My latest book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments, is now live. Here’s the launch essay and online launch event. Also, here’s a summary of 10 major arguments advanced in the book. I will have more to say about the book in coming weeks, but here is a list of 13 key terms discussed in the text. This list appears at the end of the introduction to the book:

1. Compliance paradox: The situation in which heightened legal or regulatory efforts fail to reverse unwanted behavior and instead lead to increased legal evasion and additional enforcement problems.
2. Demosclerosis: Growing government dysfunction brought on by the inability of public institutions to adapt to change, especially technological change.
3. Evasive entrepreneurs: Innovators who do not always conform to social or legal norms.
4. Free innovation: Bottom-up, noncommercial forms of innovation that often take on an evasive character. Free innovation is sometimes called “grassroots” or “household” innovation or “social entrepreneurialism.” Even though it is typically noncommercial in character, free innovation often involves regulatory entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience.
5. Innovation arbitrage: The movement of ideas, innovations, or operations to jurisdictions that provide legal and regulatory environments most hospitable to entrepreneurial activity. It can also be thought of as a form of jurisdictional shopping and can be facilitated by competitive federalism.
6. Innovation culture: The various social and political attitudes and pronouncements toward innovation, technology, and entrepreneurial activities that, taken together, influence the innovative capacity of a culture or nation.
7. Pacing problem: A term that generally refers to the inability of legal or regulatory regimes to keep up with the intensifying pace of technological change.
8. Permissionless innovation: The general notion that “it’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” As a policy vision, it refers to the idea that experimentation with new technologies and innovations should generally be permitted by default.
9. Precautionary principle: The practice of crafting public policies to control or limit innovations until their creators can prove that they will not cause any harm or disruptions.
10. Regulatory entrepreneurs: Evasive entrepreneurs who set out to intentionally challenge and change the law through their innovative activities. In essence, policy change is part of their business model.
11. Soft law: Informal, collaborative, and constantly evolving governance mechanisms that differ from hard law in that they lack the same degree of enforceability.
12. Technological civil disobedience: The technologically enabled refusal of individuals, groups, or businesses to obey certain laws or regulations because they find them offensive, confusing, time-consuming, expensive, or perhaps just annoying and irrelevant.
13. Technologies of freedom: Devices and platforms that let citizens openly defy (or perhaps just ignore) public policies that limit their liberty or freedom to innovate. Another term with the same meaning is “technologies of resistance.”

In coming days and weeks I will be occasionally blogging about different arguments made in the 368-page book, but here’s a quick summary of some of the key points I make in the book. These ten passages are pulled directly from the text:

1. “the freedom to innovate is essential to human betterment for each of us individually and for civilization as a whole. That freedom deserves to be taken more seriously today.”
2. “Entrepreneurialism and technological innovation are the fundamental drivers of economic growth and of the incredible advances in the everyday quality of life we have enjoyed over time. They are the key to expanding economic opportunities, choice, and mobility.”
3. “Unfortunately, many barriers exist to expanding innovation opportunities and our entrepreneurial efforts to help ourselves, our loved ones, and others. Those barriers include occupational licensing rules, cronyism-based industrial protectionist schemes, inefficient tax schemes, and many other layers of regulatory red tape at the federal, state, and local levels. We should not be surprised, therefore, when citizens take advantage of new technological capabilities to evade some of those barriers in pursuit of their right to earn a living, to tinker with or try doing new things, or just to learn about the world and serve it better.”
4. “Evasive entrepreneurs rely on a strategy of permissionless innovation in both the business world and the political arena. They push back against ‘the Permission Society,’ or the convoluted labyrinth of permits and red tape that often encumber entrepreneurial activities.” 
5. “We should be willing to tolerate a certain amount of such outside-the-box thinking because entrepreneurialism expands opportunities for human betterment by constantly replenishing the well of important, life-enhancing ideas and applications.”
6. “we should better appreciate how creative acts and the innovations they give rise to can help us improve government by keeping public policies fresh, sensible, and in line with common sense and the consent of the governed.”
7. “Evasive entrepreneurialism is not so much about evading law altogether as it is about trying to get interesting things done, demonstrating a social or an economic need for new innovations in the process, and then creating positive leverage for better results when politics inevitably becomes part of the story. By acting as entrepreneurs in the political arena, innovators expand opportunities for themselves and for the public more generally, which would not have been likely if they had done things by the book.”
8. “Dissenting through innovation can help make public officials more responsive to the people by reining in the excesses of the administrative state, making government more transparent and accountable, and ensuring that our civil rights and economic liberties are respected.”
9. “In an age when many of the constitutional limitations on government power are being ignored or unenforced, innovation itself can act as a powerful check on the power of the state and can help serve as a protector of important human liberties.”
10. “Lawmakers and regulators need to consider a balanced response to evasive entrepreneurialism that is rooted in the realization that technology creators and users are less likely to seek to evade laws and regulations when public policies are more in line with common sense.”

In a nutshell, the core arguments made in the book boil down to this: “evasive entrepreneurialism can transform our society for the better because it can do the following

• Help expand the range of life-enriching innovations available to society.
• Help citizens pursue lives of their own choosing—both as creators looking for the freedom to earn a living and as consumers looking to discover and enjoy important new goods and services.
• Help provide a meaningful, ongoing check on government policies and programs that all too often have outlived their usefulness or simply defy common sense.”

I hope you will consider reading the book.

CBS and Time Warner Cable have been embroiled in a heated contractual battle over the past week that has resulted in viewers in some major markets losing access to CBS programming. When disputes like these go nuclear and signal blackouts occur, it is inevitable that some folks will call for policy interventions since nobody likes it when the content they love goes dark.

While some policy responses are warranted in this matter, policymakers should proceed with caution. Heated contractual negotiations are a normal part of any capitalist marketplace. We shouldn’t expect lawmakers to intervene to speed up negotiations or set content prices because that would disrupt the normal allocation of programming by placing a regulatory thumb too heavily on one side of the scale. This is why I am somewhat sympathetic to CBS in this fight. In an age when content creators struggle to protect their copyrighted content and get compensation for it, the last thing we need is government intervention that undermines the few distribution schemes that actually work well.

On the other hand, Time Warner Cable deserves sympathy here, too, since CBS currently enjoys some preexisting regulatory benefits. As I noted in this 2012 Forbes oped, “Toward a True Free Market in Television Programming,” many layers of red tape still encumber America’s video marketplace and prevent a truly free market in video programming from developing. The battle here revolves around the “retransmission consent” rules that were put in place as part of the Cable Act of 1992 and govern how video distributors carry signals from TV broadcasters, which includes CBS.

But those “retrans” rules are not the only part of the regulatory mess here. There are many related federal rules that tip the scales toward broadcasters and content creators, such as the requirement that video distributors carry broadcast signals even if they don’t want to (“must carry”); rules that prohibit distributors from striking deals with broadcasters outside their local communities (“network non-duplication” and “syndicated exclusivity” rules); regs specifying where broadcast channels appear on the cable channel lineup; and prohibitions against carrying sporting events on cable when the local stadium doesn’t sell all its seats on game day (“sports blackout rule”).

As they say on TV.. ” But Wait, There’s More!” Working in the favor of video distributors are the compulsory licensing requirements of the Copyright Act of 1976, which essentially forced a “duty to deal” upon broadcasters. Broadcasters have to let cable operators and other video distributors retransmit local stations, though the system at least ensures they get compensated for it. As I noted in my old Forbes essay, along with must carry rules, “Compulsory licensing is the original sin of video marketplace regulation. We could have avoided most of the regulatory mess of the past quarter century if Congress had simply left these rights and contractual negotiations alone. Once Congress forced broadcasters to share their programming, however, marketplace manipulation was off and rolling.”

Of course, the more primal and problematic intervention came decades before in the 1920s and ’30s when the government decided to nationalize spectrum management. Once mandates instead of markets where chosen as the primary allocation agent, America was off and running with a grand experiment in spectrum central planning. We’re still living with the results today. The very fact that spectrum is licensed and can only be used and sold for very narrow purposes as detailed in meticulous FCC regulations is a sign of just how far-removed we are from a pure free market here.

The question now is, what are we going to do about this fine mess? And is there any chance we can get it done?

The problem in this debate is that there are multiple layers of interventions that have built up over the years and created constituencies that are wedded to their preservation. Broadcasters, networks, independent content creators, big cable companies, small cable companies, satellite companies, sports leagues, and viewing consumers themselves — they all have conflicting interests and a stake in how this debate turns out. In his 2012 Mercatus Center working paper, “Consumer Welfare and TV Program Regulation,” media economist Bruce M. Owen noted that “What distinguishes TV programs from other mass media content, including both traditional print and new online media, is the extreme eagerness of Washington to engage in efforts to prevent markets from working freely, often in response to interest group pressures and opportunities for political advantage and with almost complete indifference to the welfare of consumers.”

As a result, if you talk to almost anyone involved in this debate, they will all insist that only their very specific reforms are the ones that can or should be implemented. Consequently, comprehensive reform will be challenging precisely because of all the conflicting interests and layers of law and regulation that must be eradicated.

But at least there is a blueprint for how to get the job done right. Many times here before I have written about “The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act,” which was floated last session by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) and then-Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC). It proposed wiping off the books all the archaic rules outlined above. Alas, the bill never went anywhere in the last Congress and now that Sen. DeMint has left to lead the Heritage Foundation, there is no supporter in the Senate this session. Instead, we have some lawmakers floating bad ideas like S.912, the “Television Consumer Freedom Act of 2013,” which just proposes more regulatory gaming of an already over-gamed system.

We instead need policy reforms like the old DeMint-Scalise bill that clean up the regulatory mess of the past. But there just isn’t much appetite for such a house-cleaning. Most parties affected by these rules want very specific outcomes and deregulation won’t give them any such guarantees. After all, there will still be blackouts after deregulation. And the cost of some content may continue to go up in response to demand. And there will still be fights over sports programming. And there’s no certainty that all local broadcasters or small video distributors will survive. And so on, and so on.

But it is also true that a deregulatory environment is more likely to lead to even more experimentation and innovation with new business models, technologies, and methods of content creation and delivery. We already see much innovation in this marketplace despite all the red tape that exists. Just look at what’s been going on recent years with alternative video delivery platforms, including: Netflix, Hulu, XBox Live, Vudu, Roku, Redbox, Boxee, Amazon, Apple TV, Aereo, Google Chromecast, and so on. And don’t forget the strides that the old broadcast and cable giants have made here, too. CBS is actually a pretty good model for how content can be re-purposed online in creative ways on a firm’s own digital platform. Likewise, cable companies like Time Warner Cable are slowly but surely adapting to consumers’ demand for video to be delivered to multiple devices.

Of course, there there will always be hiccups along the road to video nirvana. Some regulatory activists seemingly expect that all content can be delivered effortless and cheaply to consumers without giving a thought in the world to just how complicated it is to get that content financed and distributed in the first place. Great content and great delivery platforms don’t just happen by magic or the good intentions of activists or policymakers. Those platforms happen because new markets and monetization mechanisms develop to facilitate them. If we cut back the regulatory deadwood in our modern information marketplace, we’d likely get even more experimentation and innovation that would likely produce all new ways of financing, creating, and delivering content to consumers. But we’ll never know unless we are willing to embrace change and kill all those old regulatory weeds that continue to grow in our information garden.

Alas, if Congress can’t muster the courage to do that, then lawmakers ought to at least consider asking the broadcasters to return all that juicy spectrum they are sitting on. After all, the current retrans racket gives the broadcasters an increasingly lucrative revenue stream when they deliver content on cable and satellite systems (in addition to the advertising revenues they already receive). No good reason exists to give them preferential treatment relative to any other cable channel out there today. Don’t forget, there are all sorts of garden-variety cable carriage disputes that happen outside the regulated retrans system today. (Remember last year’s big spats between AMC vs. Dish and Viacom vs. DirecTV?) There are no special rules that either side can rely on in those instances. So why should special rules be applied to other content companies simply because some of their properties are broadcast channels? Answer: they shouldn’t.

But if no other reforms occur and if companies like CBS still want to be more like a cable mega-channel — albeit, a very handsomely compensated cable channel — then by all means go for it. In the meantime, however, they can return all that spectrum for re-auction for some better purpose. In fact, back early 2009, CBS Corp. President and CEO Les Moonves told an investor conference that moving all CBS network programming to cable and satellite platforms would be “a very interesting proposition.” I agree! But, absent other reforms, it might be time to make that “interesting proposition” a mandatory one.

Filings are due to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today as part of its review of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and the COPPA rule that the FTC devised and enforces. I didn’t have time to pen as much as I wanted, but I did submit a short filing to the agency in the matter based on some of my previous work both with Berin Szoka and on my own.  Here’s the executive summary for my filing:

It goes without saying that the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is complicated law and rule. When considering the rule and proposals to amend it, it is easy to get lost in the weeds and ignore the bigger picture. That would be a mistake. There are broader, more important questions that need to be asked as part of the Federal Trade Commission’s effort to expand this regulatory regime. These questions involve not only the costs of increased regulation for online business interests, but the impact of expanded regulation on market structure, competition, and innovation. More importantly, these questions cut to the core of whether the public (including children) will be served with more and better digital innovations in the future. There is no free lunch. Regulation—even well-intentioned regulation like COPPA—is not a costless exercise. There are profound trade-offs for online content and culture that must always be considered.

Whatever one thinks about the effectiveness or sensibility of the COPPA regulatory model for the Web 1.0 world, it is clear that the regime is being strained by the unforeseen realities of the Web 2.0 world of hyper-ubiquitous connectivity and user-generated content creation and sharing. The digital genie cannot be put back in the bottle.  While COPPA may continue to have a marginal role to play in this rapidly evolving world, that role will likely be increasingly limited by the inherent realities of the information age.

Entire filing can be found on the Mercatus website, on SSRN, or via Scribd [Also embedded below in a Scribd reader.] [FILING] Comments of Adam Thierer – Mercatus Center – FTC COPPA 2011 Ammendments

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, Progress Snaphot 6.1

Stephanie Clifford of the  New York Times posted a very interesting article this week summarizing a recent “on-the-record chat” the Times staff had with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) chairman Jon Leibowitz and FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection chief David Vladeck.  The interview [discussed by Braden here] is profoundly important in that it reveals an alarming disconnect regarding the relationship between “privacy” regulation and the future of media, which were the subjects of their discussion with Times staff.  Namely, Leibowitz and Vladeck apparently fail to appreciate how the delicate balance between commercial advertising and journalism is at risk precisely because of the sort of regulations they apparently are ready to adopt.  Because the value of online advertising depends on data about its effectiveness and consumers’ likely interests, and because advertising is indispensable to funding media, what’s ultimately at stake here is nothing short of the future of press freedom.

The “Day of Reckoning” Is Upon Us

Leibowitz and Vladeck spend the first half of The Times interview wringing their hands about “privacy policies,” the declarations made by websites and advertising networks about their data collection and use practices (for which the FTC can and must hold them accountable).  But the two feel that privacy policies don’t adequately inform consumers.  Chairman Leibowitz claims that online companies “haven’t given consumers effective notice, so they can make effective choices.”  And Mr. Vladeck states that advise-and-consent models “depended on the fiction that people were meaningfully giving consent.” But he and the FTC seem ready to abandon the notice and choice model because the “literature is clear” that few people read privacy policies, Vladeck told the Times.  He and Leibowitz continue:

“Philosophically, we wonder if we’re moving to a post-disclosure era and what that would look like,” Mr. Vladeck said. “What’s the substitute for it?” He said the commission was still looking into the issue, but it hoped to have an answer by June or July, when it plans to publish a report on the subject. Mr. Leibowitz gave a hint as to what might be included: “I have a sense, and it’s still amorphous, that we might head toward opt-in,” Mr. Leibowitz said.

This clearly foreshadows the regulatory endgame we have long suspected was coming.  When the FTC released its “Self-Regulatory Principles for Online Behavioral Advertising” eleven months ago, we asked: “What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?”  Their answers to both questions have become clearer with each new calculated comment—all apparently intended to slowly “turn up the heat” on the advertising industry so that the proverbial frog will stay in the pot until the water finally boils.  Leibowitz’s FTC has simply dodged the “harm” question with a four-part strategy:

1. Cobble together a “record” full of sympathy-evoking anecdotes submitted by advocates of regulation in comments and the FTC’s ongoing “Exploring Privacy” Roundtables;
2. Let the most extreme Chicken Littles fulminate about the grand conspiracy of “neuromarketing manipulation” and the like (and sometimes even shout down FTC staff in panel discussions) in order to redefine the “reasonable center” of the debate;
3. Define-down “harm” as purely a matter of “consumer expectations” or consumers’ “dignity interests” (whatever that vague and infinitely elastic term means); and
4. Attack the effectiveness of “consent” itself by suggesting that consumers cannot be trusted to understand privacy policies or be expected to make any effort to protect their own privacy.

Conveniently, this strategy leads right back to the “day of reckoning” Chairman Leibowitz threatened was coming last February: We are heading precisely where he told us we would be—to full-on, opt-in regulation.  The writing on the wall becomes more apparent every day: Leibowitz set out to bring online advertising to heel even before becoming Chairman, and his Commission is reprising almost precisely the same approach that led to the passage of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998: building a case for new authority, dismissing industry self-regulation as ineffective, and finally presenting a report to Congress intended to produce a rapid legislative response.  After the FTC presented its report on the need for regulation in congressional testimony in June 1998, it took Congress just four months to pass COPPA—and much of that time was consumed by the summer recess.  In short, Leibowitz is mounting a carefully choreographed campaign for increased regulation.

The only real question is whether Leibowitz will somehow try to use the FTC’s existing authority over “unfair or deceptive” trade practices or wait for expanded authority from Congress.  While most observers typically assume that such expanded authority would come in the form of a privacy-specific bill—be it a broad “baseline” privacy bill or one specifically focused on online data collection for advertising purposes—the authority Leibowitz yearns for could just as easily come in the form of increased rulemaking authority as part of a broader bill that allows the FTC to preemptively regulate practices that are not deceptive but merely deemed “unfair.”

This would take the agency “ Back to the Future”—to the late 1970s, when the agency reached the height of its efforts to regulate purely on “unfairness” grounds by trying to ban advertising to children.  The agency’s behavior earned it the moniker “National Nanny” from the Washington Post, hardly a bastion of regulatory skepticism.[1] That outpouring of popular resentment caused a heavily Democratic Congress to cut-off the Democratic-led agency’s regular funding and prohibit it from regulating advertising merely on the grounds of “unfairness.”  In essence, they told the agency to “go back to its knitting” and focus on protecting consumers from demonstrated harms.^[2] Duly chastened (and actually shut down for several days), the FTC formulated a meaningful legal standard for “unfairness,” which Congress codified in 1994: for a practice to be unfair, the injury it causes must be (1) substantial, (2) without offsetting benefits, and (3) one that consumers cannot reasonably avoid.

Under this statutory standard, as FTC Commissioner Thomas Rosch has argued, the commission must carefully consider:

[the] legitimate pro-consumer and pro-competitive benefits that result from [targeted advertising]. Absent hard data weighing these benefits against the limited “invasion of privacy interests” involved, it would seem difficult to conclude that treating that practice as an actionable violation of the “unfairness” prong of Section 5 will pass muster.[3]

So Leibowitz and Vladeck either need to get serious about weighing the costs and benefits of targeted advertising—or, in the absence of such actually measuring these trade-offs, get Congress to give them the authority to regulate.  But one thing is clear from their past statements: they are in a hurry to do  something. As Vladeck told The Times last August, “There is a sense of urgency around here… Consumers, I don’t think are sufficiently protected under the current regime.”  Apparently, the case is closed in their minds.

“Left Hand, Meet Right Hand”

The second half of the  Times interview concerns the future of news. Chairman Leibowitz is not optimistic:

“There are some areas where you clearly see positive creative destruction,” Mr. Leibowitz said, giving the example of travel agents who were replaced by Orbitz and other online-booking systems. The news, he said, was not one of those. “When you’re dealing with something as critical as news is to a democracy, you need to ensure, certainly, that it’s independent, but also that it’s vibrant going forward,” he said. Areas like investigative reporting, foreign and domestic bureaus, and state-house reporting, he said, would likely falter under blog operations because of “economies of scale.”

He said he wasn’t sure what the solution was, but threw out a few ideas discussed at the conference: maybe special tax treatment for newspapers, a Corporation for Public Broadcasting-like fund, or for the newspaper industry to charge fees for the re-use of its content, similar to the model that the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers uses. [emphasis added]

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, haven’t you forgotten about the solution that has powered private media for a few centuries in this country?  You know— advertising!  Indeed, what’s stunning about these comments is the complete disconnect with what Leibowitz and Vladeck said earlier in the interview.  It certainly may be the case that they said more on the subject than what The Times has reported, but given their escalating rhetoric, it seems likely that significantly increased FTC regulation is on the horizon.  And, yet, as Chairman Leibowitz marches us into this brave new world of regulating Internet media through their key funding source, he and Mr. Vladeck seem to have little appreciation of the vital role played by advertising in sustaining a truly free and vibrant press.

An Attack on Advertising Is an Attack on Media Itself

Let’s step back and revisit Media Economics 101.  Almost every serious scholar in the field acknowledges this truism: Advertising cross-subsidizes media platforms and the creation of valuable information—especially news.  “Advertising is the mother’s milk of all the mass media,”  Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg has noted.  Similarly, Harold L. Vogel, author of Entertainment Industry Economics, the leading text in the field, has noted, “Advertising is the key common ingredient in the tactics and strategies of all entertainment and media company business models.  Indeed, it might further be said that advertising has substantively subsidized the production and delivery of news and entertainment throughout the last century.”[4] Mossberg agrees and notes, “Without ads, most editorial products and other programming would be either unavailable or prohibitively expensive.”

The reason for the indispensability of advertising is simple: Information (including news and other forms of “content”) has “public good” characteristics that make it is very difficult (and occasionally impossible) for information-publishers to recoup their investments.  Simply put, they quite literally lack pricing power: Whatever they charge, someone else will charge less for a close substitute, inevitably leading to “free” distribution of the content, even though the content is anything but free to produce.  Advertising is the one business model that has traditionally saved the day by rewarding publishers for attracting the attention of an audience.

Which raises another under-appreciated point: Private advertising promotes press independence.  “Newspapers, magazines, radio, television, and many websites all receive their primary income from advertising,” notes William F. Arens, author of  Contemporary Advertising, another leading textbook in the field. “This facilitates freedom of the press and promotes more complete information” he concludes.[5] Why?  Because, contrary to what some critics claim, advertising and marketing help keep private media providers independent of the need for taxpayer subsidies or private patrons.  This begs an even more profound question: If not advertising, then what else?

A “Public Option” for the Press?

What’s most troubling about Chairman Leibowitz’s comments to the Times is that he has apparently found his alternative to advertising: a “public option” for the press! He mentions special tax treatment for newspapers or a new CPB-like fund (don’t we already have one?) as two possibilities.  That certainly will be music to the ears of radical, pro-regulatory activist groups like the ironically-named “Free Press,” which wants to see a massive “public works” program for the media sector.

Free Press recently filed comments with the FTC in the agency’s recent workshop, “Can Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” and proposed a far-reaching industrial policy for “saving the news.”  They call for over $50 billion in subsidies for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other bureaucracies, a “journalism jobs program” for that would be part of AmeriCorps, a variety of new tax incentives for struggling media operations or individuals who support favored institutions, and an assortment of government incentives to encourage local ownership and media divestiture (by handing over control to smaller operators or minority-owned groups).  Ironically, “Free Press” has also floated the concept of “a small tax on advertising” as one way to pay for a press bailout.

The organization’s founder Robert W. McChesney, the prolific neo-Marxist media scholar, penned an essay with John Nichols of The Nation last year, claiming that saving journalism essentially requires that media become an appendage of the State.  Although advertising has supported journalism as a “public good” for centuries, the only way they can conceive to provide a public good is to socialize its means of production.  Thus, journalism, like education and national defense, requires constant government oversight and support: “A moment has arrived at which we must recognize the need to invest tax dollars to create and maintain news gathering, reporting and writing with the purpose of informing all our citizens.”  They ask us to consider the $60 billion in government spending they propose as a “free press ‘infrastructure project,’” which would “keep the press system alive.”

Some in Congress seem willing to listen.  The Senate has already held hearings about the future of journalism.  And Senator Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD) recently introduced what he has called the “Newspaper Revitalization Act,” which would allow newspapers to become nonprofit organizations in an effort to help them stay afloat.  Importantly, however, the bill would also disallow political endorsements on newspaper editorial pages—which, like campaign finance restrictions, would be a boon for incumbent politicians.  That bill should serve as fair warning to journalists about the sort of strings lawmakers will attach to press-welfare efforts going forward.  What other “golden shackles” might come with media subsidies?

To be clear, Chairman Leibowitz hasn’t called for a complete press takeover along the lines of the Free Press plan.  Yet, he hasn’t answered a key question in this debate: Who pays for news?  He appears ready to endorse a bold new regulatory scheme for the Internet and online media that, in the name of “protecting privacy” would put at risk the one traditionally successful method of supporting private media operations—advertising.  As the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism noted in its latest State of the News Media report, “The problem facing American journalism is not fundamentally an audience problem or a credibility problem.  It is a revenue problem—the decoupling… of advertising from news.”  There’s probably no way policymakers can stop this process, nor should they try.  But they shouldn’t be creating new obstacles to the survival of traditional media creators, either.

Unfortunately, that’s exactly what Chairman Leibowitz’s new regulatory scheme would do.  The revenue “delta” between “smart” advertising (tailored to consumers’ likely interests and measured for effectiveness in producing clicks, purchases, etc.) and “dumb advertising” (based purely on surrounding keywords or demographics of users presumed to visit the site) is difficult to measure but potentially enormous—even 10 times as great for some sites.[6] The difference between opt-in and opt-out could be nearly as dramatic, because it’s difficult to get consumers to opt-in for anything, especially for small players—which means that opt-in regulation could, perversely, force consolidation in the online advertising and content markets.  If the FTC cares about its statutory responsibility to safeguard competition, they should take this dynamic seriously and be hyper-cautious about heavy-handed mandates that could derail smarter advertising.

Finally, to be fair, in his interview, the Chairman also suggests the newspaper industry might want to find new way “to charge fees for the re-use of its content.”  We’re certainly not opposed to the notion and think that, if it could somehow be made to work (especially by removing antitrust obstacles), it could part of a diverse revenue mix for digital journalism.  But, there’s the rub.  Micropayments inevitably face the problem of “mental transaction costs”  that likely swamp the perceived value of most content and, like pay-walls, have generally worked only in media environments characterized by a scarcity of providers and a uniqueness of a sufficiently valuable product.  These cold, hard economic realities are why advertising remains indispensable.

The Principled Alternative to Regulation

Convinced that privacy policies simply don’t work, Leibowitz and Vladeck are asking what a “post-disclosure era” would look like.  We appreciate the continued sensitivities expressed by certain groups and individuals about online privacy and data use more generally.  But there is another way forward.  We have proposed the following “5-E” layered approach to concerns about online privacy, focusing on restraining government access to data as a clear harm, rather than crippling the private sector uses of data that directly benefit consumers:

1. Erect a higher “Wall of Separation between Web and State” by increasing Americans’ protection from government access to their personal data—thus bringing the Fourth Amendment into the Digital Age.
2. Educate users about privacy risks and data management in general as well as specific practices and policies for safer computing.
3. Empower users to implement their privacy preferences in specific contexts as easily as possible.
4. Enhance self-regulation by industry sectors and companies to integrate with user education and empowerment.
5. Enforce existing laws against unfair and deceptive trade practices as well as state privacy tort laws.

Such a layered approach would not only be a “less restrictive” alternative to top-down, one-size-fits-all government regulation, but also potentially more effective in key respects than government data use/collection mandates.  In an ideal world, adults would be fully empowered to tailor privacy decisions, like speech decisions, to their own values and preferences (“household standards”).  Consumers would have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information. Importantly, those tools and methods would give them the ability to block the things they don’t like—annoying ads or the collection of data about them, as well as objectionable content—while also helping them find the information and content they desire.

But of course, the devil’s in the details.  Leibowitz and Vladeck would set the bar so high as to what constitutes “effective” consumer choice that current privacy policies necessarily fail their test—if only because most users don’t care enough to make the “right” privacy choices.  Privacy policies, even if read by relatively few consumers, nonetheless allow privacy advocates, journalists and watchdog-bloggers to scrutinize what companies say they’re doing—promises to which the FTC should hold companies stringently.  That’s clearly not good enough for Leibowitz and Vladeck, who want to give up on “notice and choice” and move on to “opt-in” mandates.  But why not first try to make “notice” more effective?  The advertising industry is currently developing standardized interfaces that could communicate key information about privacy practices in a single icon, label or other easily-digested “consumer touch point.”

More radically, why focus on tinkering with consumer interfaces, when standardized data disclosure formats like the Protocol for Privacy Preferences (P3P) could distill legalistic privacy policies into “machine-readable” code?  Such disclosures could provide a powerful form of “notice” that the ordinary consumer could “use”: simply setting their own privacy preferences in a browser tool that automatically implements those preferences by blocking tracking that users object to.  Such a privacy disclosure format could also allow the FTC to automate enforcement of its existing authority to punish unfair or deceptive trade practices.

Conclusion

And so we return to the question the FTC asked in its recent workshop, “Can Journalism Survive the Internet Age?”  Answer: Not if the FTC kills the golden goose that lays the golden eggs through onerous advertising regulations and data controls in the name of “privacy.”  Chairman Leibowitz and Bureau Chief Vladeck shouldn’t foreclose the possibility that advertising can play a central role in the future of a free press in the Digital Age—just as it has done historically in the United States.  Indeed, they would be wise to remember that advertising has always been with us.  As the Supreme Court noted in its 1996 decision, 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island.

Advertising has been a part of our culture throughout our history. Even in colonial days, the public relied on “commercial speech” for vital information about the market. Early newspapers displayed advertisements for goods and services on their front pages, and town criers called out prices in public squares. Indeed, commercial messages played such a central role in public life prior to the founding that Benjamin Franklin authored his early defense of a free press in support of his decision to print, of all things, an advertisement for voyages to Barbados.[7]

Of course, for advertising to continue to play the role as sustainer of the press, it must be allowed to evolve.  Media operators—large and small alike—must be allowed to craft new strategies, some of which may require data collection and marketing practices that will make some privacy-sensitive users uncomfortable, but will also ensure that the goose keeps on laying golden eggs for them and everyone else.

While Chairman Leibowitz may decry the creative destruction at work in the news sector and information industries today, that shakeup will continue and, no doubt, be painful for incumbent players.  Advertising alone may not “save the day” for media as it has in the past, but it will likely remain essential to sustaining private media platforms and providers going forward— if federal policymakers allow it.  The alternative—massive government intervention into the news and media sectors—is too horrifying to think about.

[1] Washington Post, March 1, 1978.

[2] Congress terminated the FTC’s efforts to prohibit advertising to children, and barred the agency from issuing any advertising regulation predicated solely on unfairness for three years.  FTC Improvements Act, Pub. L. No. 96-252, § 11 (May 1980).  See generally J. Howard Beales, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, The FTC’s Use of Unfairness Authority: Its Rise, Fall, and Resurrection, www.ftc.gov/speeches/beales/unfair0603.shtm.

[3] Thomas Rosch, Some Reflections on the Future of the Internet: Net Neutrality, Online Behavioral Advertising, and Health Information Technology, Remarks at U.S. Chamber of Commerce Telecommunications & E-Commerce Committee Fall Meeting, October 26, 2009, 13, www.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/091026chamber.pdf.

[4] Harold L. Vogel, Entertainment Industry Economics (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 7th Edition, 2007), at 46.

[5] William F. Arens, Contemporary Advertising (McGraw-Hill Irwin, 10^th Ed., 2006) at 50.

[6] See Berin Szoka & Mark Adams, The Benefits of Online Advertising & Costs of Privacy Regulation, PFF Working Paper, Nov. 8, 2009, www.scribd.com/doc/22445754/Benefits-of-Online-Advertising-Paper.

[7] 517 U.S. 484, 495 (1996), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-1140.ZO.html

______________________________

Related PFF Publications

• Privacy Trade-Offs: How Further Regulation Could Diminish Consumer Choice, Raise Prices, Quash Digital Innovation & Curtail Free Speech, Berin Szoka, Comments to the Federal Trade Commission “Exploring Privacy” Roundtable, November 10, 2009.
• Online Advertising & User Privacy: Principles to Guide the Debate, Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Progress Snapshot 4.19, Sept. 2008.
• Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?, Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Progress on Point 16.2, April 2009.
• Privacy Polls v. Real-World Trade-Offs, Berin Szoka, Progress Snapshot 5.10, Oct. 2009.
• The Benefits of Online Advertising & Costs of Privacy Regulation, Berin Szoka & Mark Adams, PFF Working Paper, Nov. 8, 2009.
• Benefits of Online Advertising, Berin Szoka, Mark Adams, Howard Beales, Thomas Lenard & Jules Polonetsky, PFF Capitol Briefing, July 2009.
• Public Option for Press Should Get the Red Pen, Adam Thierer, The Daily Caller, Jan. 12, 2010.

As Berin mentioned last week, we have a new paper out on proposals to expand the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998.   We generically refer to those COPPA-expansion efforts as “COPPA 2.0.” Hence, the title of our paper: “COPPA 2.0: The New Battle over Privacy, Age Verification, Online Safety & Free Speech.”  To recap what Berin already noted, in the name of improving online child safety, some legislators and state attorneys general (AGs) are advocating the expansion of COPPA’s “verifiable parental consent” model of age verification before certain sites or services may collect, or enable the sharing of, personal information for children.

Unlike “COPPA 1.0,” however, which only applied to children under the age of 13, “COPPA 2.0” would apply to all minors up to age 17.  Moreover, the range of sites covered by the new law would generally be expanded to include just about any site or service with social networking functionality.

Since Berin has already summarized our general concerns with efforts to expand COPPA’s “verifiable parental consent” online age verification system to cover more online users and sites, I thought I would focus here on what I believe will be the most controversial (and important) part of our paper — our discussion about how COPPA 2.0 affects the speech rights of both adults and adolescents.

Remember COPA?

To understand why COPPA expansion will raise serious First Amendment issues, we first need to step back and recall the legal battle over the Children’s Online Protection Act (COPA), another 1998 law sometimes confused with COPPA.  Both COPPA and COPA rest on a stratification of users by age, but the approach of the two laws is very different: While COPPA requires age verification if content is “directed at” minors under age 13, COPA would have required that all website operators restrict access to material deemed “harmful to minors” by minors under the age of 17 and therefore requires age verification of all users who attempt to access such content (in order to identify minors). COPPA is focused on certain kinds of potentially harmful contacts while COPA is focused on potentially harmful content.

But by expanding the age range of COPPA to include adolescents, COPPA 2.0 proposals essentially converge with COPA, reaching the same practical consequence: age verification mandates for large numbers of adults as users (not as parents). Only the scope of sites covered by the laws is different: under COPA, sites deemed “harmful to minors,” and, under COPPA 2.0, adolescent-oriented or certain social networking sites. Thus, to the extent that COPPA 2.0 proposals require age verification of adults, they would be subject to constitutional attacks similar to those against COPA.  But COPPA 2.0 proposals would also burden the rights of adults to communicate with adolescents and the free speech rights of adolescents.

Finally, the fact that COPPA (like COPA) applies only to commercial sites would do little to protect it from constitutional attack, because in a world of user-generated content, the commercial nature of a site has little to do with the commercial/non-commercial nature of the speech carried on it. For example, obviously commercial sites like MySpace and Facebook serve as platforms for a wide variety of not-for-profit and political communications.

How COPPA 2.0 Would Impact the Free Speech Rights of Adults

After a decade-long court battle over the constitutionality of COPA, the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2009 rejected the government’s latest request to revive the law, meaning it is likely dead. Three of the key reasons the courts struck down COPA would also apply to COPPA 2.0 proposals.

(1) First, like COPA, COPPA  2.0 would raise burden the speech rights of adults to access information subject to age verification requirements, both by making speech more difficult and by stigmatizing it.  In 2003, the Third Circuit noted that age verification requirements “will likely deter many adults from accessing restricted content, because many Web users are simply unwilling to provide identification information in order to gain access to content, especially where the information they wish to access is sensitive or controversial.” In 2008, in striking down COPA for the third and final time, the Third Circuit approvingly quoted the district court, which had noted that part of the reason age verification requirements deterred users from accessing restricted content was “because Internet users are concerned about security on the Internet and because Internet users are afraid of fraud and identity theft on the Internet.” The district court had held that: “Requiring users to go through an age verification process would lead to a distinct loss of personal privacy” by threatening their anonymity.

By imposing broad age verification requirements, COPPA 2.0 would restrict the rights of adults to send and receive information anonymously just as COPA did. If anything, the speech burdened by COPPA 2.0 deserves more protection, not less, than the speech burdened by COPA: Where COPA merely burdened access to content deemed “harmful to minors” (viz., pornography), COPPA 2.0 would burden access to material by adults as well as minors not because that material is harmful or obscene but merely because it is “directed at” minors! Thus, the content covered by COPPA 2.0 proposals could include not merely pornography, but communications about political nature, which deserved the highest degree of First Amendment protection.

(2) Second, like COPA, COPPA expansion threatens the speech rights of website operators. The necessary corollary of blocking adults from accessing certain content anonymously — and thereby deterring some users from accessing that content — is that COPPA 2.0, like COPA, would necessarily reduce the audience size of websites subject to age verification mandates. Furthermore, such mandates would encourage websites to self-censor themselves to avoid offering content they fear could be considered “directed at” adolescents because doing so might subject them to an age verification mandate — or to legal liability if they fail to implement age verification. The substantial cost of age verification could significantly impact, if not make impossible, the business models of many personal information-collecting (PI) sites, which generally do not charge for content and rely instead on advertising revenues. The Third Circuit cited all of these burdens on the free speech rights of website operators in striking down COPA.

(3) Third, less restrictive alternatives are available to COPPA 2.0, just as they were for COPA.

The Third Circuit drew on the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision striking down COPA on the grounds that “blocking and filtering software is an alternative that is less restrictive than COPA, and, in addition, likely more effective as a means of restricting children’s access to materials harmful to them.” Similarly, parental control software already empowers parents to restrict their kids’ access to PI-collecting sites. (It’s particularly easy for parents to restrict access to the leading social networking sites that seem to be driving so much of the push for COPPA 2.0, so that their kids.)

Thus, the free speech rights burdened COPPA 2.0 proposals are at least as important as those burdened by COPA, and blocking software already empowers parents to restrict their kids’ access to PI-collecting sites, just as it allows parents to restrict access to pornography. Of course, if COPPA 2.0 laws were actually enacted and subject to legal challenge, the outcome of the case would depend largely on the level of constitutional scrutiny involved. COPPA 2.0 advocates might argue that, whatever the rights at stake, a lower level of constitutional scrutiny should apply because COPPA 2.0 does not target a special category of content. If true, this could mean that, although age verification mandates to restrict access to “harmful” material are unconstitutional, far more sweeping mandates restricting access to non-harmful information could be constitutional. Such inconsistency is indeed a perverse consequence of the fact that our First Amendment jurisprudence focuses not on the rights at stake, but on whether a regulation is “content-neutral” in deciding what level of scrutiny to apply—which, in turn, often determines the outcome of the case. But in this case, COPPA 2.0 proposals likely would be subject to strict scrutiny to the extent that they are, like COPA, focused on a certain category of content: that “directed at” adolescents (rather than “harmful to minors”).

Legislators who attempt to escape strict scrutiny by defining the scope of their bill not by its targeted audience but by reference to specific functional capabilities (in the definition of “social networking site”) will likely find that a court will see through such window-dressing: If they recognize that such bills are nonetheless aimed at a certain category of adolescent-oriented content, they will apply strict scrutiny anyway. But even under intermediate scrutiny, COPPA 2.0 proposals would be subject to serious attack.

Minors Have Speech Rights, Too!

In addition, in COPPA 2.0 approaches, the government would restrict the ability of adolescents to access content, not because it could be harmful to them or because it is obscene, but merely because it is “directed to” them. While the First Amendment rights of minors may not be on par with those of adults, adolescents do have the right to access certain types of information and express themselves in certain ways. The Supreme Court has held (in Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth) that “constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority.” It remains unclear how an expanded COPPA model might interfere with the First Amendment rights of adolescents, but it is clear that privacy and speech rights would come into conflict under COPPA 2.0, as they do in other contexts.

For example, how might the parental-consent based model limit the ability of adolescents to obtain information about “safer sex” or how to deal with trauma, depression, family abuse, or addiction. Would an abusive father authorize a teen to visit a website about how to report child abuse? Would a parent of an adolescent struggling with their sexual identity let their kid participate in a self-help social networking page for gay and lesbian youth? What rights are at play here and how do we reconcile them?

Maintaining the ability of kids to participate online interactions goes beyond content that most people would recognize as “serious”—from the perspective of both First Amendment values and the education of children. As a recent MacArthur Foundation study of the online youth Internet use concluded:

Contrary to adult perceptions, while hanging out online, youth are picking up basic social and technological skills they need to fully participate in contemporary society. Erecting barriers to participation deprives teens of access to these forms of learning. Participation in the digital age means more than being able to access “serious” online information and culture.

It was at least in part in recognition of such difficult First Amendment questions that Congress removed the requirement in the initial legislative draft of COPPA that would have required PI-based sites to “use reasonable efforts to provide the parents with notice and an opportunity to prevent or curtail the collection or use of personal information collected from children over the age of 12 and under the age of 17.”

Even if parents have an absolute right to block their adolescents’ access to such data, they can already exercise that right by applying strict controls on the computers in their home. COPPA 2.0 proposals go well beyond recognizing this right by setting the default to “parental consent required” for adolescents to access a wide range of content—meaning that parents must “opt-in” on behalf of their children before their children can participate in PI-collecting sites. This, in turn, burdens the ability of adolescents to communicate, because their parents might censor (rightly or wrongly) certain information, or simply fail to understand the technologies involved or to be actively engaged. But whatever the free speech rights of adolescents, if anyone should be interfering with those rights, it should be their parents — not the government.

Some parents may object that, however effective parental control software may be in the home, it does not allow parents to control what their kids’ access outside the home. This argument is understandable on some level, but in the end, it amounts to a demand that roadblocks be put up everywhere for the sake of particularly sensitive parents at the expense of everyone else in society, including potentially huge numbers of adult users — and of online anonymity in general.

But Illinois’s COPPA 2.0 proposal goes even further, not merely expanding COPPA to cover a particular variety of social networking sites, but requiring that such sites “allow the parent or guardian of the minor unrestricted access to the profile webpage of the minor at all times.” Congress considered just such a parental access mandate in the initial draft of COPPA legislation back in 1998, but ultimately removed it from the final version of the legislation, apparently because even some of COPPA’s supporters worried, given the bill’s initial application to the 13-16 age bracket, that “The establishment of a parental right to access all personal information about a teenager may intrude on older minors’ privacy, rather than protect.”

What about Communication between Adolescents & Adults?

Finally, COPPA 2.0 could infringe on the free speech rights of adults to communicate with adolescents online by driving PI-collecting sites to segregate users by age or to attempt to block access by adolescents. The vast majority of adult-minor interactions online are not of a harassing or predatory nature—indeed, they generally involve adults looking to help or assist minors in various ways. As the MacArthur Foundation study cited above concluded:

In contexts of peer-based learning, adults … have an important role to play, though it is not the conventionally authoritative one. In friendship-driven practices, direct adult participation is often unwelcome, but in interest-driven groups we found a much stronger role for more experiences participants to play. Unlike instructors in formal educational settings, however, these adults are passionate hobbyists and creators, and youth see them as experienced peers, not as people who have authority over them. These adults exert tremendous influence in setting communal norms and what educators might call “learning goals,” though they do not have direct authority over newcomers.

A substantial portion of those interactions involve parents talking to their own kids, older and younger siblings communicating with one another, teachers and mentors talking to their students, or even co-workers of different ages communicating. Even when adult-minor communications involve complete strangers, there is typically a socially-beneficial purpose. Think of two people — one an adult and one a minor — debating politics on a discussion board, or creating a Wikipedia entry together. What about a presidential campaign website that involves millions of volunteers of all ages communicating and collaborating to a common purpose? There are countless other examples. How would such interactions be affected by COPPA 2.0? Restricting such interactions would raise profound First Amendment concerns about freedom of speech as well as of association.

In any First Amendment analysis, a court must consider not only the free speech rights at stake and the availability of less restrictive alternatives to regulation, but the governmental interest being advanced. Again, neither COPPA nor the COPPA 2.0 proposals discussed herein (e.g., the New Jersey and Illinois proposals) requires exclusion of older users from a website, nor directly governs the sharing of personal information among users (where that sharing does not also constitute collection by the site itself). But separation of adolescents from adults is likely to be an indirect effect of COPPA 2.0 requirements—as COPPA 2.0 advocates probably realize—because, once PI-collecting sites are required to age-verify users, they will face reputational, political and potentially legal pressure to make interactions between adolescents and children more difficult in the name of “child safety.” More subtly, if PI-collecting site operators have an incentive to avoid being considered “directed at” adolescents, they will also have an incentive to discourage adolescent participation on their site—which achieves a similar result.

Here, one must further ask if attempting to quarantine children from adults (however indirectly) actually advances, on net, a strong governmental interest in child protection. Such a quarantine is unlikely to stop adults with truly nefarious intentions from communicating with minors, as systems designed to exclude participation by adults in a “kids-only” or “adolescents-only” area can be easily circumvented. Given the lack of strong identity records for minors, it’s much easier for an adult to pretend to be a minor than vice versa. The effect of age stratification on truly bad actors is likely to be marginal at best—or harmful at worst: Building walls around adolescents through age-verification might actually make it easier for predators to target teens, since a predator who gains access to a supposedly teen-only site will be less likely to be exposed as a predator by targeting an adult they think is a teen. So for the sake of marginal (if any) gains in child protection, would we not be excluding beneficial interaction between adults and minors?

To hear some of the advocates of COPPA 2.0 talk about how teens currently behave online, one might think that online environments in which adolescents were left to their own devices—imagine a “Teen MySpace” for the 13-17 crowd, walled off from the rest of MySpace—would be far worse, perhaps an online version of Lord of the Flies. These concerns are clearly exaggerated: The critics frequently complain about “the way kids talk to each other these days” while looking at their own past adolescent banter with rose-colored lenses. What is clear is that adolescents (and young adults) behave better in online environments where adults are present, too. Perhaps the best demonstration of this fact has been the uproar from adolescents and young adults that has accompanied Facebook’s explosive growth in popularity among older users in recent months. Many kids hate the idea of adults joining Facebook precisely because the presence of adults encourages kids to “self-regulate” by exercising better judgment and following better netiquette.

Anne Collier, founder and executive director of the child safety advocacy organization Net Family News, Inc. and editor of NetFamilyNews.org and ConnectSafely.org, suggests that the push for “segregation” by age (e.g., creating a teen-only version of Second Life) for safety’s sake is “losing steam” because:

it’s a response to the predator panic teens and parents have been subjected to in U.S. society, not to the realities of youth on the social Web. What nearly a decade of peer-reviewed academic research shows is that peer-to-peer behavior is the online risk that affects many more youth, the vast majority of online kids who are not already at-risk youth offline. Segregating teens from adults online doesn’t address harassment, defamation, imposter profiles, cyberbullying, etc. It may help keep online predators away from kids (even though online predation, or abuse resulting from online communication, constitutes only 1% of overall child sexual exploitation…), which is a great outcome, but it’s not enough unless all that parents are worried about is predators.

Collier discusses the particularly acute problem of “actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender expression,” which the Salt Lake Tribune has noted are “two of the top three reasons secondary school students said their peers were most often bullied at school.” This kind of harassment recently attracted widespread public attention after two 11-year-old boys committed suicide after experiencing anti-gay harassment and bullying at school. Nationwide, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth are up to four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers.” This child safety risk is painfully real, with anti-gay harassment being only its most obvious form. But “segregating” teens from adults seems likely to aggravate this problem by removing adults from the mix as a potential source of discipline.

Of course, adults play a critical role in disciplining interaction among the 0-12 age bracket, but not as direct participants in on-site interaction. Again, how many adults actually want to use Club Penguin? Instead, parents can supervise what their kids do online through parental control software. Parents could, of course, use that same software to monitor what their adolescent kids do, too. But as kids get older, most parents realize that the training wheels have to come off at some point. Few parents will want to spy on their 17-year old until the day before the kid starts college (or enlists in the military or gets married). But most parents probably would prefer that, if their kids are interacting in an online environment, they think twice about what they do and say online. It is by no means clear that restricting online interaction between teens and adults will serve that end.