author of the seminal 1988 book, Searching for Safety, spoke of the dangers of “trial without error” as compared to trial and error.  Wildavsky argued that:

The direct implication of trial without error is obvious: if you can do nothing without knowing first how it will turn out, you cannot do anything at all. An indirect implication of trial without error is that if trying new things is made more costly, there will be fewer departures from past practice; this very lack of change may itself be dangerous in forgoing chances to reduce existing hazards. … [E]xisting hazards will continue to cause harm if we fail to reduce them by taking advantage of the opportunity to benefit from repeated trials.[3]

Simply stated: Life involves and requires that some level of risk be accepted for progress to occur. While some steps to anticipate or control for unforeseen circumstances and “plan for the worse” are sensible, going overboard forecloses opportunities and experiences that offer valuable lessons for individuals and society. University of Chicago legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who currently serves as Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has argued that “If the burden of proof is on the proponent of the activity or processes in question, the Precautionary Principle would seem to impose a burden of proof that cannot be met.”[4]

Importantly, Wildavsky pointed out that the precautionary principle also downplays the important role of resiliency in human affairs. Through constant experimentation, humans learn valuable lessons about how the world works, which risks are real versus illusory or secondary, and how to assimilate new cultural, economic, and technological change into our lives.  A rigid precautionary principle would disallow such a learning progress from unfolding and leave us more vulnerable to the most serious problems we might face as individuals or a society. “Allowing, indeed, encouraging, trial and error should lead to many more winners, because of (a) increased wealth, (b) increased knowledge, and (c) increased coping mechanisms, i.e., increased resilience in general.”[5]

Recent work by Sean Lawson, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah, has underscored the importance of resiliency as it pertains to cybersecurity. “Research by historians of technology, military historians, and disaster sociologists has shown consistently that modern technological and social systems are more resilient than military and disaster planners often assume,” he finds.[6] “Just as more resilient technological systems can better respond in the event of failure, so too are strong social systems better able to respond in the event of disaster of any type.”[7]

Resiliency is also a wise strategy as it pertains to Internet child safety issues, online privacy concerns, and online reputation management. Some risks in these contexts – such as underage access to objectionable content or the release of too much personal information – can be prevented through anticipatory regulatory policies. Increasingly, however, information proves too challenging to bottle up. Information control efforts today are greatly complicated by five phenomena unique to the Information Age: (1) media and technological convergence; (2) decentralized, distributed networking; (3) unprecedented scale of networked communications; (4) an explosion of the overall volume of information; and (5) unprecedented individual information sharing through user-generation of content and self-revelation of data. “The truth about data is that once it is out there, it’s hard to control,” says Jeff Jonas, an engineer with IBM.^[8]

This is why resiliency becomes an even more attractive strategy compared to anticipatory regulation. Information will increasingly flow freely on interconnected, ubiquitous digital networks and getting those information genies back in their bottles would be an enormous challenge. Moreover, the costs of attempting to control information will exceed the benefits in most circumstances. Consequently, a strategy based on building resiliency will focus on education and empowerment-based strategies that allow for trial and error and encourage sensible, measured responses to the challenges posed by technological change.

[ Note: I next plan to go on to discuss several case studies and outline the sorts of education and empowerment-based strategies that I believe represent the better approach to coping with technological change.]

Loyal readers know of my generally bullish, optimistic outlook regarding the Internet’s impact on society, economy, and even politics. On that last front, columnist Peggy Noonan has a nice piece in today’s Wall Street Journal entitled, “The Internet Helps Us Get Serious.” Serious about politics and political rhetoric, she means. Speaking about how politicians are addressing the current fiscal crisis in the U.S., Noonan argues:

One way to change minds about the current crisis is through information. We all know this, and we all know about the marvelous changes in technology that allow for the spreading of messages that are not necessarily popular with gatekeepers and establishments. But there’s something new happening in the realm of political communication that must be noted. Speeches are back. They have been rescued and restored as a political force by the Internet.

She then makes the point that I always stress when debating Net pessimists: You have to measure progress against the yardstick of the past and ask yourself if we really better off in a world of information scarcity. Noonan does that beautifully when she notes:

In the past quarter-century or so, the speech as a vehicle of sustained political argument was killed by television and radio. Rhetoric was reduced to the TV producer’s 10-second soundbite, the correspondent’s eight-second insert. The makers of speeches (even the ones capable of sustained argument) saw what was happening and promptly gave up. Why give your brain and soul to a serious, substantive statement when it will all be reduced to a snip of sound? They turned their speeches into soundbite after soundbite, applause line after applause line, and a great political tradition was traduced. But the Internet is changing all that. It is restoring rhetoric as a force. When Gov. Mitch Daniels made his big speech—a serious, substantive one—two weeks ago, Drudge had the transcript and video up in a few hours. Gov. Chris Christie’s big speech was quickly on the net in its entirety. All the CPAC speeches were up. TED conference speeches are all over the net, as are people making speeches at town-hall meetings. I get links to full speeches every day in my inbox and you probably do too.

And Noonan debunks the argument skeptics like Cass Sunstein and others have made about the atomization of the audience or fracturing of the public’s attention:

People in politics think it’s all Facebook and Twitter now, but it’s not. Not everything is fractured and in pieces, some things are becoming more whole. People hunger for serious, fleshed-out ideas about what is happening in our country. … A funny thing about politicians is that they’re all obsessed with “messaging” and “breaking through” and “getting people to listen.” They’re convinced that some special kind of cleverness is needed, that some magical communications formula exists and can be harnessed if only discovered. They should settle down, survey the technological field and get serious. They should give pertinent, truthful, sophisticated and sober-minded speeches. Everyone will listen. They’ll be all over the interwebs.

Amen, sister.

Here’s the first of two essays I’ve recently penned making “The Case for Internet Optimism.” This essay was included in the book, The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet (2011), which was edited by Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus of TechFreedom.  In these essays, I identify two schools of Internet pessimism: (1) “Net Skeptics,” who are pessimistic about the Internet improving the lot of mankind; and (2) “Net Lovers,” who appreciate the benefits the Net brings society but who fear those benefits are disappearing, or that the Net or openness are dying.  (Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with these themes since I sketched them out in previous essays here such as, “Are You an Internet Optimist or Pessimist?” and “Two Schools of Internet Pessimism.”) The second essay is here.

This essay focuses on the first variant of Internet pessimism, which is rooted in general skepticism about the supposed benefits of cyberspace, digital technologies, and information abundance. The proponents of this pessimistic view often wax nostalgic about some supposed “good ‘ol days” when life was much better (although they can’t seem to agree when those were). At a minimum, they want us to slow down and think twice about life in the Information Age and how it’s personally affecting each of us.  Occasionally, however, this pessimism borders on neo-Ludditism, with some proponents recommending steps to curtail what they feel is the destructive impact of the Net or digital technologies on culture or the economy.  I identify the leading exponents of this view of Internet pessimism and their major works. I trace their technological pessimism back to Plato but argue that their pessimism is largely unwarranted. Humans are more resilient than pessimists care to admit and we learn how to adapt to technological change and assimilate new tools into our lives over time. Moreover, were we really better off in the scarcity era when we were collectively suffering from information poverty?  Generally speaking, despite the challenges it presents society, information abundance is a better dilemma to be facing than information poverty.  Nonetheless, I argue, we should not underestimate or belittle the disruptive impacts associated with the Information Revolution.  But we need to find ways to better cope with turbulent change in a dynamist fashion instead of attempting to roll back the clock on progress or recapture “the good ‘ol days,” which actually weren’t all that good.

Down below, I have embedded the entire chapter in a Scribd reader, but the essay can also be found on the TechFreedom website for the book as well as on SSRN.  I have also includes two updated tables that appeared in my old “optimists vs. pessimists” essay.  The first lists some of the leading Internet optimists and pessimists and their books. The second table outlines some of the major lines of disagreement between these two camps and I divided those disagreements into (1) Cultural / Social beliefs vs. (2) Economic / Business beliefs.

The Case for Internet Optimism Part 1 – Saving the Net From Its Detractors (Adam Thierer) http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

______

Over at MediaFreedom.org, a new site devoted to fighting the fanaticism of radical anti-media freedom groups like Free Press and other “media reformistas,” I’ve started rolling out a 5-part series of essays about “The Battle for Media Freedom.” In Part 1 of the series, I defined what real media freedom is all about, and in Part 2 I discussed the rising “cyber-collectivist” threat to media freedom.  In my latest installment, I offer an analytical framework that better explains the major differences between the antagonists in the battle over media freedom.

Understanding the Origins of Political Struggles

In his many enlightening books, Thomas Sowell, a great economist and an even better political scientist, often warns of the triumph of good intentions over good economics. It’s a theme that F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman both developed extensively before him. But Sowell has taken this analysis to an entirely differently level in books like A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles, and The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy . Sowell teaches us that no matter how noble one’s intentions might be, it does not mean that those ideas will translate into sound public policy. Nonetheless, since “the anointed” believe their own intentions are pure and their methods are sound, they see nothing wrong with substituting their will for the will of millions of individuals interacting spontaneously and voluntarily in the marketplace. The result is an expansion of the scope of public decision-making and a contraction of the scope of private, voluntary action. As a result, mandates replace markets, and freedom gives way central planning.

Sowell developed two useful paradigms to help us better understand “the origins of political struggles.” He refers to the “constrained” versus “unconstrained” vision and separates these two camps according to how they view the nature of man, society, economy, and politics:

The Unconstrained Nature of the Cyber-Collectivist Vision

Sowell’s taxonomy provides a useful frame of reference for today’s debate over communications and media policy. The unconstrained vision crowd here might best be labeled “cyber-collectivists.” This collectivism is not necessarily the hard-edged Marxist brand of collectivism of modern times. It is more the collectivism of Plato’s rule by “philosopher kings” as much as it is modern European “social democrat” collectivism. It generally rejects outright State ownership of the means of production, although there are some exceptions. (Free Press founder Robert McChesney, for example, would go much further than most other collectivists in having the State intervene and directly control or even own media and communications outlets and infrastructure).

Like their many “unconstrained” intellectual predecessors, what unifies the cyber-collectivists is the belief that the State should have a hand in guiding market outcomes toward a “fairer” end. The cyber-collectivists, for example, get indigestion over unequal patterns whether we are talking audience shares or technological diffusion. They are quick to allege “market failure” when some of their preferred media voices only capture miniscule audience shares (even when it’s just the result of consumer demand in action). And when some people or communities gain access to a network or new technology quicker than others, they are often quick to conclude some nefarious plot by greedy capitalists must be to blame.

Of course, in reality, this is just the way things in a free society have always worked. “Liberty upsets patterns” the late Harvard University philosopher Robert Nozick taught us in his 1974 masterpiece “Anarchy, State, and Utopia.” What Nozick meant was that there is a fundamental tension between liberty and egalitarianism such that when people are left to their own devices, some forms of inequality would be inevitable and persistent throughout society. Correspondingly, any attempt to force patterns, or outcomes, upon society requires a surrender of liberty.

All of this is equally true for media and communications policy. Just as there will never be perfect equality of outcomes in the provision of homes, cars, or incomes, there will never be perfect equality of tech gadgets or audience shares for media speakers / outlets.

Speech Redistributionism

The cyber-collectivists are not content with that, however. Just as they call for a redistribution of wealth to rectify the supposed injustice of unequal incomes, so too they call for “something to be done” to “balance” outcomes and ensure “fairer” outcomes. We might call this “media redistributionism” or even “speech redistributionism.”

Consider, for example, a proposal set forth by Cass Sunstein, the prolific University of Chicago law professor (and now Obama Administration official). In his 2001 book Republic.com, in which he suggests that government should consider requiring “electronic sidewalks” in cyberspace to encourage more balance on Internet websites. The state would impose the equivalent of “must carry” mandates on popular or partisan websites, forcing them to carry links to opposing viewpoints. In the name of “media access” or “fairness,” Sunstein and others are apparently willing to let the state impose tyrannical mandates on private website operators, forcing them to open their private property to use by others. Essentially it’s a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet Age.

Elsewhere Sunstein has argued in favor of greater “public interest” regulation to actually change public attitudes and tastes, claiming that there “is a large difference between the public interest and what interests the public.” [See: Television and the Public Interest, 88 California Law Review 499, 501 (2000).] He and many other cyber-collectivist scholars claim that they have a better idea of what interests the public. Essentially, the public doesn’t know what’s best for them, so someone else must tell them—and potentially even force supposedly better choices upon them. For example, Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law, and currently an adviser to the Federal Communications Commission, believes that, “a proactive media policy must not only correct a poorly functioning market, but also provide diversions around existing media markets and tastes. Proactive media policy can do this by changing consumer wants.”

The thought of having government “change consumer wants” is positively Orwellian and raises the obvious question: according to who’s tastes and values? The viewing and listening public has a broad array of interests and desires that cannot be easily gauged by congressional lawmakers, and certainly not by five unelected bureaucrats at the FCC. As media scholar Benjamin Compaine has correctly noted, “[i]n democracies, there is no universal ‘public interest.’ Rather there are numerous and changing ‘interested publics.’”

And, more practically, how should such goals be accomplished in an age of information abundance? The sheer scale and volume of media activity taking place across an unprecedented variety of communications platforms makes it difficult to imagine how a scarcity-era regulatory regime will be applied going forward. Are we going to have speech patrols standing on every cyber-corner policing the Net for “fairness” violations or determining what is and isn’t “in the public interest”?

Opportunity, Not Outcome, Is What Matters Most

Those of us who subscribe to a more “constrained vision” understand that what is really important is equality of media opportunity, not equality of media outcomes. A focus on the latter is both foolish and destructive. It is foolish because media equality is an impossibility absent extreme measures, which in turn explains why it is destructive. We would need totalitarian government controls on media outputs and consumption in order to achieve anything remotely close to “balance” or “equality” in terms of media results. What counts most is that people have a chance to be heard, not whether millions are listening or whether there is a perfect distribution of digital technology.

Again, that is not enough for the unconstrained visionaries who guide the cyber-collectivist movement. They want action and they want results and they want them now! And, they will always remind us, they have the best of intentions, so we should just trust them. The problem is, intentions + action = control. When they say “something to be done” that is usually code (excuse the pun) for heavy-handed government action to control the messy, un-patterned outcomes of a free marketplace.

And so we arrive at the critical difference between the cyber-freedom and the cyber-collectivist movements: Those of us who adhere to a more constrained view of nature, society and economy (i.e., the cyber-freedom movement) believe that liberty is the default position and that it generally trumps other values. Supposed “market failures” (or “code failures,” as the case may be) are ultimately better addressed by voluntary, spontaneous, bottom-up, marketplace responses than by the coerced, top-down, governmental solutions that the cyber-collectivists call for. Moreover, the decisive advantage of the market-driven approach to correcting code failure comes down to the rapidity and nimbleness of those response(s). Finally, and quite importantly, we in the cyber-freedom movement are not so quick to cry “market failure!” and call in the code cops. We understand that those messy, un-patterned market outcomes are the result of an evolutionary process or trial-and-error and that society and economy benefit from the resulting learning process.

Sure, there may be times when governments may need to intervene at the margins, but we would counsel against abrupt and incessant interventions to correct every supposed “market failure” or “unfair” outcome. After all, those interventions will simply beget more and more interventions to correct the inevitable failures of, or dissatisfaction with, previous interventions. There is simply no sugar-coating the reality that, no matter how well-intentioned, more and more media control is the inevitable prescription.

In my next installment in this series, I will detail the cyber-collectivist blueprint for radical media redistributionism by outlining this movement’s goals and its proposed methods of control.

[I’ve been working on an outline for a book I hope to write surveying technological skepticism throughout history. I first started thinking about this topic two years when I noticed that a great number of recent books about Internet policy could generally be grouped into one of two camps: Internet optimists vs. Internet pessimists. I subsequently penned an essay on the subject that generated a fair bit of attention. So, I figured I must be on to something, and the more Net policy books I read, the more I realized that the divisions between these two camps were growing wider and increasingly heated. Thus, I thought I would share this very rough draft (much of it still in outline form) of the opening chapter of that book I want to write about this great intellectual war over the impact of technology on society. I invite reader input. Update Jan. 2011: I finally published a full-length essay on this topic. You can find it here. ]

__________

The impact of technological change on culture, learning, and morality has long been the subject of intense debate, and every technological revolution brings out a fresh crop of both pessimists and pollyannas. Indeed, a familiar cycle has repeat itself throughout history whenever new modes of production (from mechanized agriculture to assembly-line production), means of transportation (water, rail, road, or air), energy production processes (steam, electric, nuclear), medical breakthroughs (vaccination, surgery, cloning), or communications techniques (telegraph, telephone, radio, television) have appeared on the scene.

The cycle goes something like this. A new technology appears. Those who fear the sweeping changes brought about by this technology see a sky that is about to fall. These “techno-pessimists” predict the death of the old order (which, ironically, is often a previous generation’s hotly-debated technology that others wanted slowed or stopped).  Embracing this new technology, they fear, will result in the overthrow of traditions, beliefs, values, institutions, business models, and much else they hold sacred.

The pollyannas, by contrast, look out at the unfolding landscape and see mostly rainbows in the air. Theirs is a rose-colored world in which the technological revolution du jour is seen as improving the general lot of mankind and bringing about a better order.  If something has to give, then the old ways be damned! For such “techno-optimists,” progress means some norms and institutions must adapt—perhaps even disappear—for society to continue its march forward.

Our current Information Revolution is no different. It too has its share of techno-pessimists and techno-optimists. Indeed, before most of us had even heard of the Internet, people were already fighting about it—or at least debating what the rise of the Information Age meant for our culture, society, and economy.

Web 1.0 Fight: Postman vs. Negroponte

In his 1992 anti-technology screed Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, the late social critic Neil Postman greeted the unfolding Information Age with a combination of skepticism and scorn.  Indeed, Postman’s book was a near-perfect articulation of the techo-pessimist’s creed.  “Information has become a form of garbage,” he claimed, “not only incapable of answering the most fundamental human questions but barely useful in providing coherent direction to the solution of even mundane problems.”  If left unchecked, Postman argued, America’s new technopoly—“the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology”—would destroy “the vital sources of our humanity” and lead to “a culture without a moral foundation” by undermining “certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living.”

Postman opened his polemic with the well-known allegorical tale from Plato’s Phaedrus about the dangers of the written word.  Postman reminded us how King Thamus responded to the god Theuth, who boasted of how his invention of writing would improve the wisdom and memory of the masses relative to the oral tradition of learning.  King Thamus shot back, “the discoverer of an art is not the best judge of the good or harm which will accrue to those who practice it.”  King Thamus then passed judgment himself about the impact of writing on society, saying he feared that the people “will receive a quantity of information without proper instruction, and in consequence be thought very knowledgeable when they are for the most part quite ignorant.”

And so Postman—fancying himself a bit of a modern King Thamus—cast judgment on today’s comparable technological advances and those who would glorify them:

we are currently surrounded by throngs of zealous Theuths, one-eyed prophets who see only what new technologies can do and are incapable of imagining what they will undo. We might call such people Technophiles. They gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved, seeing it as without blemish and entertaining no apprehension for the future. They are therefore dangerous and to be approached cautiously. … If one is to err, it is better to err on the side of Thamusian skepticism.

Nicholas Negroponte begged to differ. An unapologetic Theuthian technophile, the former director of the MIT Media Lab responded on behalf of the techno-optimists in 1995 with his prescient polemic, Being Digital.  It was a paean to the Information Age, for which he served as one of the first high prophets—with Wired magazine’s back page frequently serving as his pulpit during the many years he served as a regular columnist.

Appropriately enough, the epilogue of Negroponte’s Being Digital was entitled “An Age of Optimism” and, like the rest of the book, it stood in stark contrast to Postman’s pessimistic worldview.  Although Negroponte conceded that technology indeed had a “dark side” in that it could destroy much of the old older, he believed that was inevitable, but also not cause for much concern. “Like a force of nature, the digital age cannot be denied or stopped,” he insisted, and we must learn to appreciate the ways “digital technology can be a natural force drawing people into greater world harmony.” (This sort of techno-determism is a theme we would see on display in many of the works by other Internet optimists that followed in Negroponte’s footsteps.)

To Postman’s persistent claim that America’s technopoly lacked a moral compass, Negroponte again conceded the point but took the glass-is-half-full view: “Computers are not moral; they cannot resolve complex issues like the rights to life and to death. But being digital, nevertheless, does give much cause for optimism.”  His defense of the digital age rested on the “four very powerful qualities that will result in its ultimate triumph: decentralizing, globalizing, harmonizing, and empowering.” Gazing into his techno-crystal ball in 1995, Negroponte forecast the ways in which those qualities would revolutionize society:

The access, the mobility, and the ability to effect change are what will make the future so different from the present. The information superhighway may be mostly hype today, but it is an understatement about tomorrow. It will exist beyond people’s wildest predictions. As children appropriate a global information resource, and as they discover that only adults need learner’s permits, we are bound to find new hope and dignity in places where very little existed before.

In many ways, that’s the world we occupy today; a world of unprecedented media abundance and unlimited communications and connectivity opportunities.

But the great debate about the impact of digitization and information abundance would not end with Postman and Negroponte. Theirs would only be Act I in a drama that continues to unfold, and it is growing more heated and complex with each new character that comes on the stage.

Web War II

The disciples of Postman and Negroponte are a colorful, diverse lot. The players in Act II of this drama occupy many diverse professions—journalists, technologists, business consultants, sociologists, economists, lawyers, etc.—and they are disagreeing even more vehemently and vociferously about the impact of the Internet and digital technologies than Postman and Negroponte did.

In Exhibit 1, I have listed the Internet optimists and pessimists and list their key works.

In Exhibit 2, I have sketched out the major lines of disagreement between these two camps and divided those disagreements into (1) Cultural / Social beliefs vs. (2) Economic / Business beliefs.

When you boil it all down, there are two major points of contention between the optimists and pessimists:

1. The impact of technology on learning & culture & the role of experts vs. amateurs in that process.
2. The promise—or perils—of personalization.

The Debate over Learning & Culture

• Internet optimists and pessimists have engaged in heated debates over role of amateur production and benefits of abundant media

• pessimists fear impact of Net and “cult of amateur” on “professional” media

• without “enforceable scarcity” and protection for the “enlightened class,” the pessimists wonder how “high quality” news or “high art” will get funded and disseminated; and they worry about the decline of authority & truth

• optimists argue that new modes of production (namely peer-production) will be an adequate (if not superior) alternative
  • or they believe new business models will evolve to support professional media

• but pessimists argue that all the new choices are largely false choices
  • participatory democracy all bunk (“mob rule” and rumor mill mongering)
  • just more force-fed commercial propaganda; concerns about advertising
  • also worry about “digital sharecropping” where small group of elites make money off backs of free labor

• optimists counter that Web 2.0 offers real choices and voices
  • optimists argue that many (perhaps most) aren’t in it for the money
  • they do it for love of knowledge & “free culture”

• pessimists argue that “free” culture isn’t free at all; often just parasitic copying / piracy
  • could have profound ramifications for future of news, journalism, “high culture”
  • fear loss of trusted intermediaries & authorities
  • could “dumb down” the masses

• the centrality of Wikipedia to the discussion serves as a microcosm of the entire debate
  • does Wikipedia mark the decline of authority?
  • what is “truth,” the pessimists ask? [“truthiness” fear, a la S. Colbert & Manjoo]
  • who and what can be trusted if everyone is considered an authority?
  • on the other hand, what if it works (at least reasonably well)?
  • what does that tell us about peer production / crowdsourcing?

The Debate over the Promise or Perils of Personalization

• both optimists and pessimists agree that Net & Web 2.0 is leading to more “personalized” media experience
  • but they vehemently disagree on whether that is good or bad
  • what will it mean for participatory democracy?

• pessimists fear Negroponte’s “Daily Me” (i.e., hyper-personalization) leads to:
  • homogenization
  • close-mindedness
  • an online echo-chamber
  • overload of choices + just more corporate brainwashing

• optimists counter that personalization leads to:
  • heterogeneity / chance for everyone to be heard
  • openness
  • exposure to new thinking and opinions
  • abundance of choices = diversity of thought / participation
• in the extreme, some pessimists fear the “mechanization of the soul” and the “surrender to the machine”

• while that may sound a bit over the top, it doesn’t help that some optimists speak of the noosphere & “global consciousness” and seem to long for the eventual singularity

Who’s Got It Right?

• On balance, I believe the optimists generally have the better of the argument today
• But pessimists make many fair points that deserve to be taken seriously; they just need a more reasonable articulation of (some of) those concerns
• The better approach is what I call “pragmatic optimism,” which attempts to rid the optimist paradigm of its kookier, pollyannish thinking while also taking into account some of the very legitimate concerns raised by the pessimists, but rejecting its Luddite fringe in the process.

Thoughts on the Pessimists…

• First and foremost, the pessimists need better spokespersons! Or, they at least need a more moderated, less hysterical tone when addressing concerns raised by technological progress (many of which are quite legitimate).

• It’s often difficult to take the pessimists seriously when they persist with their seeming outright hostility to most forms of technological progress / change. Every one of them claim they are not a Luddite, and often I believe them. But the tone of some of their writing, and the thrust of some of their recommendations, have clear Luddite tendencies.

• Moreover, their endless name-calling and derision for the digital generation is, at times, just as insulting and immature as they “mob” they repeatedly castigate in their works. Too often, their criticism devolves into philosophical snobbery and blatant elitism. Constantly looking down their noses at digital natives and all “amateur” production doesn’t help them win any converts.

• It’s quite shocking how the pessimists have almost nothing good to say about Wikipedia and demonize it endlessly. Much the same goes for open source and other collaborative efforts. They don’t appear willing to accept the possibility of any benefits coming from collective efforts. And they wrongly treat the rise of collective / collaborative efforts as a zero-sum game; they seem to imagine it represents a net loss of individual effort & “personhood.” That simply doesn’t follow.

• Most importantly, the pessimists need to come to grips with the Information Revolution and offer more constructive and practical solutions to legitimately difficult transitional problems created by disintermediating influences of the digital technologies and Net.

• The nostalgia the pessimists typically espouse for the past is a common refrain of cultural and technological critics who fear that the “good ‘ol days” are behind us and the current good-for-nothing generation and their new-fangled gadgets are steering us straight into a moral abyss.  The truth typically proves less cataclysmic, of course.  The great thing about humans is that we adapt better than other creatures. When it comes to technological change, resiliency is hard-wired into our genes.  We learn how to use the new tools that are given to us and gradually assimilate them into our lives and culture.  Indeed, we have lived through more radical revolutions than the Information Revolution. We can adapt and learn to live with some of the legitimate difficulties & downsides of the Information Age.

• The pessimists are at their best when highlighting the very legitimate concerns about the challenges that accompany technological change, including the impact of the digital revolution on “professional” media and the decline of authority among trusted experts and intermediaries.
  • we absolutely don’t want to lose all that
  • there are real benefits associated with it
  • and we need to find a way to fund “professional” media / art going forward

• But, practically speaking, what would the pessimists have us do if we can’t mitigate these problems? Would they roll back the clock with burdensome restrictions? As Ben Casnocha noted recently: “the wind at the backs of all techno-optimists … [is] the forward momentum of technological development. You cannot turn back the clock. It is impossible to envision a future where there is less information and fewer people on social networks. It is very possible to envision increasing abundance along with better filters to manage it. The most constructive contributions to the debate, then, heed Moore’s Law in the broadest sense and offer specific suggestions for how to harness the change for the better.”  That’s what many pessimists have failed to do in their works.

Thoughts on the Optimists…

• The optimists currently have the better of the debate as the abundance of Web 2.0 riches is generally benefiting culture / society.

• Relative to the past it is almost impossible to see how one could argue society has not benefited from the Internet and new digital technologies. The Digital Revolution has greatly empowered masses and offered them more informational inputs.

• An age of abundance is certainly preferable to an age of information scarcity!

• But optimists need to be less Pollyanna-ish and avoid becoming the “technopolists”  (or digital utopians) that Postman feared were taking over our society
  • Way too much Rousseauian romanticism at work in some optimist writings. All this talk of the Net “remaking man” or human nature is pure rubbish.
  • Not all change is good change; the optimists need to be mature enough to understand and address the occasional downsides of digital life without dismissing the critics.
  • And they need to acknowledge that sometimes the wisdom of crowds really can = the stupidity of crowds (when does collective intelligence devolve into herd mentality?) And all this crazy talk of “the hive mind” and the “noosphere” must end.  Some of optimists sound like they long for life in The Matrix; bring on the Singularity!  That’s when you know an optimists has crossed over into the realm of quixotic techno-utopianism.

• Optimists often overplay the benefits of collective intelligence, collaboration, and the role of amateur production.  They need to frame Wiki / peer-production models as a complement to professional media, not a replacement for it.
  • Could The New York Times really be cobbled together by amateurs each day?
  • Why aren’t there any really compelling open source video games?
  • There is a big difference between “remix culture” and “rip-off culture”
  • “The Long Tail” is not “the future of all business”; but it is an increasingly important part of it, and it is wonderful that it is so much more accessible than it was in the past.
  • Will we really be better off if all professionals & intermediaries disappear? Optimists play the “old media just don’t get it” card too often and snobbishly dismiss all their concerns and efforts to reinvent themselves

• Optimists need to place technological progress in context and appreciate that, as Postman argued, there are some moral dimensions to technological progress that deserve attention.

• Of course, on the other hand, some of those moral consequences are profoundly positive, which the pessimists usually fail to appreciate or even acknowledge.

Conclusion: Toward “Pragmatic Optimism”

• Generally speaking, I believe the optimists currently have the better of the debate. It is impossible for me to believe that we were better off in an era of information poverty & un-empowered masses.

• But there’s a kernel of truth to what the pessimists predict about how the passing of the old order leaving society without some things that might be worth preserving.  And they are certainly correct that each of us should think about how to better balance new technologies and assimilate them into our lives.

• The sensible middle ground position is “pragmatic optimism”: We should embrace the amazing technological changes at work in today’s Information Age but do so with a healthy dose of humility and appreciation for the disruptive impact and pace of that change. [See my “Pragmatic (Internet) Optimist’s Creed” below]

• We need to think about how to mitigate the negative impacts associated with technological change without adopting the paranoid tone or Luddite-ish recommendations of the pessimists.

• And it is important for us to personally exercise some personal restraint in terms of the role technology plays in our life. While pessimists from Plato and Postman certainly went too far, there is a kernel of truth to their claim that, taken to an extreme, technology can have a negative impact on life and learning.  We need to focus on the Aristotelian mean. We must avoid neo-Luddite calls for a return to “the good ‘ol days” on the one hand, while also rejecting techno-utiopian Pollyanna-ism on the other

• Regardless, the old Theuth-Thamus debate about the relationship between technological change and its impact on culture and society will continue to rage. There is no chance this debate will die down anytime soon. And just wait till virtual reality goes mainstream!  Oh brother, now that is going to be a lively debate. I might turn into a Thamusian once I find my son playing a virtual gangster or pimp in “Grand Theft Auto 12: The Immersive Experience.”

• Nonetheless, generally speaking, I remain quite bullish about the prospects for technology to generally improve the human condition.

The Pragmatic (Internet) Optimist’s Creed

by Adam Thierer

I believe that the Internet and digital technologies are reshaping our culture, economy, and society in most ways for the better, but not without some serious heartburn along the way.

I believe that the world of information abundance that has dawned is vastly superior to the world of information poverty that we just left. But I also understand that not all information is equal and that that the rise of abundance raises concerns about information overload, objectionable content, and the role of “authority” and “truth.”

I believe the era of traditional Mass Media is coming to an end, but “professional” media institutions and creators continue to play a vital role in the creation, aggregation, and dissemination of news, information, culture, and entertainment. The Internet, however, will force gut-wrenching changes on traditional media institutions and some of the more traditionally vital ones (ex: daily local newspapers) will struggle to re-invent themselves, or may wither away entirely. And while I believe that “professional” journalism faces very serious challenges from the rise of the Internet and user-generated content, but I also believe that hybrid forms of news-gathering and reporting are offering society exciting new ways to learn about the world around them.

I believe Wikipedia is an amazing example of collection action / intelligence at work, but I also understand it is not without flaws and limitations. I believe Wikipedia is a wonderful complement, but not a complete substitute, for other media and information sources and inputs.

I believe that free and open source software (FOSS) has produced enormous social / economic benefits, but I do not believe that FOSS (or “wiki” models) will replace all proprietary business models or methods.  Each model or mode of production has its place and purpose and they will continue to co-exist going forward, albeit in serious tension at times.

I believe the Long Tail is a powerful phenomenon, but not “the future of all business.” It is now a more important part of the future of business, but not the entirety of it. But it is wonderful that it is more accessible than ever and that we have found ways to monetize it to benefit less well know creators and innovators.

I believe there is a difference between “remix culture” and “ripoff culture.”  Remix culture generally enhances and extends culture and creativity. Blatant content piracy, on the other hand, can discourage the creative efforts of the citizenry and deprive some of society’s most gifted creators of the incentive to produce culturally beneficial works. Likewise, hacking, circumvention, and reverse-engineering all play an important and legitimate role in our new digital economy, but one need not accept the legitimacy of those activities when conducted for nefarious purposes (think identity theft or chip-modding to facilitate video game piracy.)

I believe that the Internet has empowered the masses and created a world of “pro-sumers” that gives every man, woman, and child a soapbox on which to speak to the world. But that does not mean that all of them will have something interesting to say, and I won’t praise user-generated content as a good in and of itself. It’s quality, not volume, that counts.

I believe that the Internet’s empowering nature has changed much about society and culture, but I do not believe in the romanticism some espouse about how the Net “remaking man” or changing human nature in any fundamental way. The Internet does not liberate us from all earthly constraints and it cannot magically solve all of civilization’s problems.

I believe that the Internet is reinvigorating deliberative democracy and giving us increased exposure to a breathtaking diversity of views previously inaccessible. On the other hand, I understand that some will often seek out only those views that reinforce their pre-existing biases.

I believe in the liberating power of freedom of speech and expression, and appreciate that the Internet and the rise of user-generated content has given us a world of unprecedented information and cultural riches. I also understand, however, that unrestricted freedom of speech and expression permits an increase in the prevalence of objectionable, even loathsome, speech and content. On net, however, (excuse the pun) the Internet is the most important medium of human communication and expression yet.

In sum, there are more reasons to be optimistic than pessimistic about the Internet and its role in shaping our lives, culture, economy, and society. But that doesn’t mean it will be all roses going forward.

­­­­___

Additional Reading (from me):

• Two Schools of Internet Optimism
• The Digital Decade’s Definitive Reading List: Internet & Info-Tech Policy Books of the 2000s
• Grouping Recent Net Books: Internet Optimists vs. Pessimists
• Can Humans Cope with Information Overload? Tyler Cowen & John Freeman Join the Debate
• Book Review: Clay Shirky’s Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in the a Connected Age
• Book Review: Jaron Larnier’s You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto
• Book Review: A Better Pencil by Dennis Baron
• Book Review: Lee Siegel’s Against the Machine
• Book Review: Nick Carr’s Big Switch and The Shallows
• Book Review: Digital Barbarism by Mark Helprin
• Thoughts on Andrew Keen, Part 1: Why an Age of Abundance Really is Better than an Age of Scarcity
• Thoughts on Andrew Keen, Part 2: The Dangers of the Stasis Mentality
• The 10 Most Important Info-Tech Policy Books of 2009
• The Most Important Tech Policy Books of 2008

Additional Reading (from others):

• Plato on writing
• Cyberspace and Information Overload (by Tim Lee)
• Michiko Kakutani essay in the New York Times, “Texts Without Contexts”
• Andrew McAfee’s terrific essay “I Know I’m Not the Only Internet Optimist…” from his blog
• the great PBS documentary about these issues: “Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier” (+ my thoughts on the film)
• a video from a Family Online Safety Institute event about the PBS documentary that features a discussion about Internet optimism vs. pessimism
• Gordon Crovitz of The Wall Street Journal asks “Is Technology Good or Bad?”
• Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal argues that “Information Overload is Nothing New“
• “Technology Sabbaths and Other Strategies for the Digitized World,” by Michael Sacasas
• “Are We Too Plugged In? Distracted vs. Enhanced Minds“, by Aaron Saenz at the Singularity Hub blog

• and here’s a great video from 1995 featuring the late Neil Postman with his pessimistic take on cyberspace..

Also, courtesy of the Brain Pickings blog, check out this amazing 1972 documentary based on Alvin Toffler’s famous 1970 book, Future Shock. It perfectly foreshadowed so many of today’s technology policy debates.

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka

Move over, health care reform, climate change, and the economy. Judging by White House visits by various government agency heads, the Obama administration instead appears preoccupied with the re-regulation of communications, media, and the Internet. The Administration has just released logs of all visitors to the White House and Executive Office Buildings from Obama’s inauguration through August—including a staggering 47 visits by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski. By contrast, no other major agency head logged more than five visits.  Chairman Genachowski obviously has an audience with those at the highest levels of power, including the President himself, but this raises questions about just how “independent” this particular regulator and his agency really are.

Unprecedented Transparency by White House

The Administration deserves credit for releasing these visitor logs, which offer unprecedented transparency into the White House’s workings.  Unfortunately, the logs lack visitors’ affiliation and title, making it difficult to discern subtle patterns.  Furthermore, each entry indicates only one “visitee” and the total number of people involved.  Full disclosure requires identifying all meeting participants. Nonetheless, President Obama’s gesture is a great first step toward improved government accountability.

This openness allows us to ask questions we couldn’t pose for previous administrations—such as why the FCC head seems to have unparalleled access to the White House.  Lacking data from previous administrations, it’s difficult to make direct comparisons with previous FCC Chairmen, but the sheer number of visits by Chairman Genachowski leaves no doubt about his uniquely close involvement with the White House.

Given the ongoing economic/financial crisis, you might think that the President and White House officials would be meeting regularly with the heads of other independent agencies, such as the Federal Reserve, Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business Administration, Federal Trade Commission, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and National Labor Relations Board.  But not one of those agency heads appears to have logged a visit through August.  Climate change?  Just a single visit with the EPA Administrator.

And Cabinet-level officials?  Just 23 visits among 21 officials.  How is that possible, you might ask?  Apparently, Obama held just one full Cabinet meeting in the first seven months of his presidency (in May)—followed by a second meeting in November (well after the logs end). So, while President Obama and White House staffers were too busy to meet with Cabinet-level officials, they always made time for Chairman Genachowski.  Indeed, of the 1,786 visitors listed, only two logged more visits than Genachowski: Bancorp CEO Richard Davis (56) and Lee Sachs (61), Deputy Treasury Secretary.

President Obama appears as the “visitee” for two of Genachowski’s many visits, but could have met with him along with others if someone else was listed as the visitee.  More telling is that only 7 of his 47 visits included more than 10 attendees, and 25 were one-on-one—meaning that the FCC Chairman usually had a personal audience or a small audience.

Why all this attention for such a relatively obscure regulatory agency?  Genachowski served as Obama’s Technology Advisor during the campaign, the transition, and the beginning of the administration.  Eight of his 47 visits occurred before his long-anticipated nomination as FCC Chairman was announced on March 3, with 31 more before his June 29 confirmation.  Only eight occurred after his confirmation, but July and August are generally Washington’s slowest months, so it will be interesting to see just how many more visits he’s racked up since August when the administration releases updated logs.  Probably far more than any other independent agency head: Even his eight visits in July and August are remarkable compared to the near complete lack of visits by other agency heads.

How Independent?

Why care?  Well, at least in theory, “independent agencies” are supposed to be just that: independent.  They aren’t part of any Cabinet-level department and are supposed to be insulated from direct, day-to-day political pressure through bipartisan commissions, fixed terms, and safeguards against presidential removal.  At least that was always the “progressive ideal”: independent, “scientific” expert agencies and officials.

Of course, it was always more mythology than reality, since bureaucratic management is rarely “scientific” and these agencies are routinely subjected to blatant political pressure from White House officials and Congress.  Any history of America’s broadcast sector includes stories of political meddling at the FCC—often prompted by officials outside the agency.  Nonetheless, there are good reasons for maintaining a firewall between independent agencies and politicians—especially the FCC, whose extensive media regulations give it leverage that has been used to squelch political opposition to past administrations.

Even liberal Democrats, such as Alfred Kahn, a Carter appointee, have long recognized that the FCC is particularly vulnerable to “regulatory capture” by special interests.  That’s why the FCC requires disclose of all “ex parte” meetings between Commissioners or staff and “interested parties” outside government.  Genachowski’s predecessors, Kevin Martin and Michael Powell, were both criticized by Democrats for their close ties to the Bush administration, largely because of fears that special interests were influencing FCC decisions through the White House.  Had either Republican visited the White House half as often as Genachowski, there would have likely been howls from the Left about “undue influence.”

Interestingly, after his nomination, Chairman Genachowski met at least four times with Cass Sunstein, who now heads the Office of Information & Regulatory Policy (OIRA).  While Sunstein was not confirmed until September, their meetings raise important questions, since OIRA ultimately has final sign-off on the FCC’s regulations. Have the two continued to meet since?  If so, one hopes it was not to discuss Sunstein’s disturbing proposal for “electronic sidewalks” for cyberspace—a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet!

Is This Good or Bad for the Internet?

The critical issue is whether the FCC’s special relationship with the administration is beneficial for America’s dynamic digital economy.  That depends on whether you like the sound of a “New Deal 2.0” because—with the exception of some genuinely laudable eGoverment/transparency initiatives and openness to real spectrum reform (to be discussed at PFF’s upcoming event with Blair Levin this Tuesday, December 2nd)—that’s generally what the administration is pushing for in communications and media policy: command-and-control central planning of high-tech, backed by massive infrastructure subsidies and the re-regulation of sectors that have thrived since deregulation.

Under Genachowski, the FCC has essentially asserted jurisdiction over the entire Internet, recently inquiring about regulation of online television, video games, Google Voice, cloud computing, the Apple apps store, and resurrecting railroad-era concepts of common carriage “neutrality” in ways that could ultimately apply not only to broadband, but also to search engines, social networking, and devices.  As we’ve warned, Chairman Genachowski is leading us down the road of vastly increased government meddling across cyberspace.  That regulatory apparatus will inevitably be used as a tool of politics, if not by this administration, then by another less noble one in the near future—which might explain why some in this administration are so keenly interested in Chairman Genachowski’s FCC.

Doug Feaver, a former Washington Post reporter and editor, has published a very interesting editorial today entitled “Listening to the Dot-Commenters.”  In the piece, Feaver discusses his personal change of heart about “the anonymous, unmoderated, often appallingly inaccurate, sometimes profane, frequently off point and occasionally racist reader comments that washingtonpost.com allows to be published at the end of articles and blogs.” When he worked at the Post, he fought to keep anonymous and unmoderated comments off the WP.com site entirely because it was too difficult to pre-screen them all and “the bigger problem with The Post’s comment policy, many in the newsroom have told me, is that the comments are anonymous. Anonymity is what gives cover to racists, sexists and others to say inappropriate things without having to say who they are.”

But Feaver now believes those anonymous, unmoderated comment have value because:

I believe that it is useful to be reminded bluntly that the dark forces are out there and that it is too easy to forget that truth by imposing rules that obscure it.  As Oscar Wilde wrote in a different context, “Man is least in himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.”   Too many of us like to think that we have made great progress in human relations and that little remains to be done. Unmoderated comments provide an antidote to such ridiculous conclusions. It’s not like the rest of us don’t know those words and hear them occasionally, depending on where we choose to tread, but most of us don’t want to have to confront them.

It seems a bit depressing that the best argument in favor of allowing unmoderated, anonymous comments is that it allows us to see the dark underbelly of mankind, but the good news, Feaver points out, is that:

But I am heartened by the fact that such comments do not go unchallenged by readers. In fact, comment strings are often self-correcting and provide informative exchanges. If somebody says something ridiculous, somebody else will challenge it. And there is wit.

He goes on to provide some good examples.  And he also notes how unmoderated comments let readers provide their heartfelt views on the substance of sensitive issues and let journalists and editorialists know how they feel about what is being reported or how it is being reported. “We journalists need to pay attention to what our readers say, even if we don’t like it,” he argues. “There are things to learn.”

I applaud Mr. Feaver for this.  This is a struggle not just for journalists at major media outlets but also for bloggers like us here at the TLF.  There are times when very annoying, even hurtful things are said by anonymous commenters here at the TLF. Our policy, however, has generally been to allow a vibrant exchange of views, except in the rare circumstances where the commenter utters racial epithets or starts issuing death threats. Or, if a specific commenter goes into “stalker mode” and does nothing but post harassing, irrelevant comments all day, then those will occasionally be discarded. But, generally speaking, it’s “anything goes” here. (We even allow spam!)  Each author, however, is free to decide for themselves where to draw the line, but we all generally err on the side of completely unmoderated exchange for the reasons Feaver lists.  We know it is far more likely that we’ll get hostile anonymous comments rather than nice ones, but it’s good to get feedback of all varieties, even when it’s nasty.

From a policy perspective, however, this issue is taking on greater weight because some folks believe that unmoderated, anonymous user comments result in harassment, hate speech, defamation, or privacy violations.  As a result, there has been a growing chorus of critics who claim something must be done to remedy this problem.  Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, for example, have advocated a Civility Check that “can accurately tell whether the email you’re about to send is angry and caution you, “warning: this appears to be an uncivil email. do you really and truly want to send it?”” The state of Kentucky has considered legislation that would ban online anonymity, even though that would be clearly unconstitutional. Respected law school professors such as Mark Lemley and Daniel Solove have toyed with the idea of DMCA-like “notice-and-takedown” regime for potentially defamatory comments online.  I once even heard Cal-Western law school professor Nancy S. Kim suggest that blogs, social networking sites, and other interactive sites should institute a “cooling off period” to address cyber-harassment. By requiring all those seeking to comment to wait a certain length of time before a message or image is posted to a website, she hoped that some commenters might choose to tone down or even remove the potentially offending messages or images.

Of course, it is more likely that readers would just choose not to comment at all if any of these proposals where enshrined into law.  And that gets to the heart of what’s wrong with any potential legal response to this “problem” of online anonymous, unmoderated speech and user comments:  It will massively chill free speech and expression.  Sure, that would get rid of the hecklers and the jackasses who cause grief for some, but it would also deprive us of the many constructive user comments and criticisms that make the online experience — for better or worse — the most open, vibrant exchange of views ever known to man.

Finally, it goes without saying that this debate is fundamentally tied up with the future of Section 230 and the question of intermediary liability.  Currently, online service providers of all flavors are generally not required to police or screen user comments or force users to be authenticated and reveal their identities before posting comments.  Section. 230 has been the key to protecting intermediaries from punishing liability that would otherwise force them to severely curtail online expression, or run the risk of being driven under by the weight of endless lawsuits.  This is why I have argued that Sec. 230  is “the cornerstone of ‘Internet freedom’ in its truest and best sense of the term.”  But, again, all this could change if we are not vigilant in defending Sec. 230.

OK, now that I’ve made this impassioned defense of unmoderated and completly anonymous online exchange, let the hateful comments fly!

President-elect Barack Obama will soon be naming Cass Sunstein, an old friend of his from their University of Chicago Law School days together, the new head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). OIRA oversees regulation throughout the U.S. government. Basically, Sunstein’s position is the equivalent of the federal regulatory czar.

Sunstein certainly possess excellent qualifications for the job. During his time at the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School, Sunstein has established himself as a leading liberal thinker in the field of law and economics. And, as I have joked in writing about him before, he is so insanely prolific that it seems every time I finish reading one of his new books a new title by him lands on my desk. I am quite convinced that both he and Richard Posner are actually cyborgs. I just don’t understand how two humans can compose words so rapidly!

Anyway, Professor Sunstein’s new position as head of OIRA gives him the ability influence federal regulatory decisions in both a procedural and substantive way. In terms of substance, it gives him an important platform to subtly “nudge” the regulatory philosophy and direction of the Obama Administration on many matters, including Internet policy. So, what has Professor Sunstein had to say about Internet policy in his recent work? Sunstein has developed his thinking about these issues primarily in his two recent books: Republic.com (2000) and Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (2006). But he’s also had a few relevant things to say about Internet issues in his recent book with Richard Thaler, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (2008).

There are 3 Internet policy-related things from his work that I’d like to focus on here because I find them all quite troubling.

(1) Is the Net Creating Anti-Democratic Man?

The first is Sunstein’s general outlook about the Internet and what it is doing to society. In Republic.com , Sunstein argued that the Internet is destroying opportunities for a mingling of the masses and shared social experiences. The hyper-customization that specialized websites and online filtering technologies (blogs, portals, listservs, political websites, etc.) offer Americans is allowing citizens to create the equivalent of a highly personalized news retrieval service that Sunstein contemptuously refers to as “The Daily Me.”

Actually, the phrase “The Daily Me” was coined by Nicholas Negroponte in his brilliant 1995 book Being Digital to describe what he argued would be a liberating break from traditional, force-fed media. But what irks Sunstein about “The Daily Me” is not the amazing new array of choices that the Internet offers Americans, it’s that the Internet and all these new technologies allow citizens to filter information and tailor their viewing or listening choices to their own needs or desires. While Negroponte welcomed that filtering and specialization function, Sunstein seems to live in fear of it, believing that it creates extreme social isolation and alienation. He argues that unrestrained individual choice is dangerous and must be checked or countered in the interests of “citizenship” and “democracy.” In his own words: “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government. Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.”  In other words, as I noted in my review of his book in Regulation magazine back in 2000, Sunstein is essentially saying that the Internet is breeding a dangerous new creature: Anti-Democratic Man. And government should not hesitate to act to counter it.

Sunstein’s argument is highly elitist. To Sunstein, the Internet is apparently guilty of the unspeakable crime of offering citizens and consumers too much of exactly what they want! But, according to his logic, the masses just don’t know what’s good for them so they must be aggressively encouraged (and potentially forced) to listen to things that others — namely, Sunstein — want them to hear. As Thomas Krattenmaker and Lucas Powe, authors of Regulating Broadcast Programming, argue: “Sunstein has dressed an older argument in more modern garb, but at bottom it is the persistent belief of some elites that if only they could gain power, they would use it to impose their views of the good on those who are less enlightened.” It’s what my favorite political scientist Thomas Sowell refers to as “The Vision of the Anointed.”

And a look at the world around us shows that Sunstein’s view that the Net is leading to close-mindedness, homogenization, and the death of deliberative democracy is generally overblown. (Although Lee Siegel and Andrew Keen would agree with him). Indeed, I think quite the opposite is the case. While it’s true that citizens do face an overwhelming number of media and informational choices today, that isn’t really such a lamentable development. The very fact there are so many distinct media and informational options available to citizens is better for a healthy democracy than a limited range of media options, even if some people flock to sites they find more agreeable.

Finally, it is simply impossible for me to believe the argument that citizens are somehow exposed to fewer viewpoints today than in the past. Such a suggestion is simply revisionist history. Never before have we humans been exposed to such a cornucopia of informational inputs of all flavors.

(2) A Fairness Doctrine for the Internet

Sunstein’s views about the Internet and what it is doing to society are troubling enough. Far more problematic, however, is what Sunstein has suggested we should do to deal with this supposed problem. After Sunstein worked himself up to a boil about all this in Republic.com, he tossed out what I believe is the single most dangerous public policy idea for the Internet suggested in the past 10 years: mandatory “electronic sidewalks” for cyberspace.

Sunstein called for popular or partisan websites to be forced to carry links to opposing viewpoints. Think of it as a combination of must carry mandates and the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. Thus, the National Rifle Association (NRA) would be forced to run links or editorials by anti-gun groups, and abortion rights groups would be forced to contend with links and editorials from pro-life organizations. Apparently in Sunstein’s world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires.

Problems abound with such a philosophical paradigm. It is impossible to know how or where to draw regulatory lines under such a regime. For example, under Sunstein’s model, how many links to opposing viewpoints should citizens be subjected to on the Net before he believes they are fully assimilated into democratic society? If the NRA only offered one or two links to anti-gun groups, would that be enough? Moreover, it remains unclear who in government is really in the a position to dictate or referee all of this and how they will go about enforcing it. Whether any of this will pass constitutional muster is another question not explored by Sunstein.

Importantly, in his 2006 book Infotopia, Sunstein seemed to pull back from these views and proposals somewhat, although he still bemoaned the supposed dangers of “The Daily Me.”  But in this November 2007 interview with Salon, Sunstein seemed to completely abandon his old proposal:

I have thought over the years of whether it makes sense for the government to have a regulatory role [for the Internet]. But the Internet is too difficult to regulate in a way that would respond to these concerns. The first book [“Republic.com”] had suggestions that government should consider fairness-doctrine-type mandates on Web sites. It suggested that it’s reasonable for government to think about creating the equivalent of linking obligations and pop-ups, so that you’d be on one site — say, a conservative site — and there’d be a pop-up from a liberal site. I now the believe that the government should not consider that — that it’s a stupid and almost certainly an unconstitutional suggestion.

Salon then asked him: “What changed your thinking?” Sunstein responded:

Hearing counter-arguments and seeing the nature of the Internet as it unfolded over time. “Republic.com” made a mistake of applying to the Internet some ideas that were developed in a world of three or four television networks. … But the kinds of regulation that would respond to my concerns [about deliberative democracy], they’re not really feasible and they probably wouldn’t help. Most problems are best solved privately, not through government. There’s a problem of discourtesy in the world, which is best handled through social norms, which are indispensable. But you wouldn’t want the government to be mandating courtesy.

Thus, I have to give Prof. Sunstein credit for recognizing the complexities and dangers associated with his old ideas.

(3) A Cooling Off Period Before Posting on Blogs

In Nudge, a book about how small proposals or policies can have major social influences, Sunstein and his co-author Richard Thaler describe as their “favorite proposal,” a so-called “Civility Check” for online speech and interactions. Here’s what they say:

The modern world suffers from insufficient civility. Every hour of every day, people send angry emails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don’t send an angry email in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven’t learned the rule or don’t always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month. We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the email you’re about to send is angry and caution you, “warning: this appears to be an uncivil email. do you really and trulywant to send it?” (Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful email message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, “warning: this appears to be an uncivil email. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in twenty-fourhours.” With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather’s birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!).

When I first responded to Sunstein and Thaler’s “Civility Check” notion, I went a little hard on them calling that idea “absurd and horrendously elitist.” What I should have made clear is that there is a difference between suggesting this sort of thing as an industry “best practice” as opposed to mandating it by force of law.

Indeed, in October of last year, Google launched a new Gmail feature called “Mail Goggles” that, according to the launch message on Google’s Gmail Blog, will help users “stop sending mail you (will) later regret.” The feature — perhaps better labeled a “Drunk Check” — “will check that you’re really sure you want to send that late night Friday email” by asking you to “solve a few simple math problems after you click send to verify you’re in the right state of mind.” It’s not identical to what Sunstein and Thaler have in mind, but it’s close. And I’m fine with Google adding such a feature to their Gmail service, especially since you don’t have to use it if you don’t want to.

Sunstein and Thaler aren’t really clear about how far they would go in forcing their Civility Check on Internet operators, however. For example, would they alter Section 230 immunity standards to hold the threat of liability over the necks of website operators who refused to play ball? They just don’t say. But with rising concerns about online cyberbullying, harassment, and defamation, the really interesting question going forward becomes just how far the law should go to encourage or demand that site operators better police their sites for poor “Netiquette.”

The danger here is that, if the liability equation was to tip in the other direction, it would have a profoundly chilling effect on online free speech and expression. While Sunstein and Thaler obviously hope that chilling effect associated with such a Civility Check would only be freezing caustic, offensive, or potentially libelous forms of speech, much more speech would likely be affected.

Conclusion

Will Sunstein continue to push any of these views in his new position as Obama’s regulatory czar at OIRA? If so, how much impact will Sunstein’s views have on others in the Obama Administration, especially at the FCC? Or, have his views changed enough that we really shouldn’t worry?

Who knows. It may be that Sunstein will be too busy trying to mediate fights between agencies and other “czars” in the Administration — of which there seems to be no shortage these days! If, however, Sunstein’s views on the supposed dangers of the Internet and his proposals about how to address them do come to hold sway with others in the Obama Administration, we may be looking at even more insidious Internet regulation than I expected from this new crew. Sunstein’s thinking and proposals would have a profound impact on online freedom and the First Amendment rights of all online sites and speakers.

Of the titles I included in a mega-book review about Internet optimists and pessimists that I posted here a few months ago, I mentioned Lee Siegel’s new book, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob.  It is certainly the dourest of the recent books that have adopted a pessimistic view of the impact the Internet is having on our culture, society, and economy. Because Siegel’s book is one of the most important technology policy books of 2008, however, I decided to give it a closer look here.

Siegel’s book essentially picks up where Andrew Keen’s leaves off in Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing our Culture (2007).  I posted a two-part review of Keen’s book here last year [Part 1, Part 2], but here’s a quick taste of Keen’s take on things.  He argues “the moral fabric of our society is being unraveled by Web 2.0” and that “our cultural standards and moral values are not all that are at stake.  Gravest of all,” Keen continues, “the very traditional institutions that have helped to foster and create our news, our music, our literature, our television shows, and our movies are under assault as well.”

As I noted in my earlier “Net optimists vs. pessimists” essay, after reading Cult of the Amateur, I didn’t think anyone else could ever be quite as over-the-top and Chicken Little-ish as Keen. But after working my way through Siegel’s Against the Machine, I realized I was wrong. It made Keen seem downright reasonable and cheery by comparison! Keen and Siegel seem to be in heated competition for the title “High Prophet of Internet Doom,” but Siegel is currently a nose ahead in that race.

Keen and Siegel are both essentially channeling the ghost of the late Neil Postman, the one-time dean of the modern school of techno-pessimism. Postman’s 1992 book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, was the first major anti-Digital Age diatribe and it remains the reigning champion of anti-technology screeds. “Information has become a form of garbage,” Postman argued, “not only incapable of answering the most fundamental human questions but barely useful in providing coherent direction to the solution of even mundane problems.” If left unchecked, Postman argued, America’s new technopoly — “the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology” — would destroy “the vital sources of our humanity” and lead to “a culture without a moral foundation” by undermining “certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living.”

Although Lee Siegel doesn’t bother citing him, he owes much to Postman’s brand of social criticism. Indeed, in large part, Siegel is simply bringing Postman’s critique of the Information Age up to date. Like Postman and Keen, Siegel is concerned about the “destructive side” of the Internet and the Information Age, which they all feel is being overlooked. Specifically, the attack these authors mount on the Information Age and the Net can be boiled down to two major themes:

1. The Net is destroying (or at least greatly diminishing) the role of experts, authority, “truth”, and traditional societal norms and institutions. This is having (or eventually will result in) dangerous ramifications for our culture, economy, and democracy.
2. The personalization and customization that the Information Age and the Internet have spawned is an unambiguously negative development for our society and culture. Moreover, in large part, the entire Web 2.0 experience is largely just about commercial interests furthering their ends.

Let’s take a closer look what Siegel says about each.

Experts, Authority, and “Truth”

Like Postman and Keen, Siegel doesn’t mix words when it comes to his contempt for the disintermediating influences of modern information technology. He is particularly concerned about the loss of “truth” and “authority” in our new environment. “Culture needs authoritative institutions like a powerful newspaper; it needs them both to protect its critical, independent spirit and to make sure that culture’s voices heard in the louder din of more powerful economic and political entities.” (p. 140-1) By empowering the masses to have more of a voice, Siegel says, “unbiased, rational, intelligent, and comprehensive news… will become less and less available.” (p. 165) “[G]iving everyone a voice,” he argues, “can also be a way to keep the most creative, intelligent, and original voices from being heard.” (p. 5)

Like many other Net skeptics, Siegel views Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, and almost all user-generated content with a combination of confusion or contempt. “[S]elf-expression is not the same thing as imagination” or art, he argues. (p. 52)  Instead, he regards the explosion of online expression as the “narcissistic” bloviation of the masses and argues it is destroying true culture and knowledge. “Under the influence of the Internet,” he says, “knowledge is withering away into information.” (p. 152) Our new age of information abundance is not worth celebrating, he says, because “information is powerlessness.” (p. 148).

One reason Siegel gets nostalgic about the age of scarcity is because elites like him — and others who were lucky enough to have access to mainstream media — had a more privileged place in the old media world.  As a social / cultural critic, he can’t be happy with all the competition he now faces in that field from the blogosphere and online media outlets.

But it’s difficult to sympathize with Siegel’s position that others should be excluded from having a voice now in an effort to preserve the old order. After all, for the past seven decades, public policy has largely been preoccupied with getting society out of the scarcity mess (even though public policy created much of that mess!) by ensuring that citizens had more choices and outlets. Now that we have more options, some people like Keen and Siegel aren’t happy about the fact that the hoi polloi have been empowered. But, even if some traditional institutions lose the dominant position they once held in society, plenty of “authoritative” and “professional” media options and outlets continue to exist. Our new Information Age simply empowers millions of other voices to join the conversation and offer alternative perspectives and input.

But Siegel also disputes what he regards as such romanticized notions of “online participation” and “personal democracy.” To him, everyone is just in it for the money. “Web 2.0 is the brainchild of businessmen,” and the “producer public” is really just a “totalized ‘consumerist’ society.”  But what about all those bloggers who (like me!) are in it for the love of the conversation and debate?  Well, says Siegel, we just don’t realize the harm we are doing by trying to have our say!  “[T]he bloggers are playing into the hands of political and financial forces that want nothing more than to see the critical, scrutinizing media disappear.” (p. 141) And as for those true believers and Net evangelists who believe that something truly exciting is happening with our new online conversation, according to Siegel, they are simply “in a mad rush to earn profits or push a fervent idealism.” (p. 25-6)

It’s difficult for me to imagine anything more insultingly stupid than those last two statements.  The insulting part about them is that Siegel is essentially telling us all to shut up!  We all need to put down our pens — or, rather, our keyboards — and understand that we are doing great harm to those journalists, institutions, or other enlightened few who are really providing the “critical, scrutinizing” function so essential for a healthy democracy and culture. It’s just blatantly elitist for Siegel to suggest that only a select few have any business sharing their views with the world, and he even acknowledges that several times in the book. But he wears that elitist tag like a badge of honor as he stares down his nose at the newly empowered masses, snorting in disgust at everything he sees.

And the stupid part about those statements above is that the vast majority of bloggers or online participants are absolutely not in it for the money, or even out to take down mainstream media. They just want to be heard. But, again, Siegel believes that what you all have to say is not worth hearing anyway.

The Supposed Perils of Personalization

Indeed, Siegel’s primary gripe with the Web 2.0 world is that while most of us appreciate the growing personalization of information and content as well as the increasingly participatory nature of the Internet, he sees that as an unmitigated evil.  “The Internet is the first social environment to serve the needs of the isolated, asocial individual.” (p. 6)  The “Daily Me” (personalized, instantaneously delivered content) that Nicholas Negroponte predicted and longed for in his prescient 1995 book Being Digital, is viewed by Siegel as nothing more that the creation of a “narcissistic culture” in which “exaggeration” and the “loudest, most outrageous, or most extreme voices sway the crowd his way; the cutest, most self-effacing, most ridiculous, or most transparently fraudulent of voices saw the crowd of voices that way.” (p. 79)  He goes so far as to refer to it as our “democracy’s fatal turn” in that, instead of “allowing individuals to create their own cultural and commercial choices,” Web 2.0 has instead created “a more potent form of homogenization.” (p. 67)

In this regard, Siegel is channeling another Net skeptic, the prolific Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School.  In his 2001 book Republic.com, Sunstein also referred to Negroponte’s “Daily Me” in contemptuous terms, saying that the hyper-customization of websites and online technologies was causing extreme social fragmentation, isolation, and alienation, and could lead to political extremism. “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. As I said in my review of his book in Regulation magazine that year, Sunstein was essentially saying that the Internet is breeding a dangerous new creature: Anti-Democratic Man. “Group polarization is unquestionably occurring on the Internet,” he proclaimed, and it is weakening what he called the “social glue” that binds society together and provides citizens with a common “group identity.” If that continues unabated, Sunstein argued, the potential result could be nothing short of the death of deliberative democracy and the breakdown of the American system of government.

Siegel continues this line of reasoning in Against the Machine but, like Sunstein, completely fails to offer anything more than a few random anecdotes in defense of their thesis that the Net is leading to close-mindedness, homogenization, and the death of deliberative democracy. Worse yet, they also both completely fail to look at the other side of the story, which is that the Internet and Web 2.0 may be having the exact opposite effect. I made that argument in my 2005 book, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership (p. 39):

The reality is that citizens do face an overwhelming number of media choices today, and that probably does make it somewhat more difficult for them to have “shared experiences” involving any individual news or entertainment program. But that isn’t really such a lamentable development. Government need not take steps to make sure everyone watches or listens to the same programs each night so they can all talk about them around the watercooler at work the next day. It’s just as good that everyone can discuss something different that they saw or heard the night before. And the very fact there are so many distinct media options available to citizens is better for a healthy democracy than a limited range of media options. Again, regardless of who owns what, the fact remains that we have more sources of news, communications, and entertainment than ever before in this country. Still, some media critics wax nostalgic about a mythical time — a supposed “Golden Age” of newspapers, radio, or television — when the populace was more closely linked or unified in some grand sociological sense by common reporting or programming options. But that is a stretch. The days when William Randolph Hearst dominated media, or when only three TV networks brought us our news at a set time each night, could hardly be labeled the “Golden Age” of those respective mediums. If that’s the world media critics want us to return to, then this represents, as Jonathan Knee argues, “an argument for homogeneity hiding under the pretext of diversity.”

And, indeed, that’s exactly what Siegel is proposing in his book, as Keen also does in his. They want to roll back to clock and return us to the mythical “good ‘ol days” of media. Again, when were those days? I simply cannot fathom how anyone can claim that the age of media scarcity — with its limited outlets and opportunities — was truly better than the world we find ourselves in today. As I noted in the first part of my two-part review of Keen’s book, which was entitled “Why an Age of Abundance Really is Better than an Age of Scarcity”:

What Keen doesn’t seem willing to tolerate is that when everyone has a voice, a lot more silly things are going to be said and heard. Back in the days before we all had our own soapboxes (websites, blogs, social networks, YouTube posts, etc.) we all had opinions, but we had few ways to get those opinions out. Now that the Internet has become the great leveler and given everyone the ability to be a one-person newspaper or broadcaster to the world, the dream of a more fully empowered citizenry is slowly becoming a reality. The upside is that everyone gets an equal chance to be heard. But the downside is that everyone gets an equal chance to be heard! That is, with the good comes some bad. There are wonderful contributions to culture and human communications being made by average Joes and Janes across the globe because of the Web. But let’s face it, there’s a lot of crap out there too. Cutting through the cultural clutter can been a real challenge, and even with the best search tools in the world at your disposal, it can still be difficult to find that diamond in the rough. But aren’t we better off as a society because of the opportunities now at our disposal? Isn’t an age of media and cultural abundance — warts and all — still preferable to the age of scarcity which preceded it?

I believe it is. And as I concluded in my review of Keen’s book, which seems like an equally sensible way to conclude this review of Lee Siegel’s tedious screed:

I think we are definitely better off because of this seismic shift in our communications and media environment. The human conversation is more diverse than ever before, and we have been empowered to experience the full range of culture and human creativity (for better and for worse!)

[Note: I updated this discussion and chart in a subsequent essay. See: “Are You An Internet Optimist or Pessimist? The Great Debate over Technology’s Impact on Society.”]

A number of very interesting books have been released over the past year or two which debate how the Internet is reshaping our culture and the economy. I’ve reviewed a couple of them here but I have been waiting to compile a sort of mega-book review once I found a sensible way to conceptually group them together. I’m not going to have time to cover each of them here in the detail they deserve, but I think I have at least found a sensible way to categorize them. For lack of better descriptors, I’ve divided these books and thinkers into two camps: “Internet optimists” versus “Internet Pessimists.” Here’s a list of some of the individuals and books (or other articles and blogs) that I believe epitomize these two camps of thinking:

Adherents & Their Books / Writings

And here’s a rough sketch of the major beliefs or key themes that separate these two schools of thinking about the impact of the Internet on our culture and economy:

Beliefs / Themes

So, what to make of this intellectual war? Who’s got the story right?

Although it will be easy for many in the blogosphere to side with the Internet optimists — and I would count myself as generally being in the optimist camp — I think the Net pessimists make many fair points about the disruptive nature of the Internet and how it forcing individuals and industries to completely reconsider the way they live their lives or organize their business affairs. Many Net optimists have a tendency to paint an excessively rosy picture of the transformative nature of the Net. In the extreme, the optimists seem to imply that the Net is somehow remaking man, altering human nature, and changing the economy only for the better. Among the Net optimists, there’s often a lot of romanticized talk of collective action / intelligence overcoming all barriers to knowledge or progress, and so on. (Sometimes I am guilty of a bit of that myself in my writing here). Net optimists need to be careful about overstating their case, especially on the economic front, and we would be wise to read the work of the Net pessimists with that criticism in mind.

The problem with the Internet pessimists, however, is that their skepticism often borders on Chicken Little-ism or outright Ludditism. I thought Andrew Keen’s Cult of the Amateur was about as over-the-top as things could get in this regard. (See my 2-part book review here and here), but then I worked my way through Lee Siegel’s tedious screed, Against the Machine. It made Keen seem downright reasonable and cheery by comparison! Keen and Siegel seem to be in heated competition for the title “High Prophet of Internet Doom,” but Siegel is currently a nose ahead in that race.

Nick Carr is probably the most reasonable and respected of the Net skeptics. He is an enormously gifted writer and I always enjoy reading his books, articles, and blog entries, even when I disagree with him. In The Big Switch, he makes many valid points about the downsides of the gut-wrenching changes that the Net is bringing about. Similarly, in his provocative recent Atlantic article, “Is Google Making us Stupid?”, he wonders how the Net is negatively affecting our minds and attention spans. Carr also argues that the Internet economy is increasingly built on a “sharecropper” model that essentially exploits the free labor of the multitudes to make just a handful of major Net operators rich. He makes some interesting points but, ultimately, I think he overstates the problem. Most of us feel we get a lot back as part of this value exchange. Sure, Google, Facebook, and a lot of other Net middlemen are getting big and rich based on all the user-generated content flowing over their sites and systems, but we extract enormous benefits from the existence of those (mostly free and constantly improving) platforms and services.

Nonetheless, the Net pessimists (especially Carr) raise some very legitimate questions about the limitations of the “free culture” mindset. They are on stronger ground when the highlight the problems associated with online piracy, however, than when they are critiquing Wikipedia and the occasional limitations or errors of collaborative endeavors like it. But Wikipedia in particular seems to be an obsession for many of the Net pessimists, especially Carr and Keen.

It is also true, however, that Net optimists like Tapscott and Benkler sometimes make too much out of “wiki” / collective intelligence models, seemingly implying that proprietary business models, private firms, and potentially capitalism itself are passé notions. I disagree. While I think wiki / collective intelligence approaches have their place and play a vitally important role in our new digital economy, the old ways of doing things are still alive and well and producing some wonderful results. For example, “The Dark Knight” wasn’t the product of spontaneous collective action, and I still don’t see any truly compelling open source video games to compete with the likes of “Madden 2009” or “Star Wars: The Force Unleashed.” I think some of the Net optimists get a bit carried away at times when the place too much faith in the “Wikipedia-ization” of everything, or the idea that the Long Tail is somehow “The Future of Business,” as the subtitle of Chris Anderson’s book suggest. I think that goes much too far. On the other hand, I am huge fan of Wiki & Long Tail models and, like most others, understand their limitations. Those models will play an increasingly important role in the Net economy moving forward whether the Net pessimists like it or not. Bottom line: each model or mode of production has its place and purpose and they will continue to co-exist going forward, albeit in serious tension at times.

Perhaps when I have more time I will return to this discussion and fill it out more with some passages and quotes from each book. I just don’t have the time right now but I will try to do so at some point in the future. Anyway, these are important books that deserve your attention if you are following the debate over the impact the Net is having — for better or worse — on our culture and economy.

The Administrative Law Review at American University will hold a pretty interesting symposium next Friday on media regulation and the legacy of Red Lion v. FCC. Don’t let their horrendous program design scare you (PDF), they have some top notch speakers scheduled, including Cass Sunstein. Check out TLF’s Red Lion coverage over the years here.