Tim Wu was kind enough to comment on my general overview and critique of his new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.  That essay will be the first of many I plan to pen about Wu’s important book.  I appreciate Prof. Wu being willing to engage me in a debate over some of these issues since I’m sure he has better things to do with his time. Some of the points he raised in his comment will be addressed in subsequent posts.

In this post, I want to respond briefly to his assertion that I was “missing the point of the book” which is “to describe the world we live in.” He says that his book, “suggests that we tend to go through open and closed cycles in the Information Industries, and that, roughly, both have their strengths and weaknesses, and both become popular at different times for various reasons.”  But he fears there are “greater risks in the closed periods.”

Contrary to what he suggests, I certainly understand that’s the point of his book, it’s just that I don’t fully agree with his analysis or conclusions. Let me be clear about a crucial point, however: I accept that almost every industry goes through “cycles” of some sort and that, typically, after a “Wild West” period of greater “openness” and more atomistic competition, some degree of “consolidation” or more “closed” (or proprietary) models often sets in.  (A somewhat different and far more descriptive interpretation of such cycles can be found in Deborah Spar’s 2001 book, Ruling the Waves: Cycles of Discovery, Chaos, and Wealth from Compass to the Internet. She outlines a more refined 4-part cycle of: Innovation, Commercialization, Creative Anarchy, and Rules.)

My primary beef with Prof. Wu is that, contrary to his assertion yesterday in commenting on my post, his book seems to regard the progression of “the Cycle” as mostly linear and one-directional: straight down toward a perfectly closed, corporate-controlled, anti-consumer Hell.  By my reading of his book – much like Lessig and Zittrain’s work – Wu is painting an overly pessimistic portrait of technologies being subjected to the “perfect control” of largely unfettered markets.

I believe history – especially recent history — teaches us something very different.  While information technology markets certainly go through cycles, they tend to oscillate between open and closed more fluidly than Wu suggests – and that dynamic is accelerating today.  Moreover, during periods which Wu regards as more “closed,” things aren’t always as closed as he suggests.  Or, more importantly, the “closed” models typically spawn more innovation than Wu and others bother acknowledging. It’s during what some regard as a market’s darkest hour when some of the most exciting forms of disruptive technologies and innovation are developing.  Finally, to the extent some markets are completely locked-down for a time, it’s more often than not due to public policies that facilitate that lockdown or the “closing” of systems.

I spent a great deal of time making these points in the second essay I submitted to the recent Concurring Opinions symposium about Jonathan Zittrain’s The Future of the Internet. In my essay, “On Defining Generativity, Openness, and Code Failure,” I argued that what separates our worldviews primarily comes down to the more static (or “stasis”) mindset that Lessig, Zittrain, and Wu adopt in their work.  They take static snapshots of markets at what seems to be their darkest hour and then suggest there’s little chance of escaping that Hell.

Of course, how one defines Hell is important. What Wu does in his book, following the lead set by Lessig and Zittrain, is to “define-down” market failure.  If you regard proprietary business models, property rights, or the success of a small handful of companies as the enemy of “openness” and innovation, then it’s easy to see why you might buy into the notion that market failure is ubiquitous and that “steps must be taken” to correct it.   If, on the other hand, you understand that markets are in a constant state of flux, and that those other variables listed above are not necessarily at odds with openness and innovation, then, like me, you’re more cautious about calling in the Code Cops to steer markets and outcomes in other directions.

But the really important point here is that markets evolve. Moreover, that evolution takes place at a much faster clip in the digital arena than it does in other markets. Innovators don’t sit still. People innovate around “failure.” Indeed, “market failure” is really just the glass-is-half-empty view of a golden opportunity for innovation. Markets evolve. New ideas, innovations, and companies are born.  And things generally change for the better—and do so rapidly.

Consider my two favorite case studies from recent times: the AOL-Time Warner merger and the supposed Microsoft monopoly.

The AOL Case Study

When Lessig penned Code a decade ago, it was AOL that was set to become the corporate enslaver of cyberspace. For a time, it was easy to see why Lessig and others might have been worried.  25 million subscribers were willing to pay $20 per month to get a guided tour of AOL’s walled garden version of the Internet.  Then AOL and Time Warner announced a historic mega-merger that had some predicting the rise of “new totalitarianisms” and corporate “Big Brother.”

But the deal quickly went off the rails. By April 2002, just two years after the deal was struck, AOL-Time Warner had already reported a staggering $54 billion loss. By January 2003, losses had grown to $99 billion. By September 2003, Time Warner decided to drop AOL from its name altogether and the deal continued to slowly unravel from there.  In a 2006 interview with the Wall Street Journal, Time Warner President Jeffrey Bewkes famously declared the death of “synergy” and went so far as to call synergy “bullsh*t”!  In early 2008, Time Warner decided to shed AOL’s dial-up service and then to spin off AOL entirely.  Looking back at the deal, Fortune magazine senior editor at large Allan Sloan called it the “turkey of the decade.” The formal divorce between the two firms took place in 2008. Further deconsolidation followed for Time Warner, which spun off its cable TV unit and various other properties.

(The hysteria about AOL’s looming monopolization of instant messaging—and with it, the rest of the web—seems particularly silly: Today, anyone can download a free chat client like Digsby or Adium to manage multiple IM services from AOL, Yahoo!, Google, Facebook and just about anyone else, all within a single interface, essentially making it irrelevant which chat service your friends use.)

In the larger scheme of things, AOL’s story has already become an afterthought in our chaotic cyber-history. But we shouldn’t let those old critics forget about their lugubrious lamentations.  To recap: the big, bad corporate villain of Lessig’s Code attempted to construct the largest walled garden ever, and partner with a titan of the media sector in doing so—and this dastardly plot failed miserably.

To Wu’s credit, he acknowledges that AOL-Time Warner was “a surprising wreck” and that “AOL was [a] dinosaur limping into the new age” before the mass Internet. (p. 262-3) [Of course, there’s no mention in the book of the dire prognostications some of his academic compatriots made a decade ago about AOL or its deal with Time Warner.]  Surprisingly, however, Wu suggests that what ultimately undermined the deal was Net neutrality! He argues that, in order for the merger to achieve the perfect Hell of a giant corporate walled garden, AOL Time Warner would have needed to “subdue Google, Yahoo! and their many cousins. In short, to be viable, the firm would have needed to overturn the net neutrality principles at the core of the Internet’s design.” (p. 267)

Now, isn’t that interesting since, quite obviously, there have been no Net neutrality laws on the books despite the fact that critics like Wu have been hollering for their supposed need!  In a similar vein, Wu recently told Forbes magazine “If there were no net neutrality, Skype would have already been suppressed.”  Again, there is no formal Net neutrality law in place today, so what Wu is essentially saying is that market norms, not regulatory edicts, ensured that new applications came online and that market power was checked.

Even more interesting is the fact that Wu continues on to essentially make the libertarian case against formal Net neutrality regulation when he argues:

The only entity that has so far really succeeded in such a mission [of overturning the net neutrality principles at the core of the Internet’s design] is the government of mainland China, as we saw in 2010, when it drove an exasperated Google out of its sovereign territory by demanding extensive control over what Google let users find.  Indeed, the feat requires such power and resources as belong uniquely to the state: access to the very choke points of a nation’s communications infrastructure, its Master Switch. AOL Time Warner, however vast, did not have police power—it could not imprison Google’s executives for failing to block Wikipedia or Disney content. (p. 267)

Exactly right; it really does come down to that profound difference between who has coercive police power (the State) and who does not (corporations).  It’s not just a difference of degree but a difference of kind.   So, welcome to libertarian movement, Tim Wu!  I plan on citing that block quote in every paper I write from now on regarding why we don’t need preemptive Net neutrality regulation!

The Microsoft Case Study

I want to also briefly mention the Microsoft case study since it is quite instructive in this regard.

It’s suddenly quite easy to forget just how much hand-wringing took place in the late 1990s and early 2000s over Microsoft’s dominance of the web browser market.  Dour predictions of perpetual Internet Explorer lock-in followed.  For a short time, there was some truth to this.  But, yet again, innovators weren’t just sitting still; exciting things were happening.  In particular, the seeds were being planted for the rise of Firefox and Chrome as robust challengers to IE’s dominance—not to mention mobile browsers.

Of course, it’s true that roughly half of all websurfers still use a version of IE today.  But IE’s share of the market is falling rapidly as viable, impressive alternatives now exist and innovation among these competitors is more vibrant than ever.  That’s all that counts. The world changed, and for the better, despite all the doomsday predictions we heard less than a decade ago about Microsoft’s potential dominance of cyberspace.  Moreover, all the innovation taking place at the browser layer today certainly undercuts the gloomy “death of the Net” or “death of openness” thesis set forth by Zittrain and Wu.

Indeed, as Tim O’Reilly argues, this case study illustrates the power of markets to evolve and “route around” market failure or excessively closed systems even during what appears to be a certain sector’s darkest hour:

Just as Microsoft appeared to have everything locked down in the PC industry, the open Internet restarted the game, away from what everyone thought was the main action. I guarantee that if anyone gets a lock on the mobile Internet, the same thing will happen. We’ll be surprised by the innovation that starts happening somewhere else, out on the free edges. And that free edge will eventually become the new center, because open is where innovation happens. […] it’s far too early to call the open web dead, just because some big media companies are excited about the app ecosystem. I predict that those same big media companies are going to get their clocks cleaned by small innovators, just as they did on the web.

Lessons Learned – Or Ignored?

From these case studies, one would hope that the Openness Evangelicals would have gained a newfound appreciation for the evolutionary and dynamic nature of markets and come to understand that, especially in markets built upon information and digital code, the pace and nature of change is unrelenting and utterly unpredictable.  Indeed, contra Lessig’s lament in Code that “Left to itself, cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control,” cyberspace has proven far more difficult to “control” or regulate than any of us ever imagined.  The volume and pace of technological innovation we have witnessed in information sectors over the past decade has been nothing short of stunning.

Critics like Zittrain and Wu, however, wants to keep beating the cyber-sourpuss drum.  So, the face of corporate evil has to change. Today, Steve Jobs has become the supposed apotheosis of all this closed-system evil instead of AOL.  Jobs serves as a prime villain in the books of Zittrain and Wu and in many of the essays they and other Openness Evangelicals pen. But their enemies list is growing longer.  Today, according to the narratives in Zittrain and Wu’s books, it’s not just one of two corporate titans we need to worry about, but just about every major player in the high-tech ecosystem—telcos, cable companies, wireless operators, entertainment providers, Facebook, and others.

Even Google — Silicon Valley’s supposed savior of Internet openness — is not spared their scorn.  “Google is the Internet’s switch,” Wu argues. “In fact, it’s the world’s most popular Internet switch, and as such, it might even be described as the current custodian of the Master Switch.” More ominously, he warns, “it is the switch that transformed mere communications into networking—that ultimately decides who reached what or whom.” (p. 280)

It seems, then, that the face of “closed” evil is constantly morphing.  But shouldn’t that tell us something about how dynamic these markets are?!  I look forward to reading the next edition of Tim’s book to see who the new villains are and whether he’s drawn any lessons from the constantly changing cast of characters.

Conclusion

In sum, history counsels patience and humility instead of Chicken Little-ism and incessant calls for preemptive regulation to serve some amorphous, politically-defined “public interest.”  More generally, history counsels what we might call “technological agnosticism.” In particular, we should avoid declaring “openness” – especially of the mandated variety — a sacrosanct principle and making everything else subservient to it without regard to cost or consumer desires.  As Wired’s Chris Anderson notes, “there are many Web triumphalists who still believe that there is only One True Way, and will fight to the death to preserve the open, searchable common platform that the Web represented for most of its first two decades (before Apple and Facebook, to name two, decided that there were Other Ways).”  The better position is one based on a general agnosticism regarding the nature of technological platforms and change.  In this view, the spontaneous evolution of markets has value in its own right, and continued experimentation with new models—be they “open” or “closed,” “generative” or “tethered”—should be permitted.

Importantly, one need not believe that the markets are “perfectly competitive” to accept that they are “competitive enough” compared to the alternatives—especially those re-shaped by the sort of regulation Wu and others advocate.  “Market failures” or “code failures” are ultimately better addressed by voluntary, spontaneous, bottom-up, marketplace responses than by coerced, top-down, governmental solutions.  Moreover, the decisive advantage of the market-driven, evolutionary approach lies in the rapidity and nimbleness of those responses compared to regulatory alternatives.

Thus, in closing, Tim Wu’s assertion yesterday that I was “missing the point of the book… [which is] to describe the world we live in,” is based on his belief that he has accurately described our world, its history, and the forces that move it.  As I’ve suggested here, there’s a very different way of looking at things.  In my opinion, Wu’s Master Switch is just too hung up on the static snapshot mindset and a bit too obsessed with the supposed One True Way of doing things.

[ Note: In the next installment, I will address Wu’s mistaken claim that purely free markets have guided America’s communications and media sectors over the past century and his assertion that “the purely economic laissez-faire approach… is no longer feasible.”]

TLF readers will definitely want to check out the online symposium underway over at the Concurring Opinions blog debating the thesis set forth in Jonathan Zittrain’s important 2008 book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. The symposium will feature a terrific cast of thinkers, including: Steven Bellovin, Ryan Calo, Laura DeNardis, James Grimmelmann, Orin Kerr, Lawrence Lessig, Harry Lewis,Daithí Mac Síthigh, Betsy Masiello, Salil Mehra, Quinn Norton, Alejandro Pisanty, Joel Reidenberg, Barbara van Schewick and me!  Regular contributors to the Concurring Opinions blog, such as Frank Pasquale, are also taking part.

Faithful readers will recall that I named Zittrain’s book the most important Internet policy book of 2008 and one of the most important books of the past decade.  It’s impact has already been enormous. But I’ve also been unrelenting in my criticism of the book and Zittrain’s dour forecast for the future of Internet “openness” and digital “generativity.” Down below I have reproduced my contribution to the Concurring Opinions symposium, but I encourage you to hop over there to check out all the essays that are pouring in on this topic.

In his opening essay in this symposium, Jonathan Zittrain ensures us that he is “not exactly a pessimist.” “I recognize, and celebrate,” he says, “the fact that the digital environment of 2010 is the coolest, most interesting, most option-filled it’s ever been.” Terrific! I am glad to hear that because the crux of my repeated critiques of his book, The Future of the Internet, over the past two years has been focused on its unrelenting – and largely unwarranted – pessimism about our possible cyber-futures. Alas, his essay on these pages still displays much of that underlying techno-pessimism and begs me to ask: Will the real Jonathan Zittrain please stand up?

Regardless of whether Zittrain is more optimistic now than when he penned his book two years ago, others are seemingly taking its pessimist message to heart. Indeed, “the Death of the Internet” is a hot meme in the Internet policy world these days. Much as a famous 1966 cover of Time magazine asked “Is God Dead?” Wired magazine, the magazine for the modern digerati, proclaimed in a recent cover story that “The Web is Dead.” And just this past week, The Economist magazine ran a cover story fretting about “The Web’s New Walls,” wondering “how the threats to the Internet’s openness can be averted.” Like Zittrain’s book, the primary fear expressed in both essays was that the wide-open Internet experience of the past decade is giving way to a new regime of corporate control and walled gardens.

Before addressing this concern in more detail, let’s consider the origins of Zittrain’s pessimism. Zittrain’s Future of the Internet, as well as Tim Wu’s soon-to-be-released The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, might best be understood as the second and third installments in a trilogy that began with the publication of Lawrence Lessig’s seminal 1999 book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.

Lessig’s book gave birth to cyberlaw and the study of Internet policy as we all know and discuss it today. More important, from my perspective, is that Code spawned a bona fide philosophical movement within those circles. Code was both a polemic against both cyber-libertarianism and Internet exceptionalism as well as a sort of call-to-arms for a new Net activist movement. The book gave this movement its central operating principle: Code and cyberspace can be bent to the will of the collective, and it often must be if we are to avoid any number of impending disasters brought on by nefarious-minded (or just plain incompetent) folks in corporate America.

It’s hard to know what to label this school of thinking, and Prof. Lessig has taken offense at my calling it “cyber-collectivism.” But the collectivism of which I speak is a more generic type, not the hard-edged Marxist brand of collectivism of modern times. Instead, it’s the belief that markets, property rights, and private decision-making about the future course of the Net must yield to supposedly more enlightened top-down actors and mechanisms. Their central rallying cry – to the extent it can be boiled down to a single term – is “openness!” “Openness” is almost always treated as The Good; anything that is “closed” (or proprietary) in nature is treated as The Bad.

My primary beef with these “Openness Evangelicals” is not that openness isn’t a fine generic principle around which to organize cyberspace. It’s that (a) I‘m more willing to allow evolutionary dynamism to run its course within digital markets, even if that means some “closed” devices and platforms remain (or even thrive); and, (b) the “openness” they advocate inevitably devolves into expanded government control of cyberspace.

My other problem with this movement, and Zittrain’s book in particular, comes down to that dour, depressing “the-Net-is-about-to-die” fear that seems to fuel this worldview. The message seems to be: “Enjoy the good old days of the open Internet while you can, because any minute now it will be crushed and closed-off by corporate marauders!” The Openness Evangelicals want us to believe that the corporate big boys are — someday very soon — going to toss the proverbial “master switch,” suffocating Internet innovation and digital freedom, and making us all cyber-slaves within their commercialized walled gardens.

We might think of this fear as “The Great Closing,” or the notion that, unless radical interventions are pursued – usually of a regulatory nature – a Digital Dark Age of Closed Systems will soon unfold, complete with myriad AOL-like walled gardens, “sterile and tethered devices,” corporate censorship, and consumer gouging. Again, it’s really just a restatement of the old Lessig view that “Left to itself, cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control.” In other words, most information systems, networks and devices will be bottled up by corporate “gatekeepers” if markets aren’t steered in a better direction by wise philosopher-regulators.

But there are serious problems with “The Great Closing” thesis as set forth in the work of Lessig, Zittrain, and Wu:

1)
There isn’t a clear definition of “open” vs. “closed” systems, and there never will be, and supposedly “closed” networks or “sterile” devices aren’t nearly as closed or sterile as critics claim. Zittrain praises the supposedly more “open” nature of PCs and praises the openness to innovation that Microsoft’s Windows operating system offers in particular, but others have blasted Windows for years as the Great Satan of closed code. Meanwhile, Zittrain makes Steve Jobs and Apple’s iPhone and iPad out to be “sterile,” closed appliances, but the company’s App Store has offered millions of innovators the opportunity to produce almost every conceivable type of mobile application the human mind could imagine. Moreover, those Apple devices don’t block completely “open” communications applications or interfaces, such as web browsers, email and SMS clients, or Twitter. And certainly no one is forced to spend hundreds of dollars on these Apple products. There are many alternatives. It’s never been easier to create or find information or applications on multiple platforms – not just via your PC as Zittrain seems to suggest.

2)
There are powerful counter-incentives that discourage companies from “closing” their systems in ways that would negatively impact consumer welfare. Social and economic influences help ensure the scales won’t be tipped completely in the closed direction. The Web is built on powerful feedback mechanisms and possesses an extraordinary level of transparency in terms of its operations. Moreover, the breaking news cycle for tech developments can be measured in milliseconds. Every boneheaded move is subjected to immediate and intense scrutiny by bloggers, tech press, pundits, gadget sites, etc. Never has the white-hot spotlight of public attention been so intense in terms of helping to shine light on corporate missteps. Reputation is perhaps the greatest asset possessed by any tech company, and they work hard to safeguard it.

3)
Most evidence suggests everything is getting increasingly “open” all the time regardless of what any corporation might want. Most corporate attempts to bottle up information or close-off their systems end badly. The walled gardens of the past failed miserably, for example. In critiquing Zittrain’s book, Ann Bartow has noted that “if Zittrain is correct that CompuServe and AOL exemplify the evils of tethering, it’s pretty clear the market punished those entities pretty harshly without Internet governance-style interventions.” Indeed, let’s not forget that AOL was the big, bad corporate boogeyman of Lessig’s Code and yet, just a decade later, it has been relegated to an also-ran. (Has everyone forgotten the hysteria over AOL-Time Warner merger? Or the fear that AOL would dominate the Instant Messaging world? Someone will need to remind AOL-TW shareholders, who lost hundreds of billions on the deal, what all the fuss was about.) There are few reasons to believe that modern efforts to impose “corporate control” or create walled gardens will end any differently.

4)
The critics greatly overstate the case regarding the supposed evils of closed systems, anyway. They fail to appreciate how there was a need/demand for some closed or “sterile” devices. Why shouldn’t people who want a simpler or more secure digital experience have such options? Zittrain seems to fear that the devices of the hoi polloi will drive out those favored by tinker-happy tech geeks (of which I count myself a proud member). But we need not fear such foreclosure for the reasons I discuss next.

5)
Innovation continues rapidly in both directions along the “open” vs. “closed” continuum. The presence of “closed” systems or devices on the market doesn’t mean innovation has been foreclosed among more “open” systems or platforms. In other words, a hybrid future is both desirable and possible. We can have the best of both worlds: a world full of some closed systems or even “tethered appliances,” but also plenty of generativity and openness. Think iPhone vs. Android vs. Windows Mobile vs. the many other mobile operating systems. Some are more closed, others are quite open. Zittrain says Android, which is open source, is “a sort of canary in the coal mine” but ignores the fact that it is growing at a frantic pace, now accounting for one-quarter of mobile web traffic just three years after its inception. Not only does he ignore that fact, but Zittrain then reverts to the “kill switch” boogeyman and warns us that any day now Google could change its mind, close the platform, and “kill an app, or the entire phone” remotely. But where’s the business sense in that? What’s the incentive for companies to pursue such a diabolical course of action? Is Google going to start making all those millions of apps on their own which independents developers produce today? It seems unlikely and unpopular, and can you imagine the lawsuits that would fly if they did try it! Meanwhile, how many times has Apple thrown the dreaded “kill switch” on apps? There are tens of millions of apps in the App Store and hundreds of billions of downloads. If Steve Jobs is supposed to be the great villain of independent innovation, he seems to be doing a pretty bad job at it! Again, today’s supposed “walled gardens” are less “walled” than ever before.

6) And oh, by the way… the old Internet that Zittrain and others like to wax nostalgic about was never quite as open and generative as they suggest. Let’s face it, the good ol’ days weren’t really so glorious. Seriously, were you online back in 1994? Did you enjoy Trumpet Winsock, noisy 14.4 baud modems, and narrowband dial-up? Did you like loading up multiple 5 ¼ floppy disks to get an OS running so that you could even use your machine? Yeah, me neither.

But here’s the other forgotten factor: Until the Net was commercialized during that period, it had been an extremely closed system. As Geert Lovink reminds us, “The first decades the Internet was a closed world, only accessible to (Western) academics and the U.S. military. In order to access the Internet one had to be an academic computer scientist or a physicist. Until the early nineties it was not possible for ordinary citizens, artists, business or activists, in the USA or elsewhere, to obtain an email address and make use of the rudimentary UNIX-based applications. [..] It was a network of networks — but still a closed one.” Moreover, it was only because Lessig and Zittrain’s much-dreaded AOL and CompuServe came along that many folks were even able to experience and enjoy this strange new place called cyber-space. “The fact that millions of Americans for the first time experienced the Internet through services like AOL (and continue to do so) is a reality that Zittrain simply overlooks,” notes Lovink. Could it be that those glorious “good ol’ days” Zittrain longs for were really due to the way closed “walled gardens” like AOL and CompuServe held our hands to some extent and gave many folks (not me!) a guided tour of cyberspace? Regardless, we need not revisit that ancient history. Again, those walled gardens came crumbling down.

7) Finally, there’s remarkably little said about possible solutions or an acknowledgment that alternative approaches can have costs or entail significant trade-offs. At the end of the day, when you peel away all the techno-talk and worry-wart hand-wringing, what Zittrain doesn’t seem to like is that some people are making choices that he doesn’t approve of. To be generous, perhaps it’s because he feels that they don’t fully understand the supposed dangers of the choices they are making. But what, exactly, is it that Zittrain wants done, and who or what should make it happen? Remarkably, he doesn’t offer many specifics in his book or in his essay. Should consumers be discouraged from purchasing iPads, video game consoles, or TiVos because they are “too closed”? Or should the creators of such gadgets be forced to “open them up,” even if it means that might discourage their development in the first place? Zittrain really never makes it clear, although he hints that once developers do open their previously closed systems a bit, they should not be allowed to close them back up. But wouldn’t that discourage the developer from opening things up more in the first place? Again, no answer from him.

Regardless, to reiterate and close, my contention here and elsewhere has been: (a) that things just aren’t as bad as Zittrain makes them out to be; (b) that the evolutionary “open vs. closed” process itself has value; and, (c) who is he to say those choices are irrational or that this spontaneous, experimental process should be interrupted? If some mere mortals choose more “closed” devices or platforms, then so what? It isn’t the end of the world. Again, those devices or platforms aren’t really as closed as he suggests – in fact, they are far more open in some ways than the earlier technologies and platforms he glorifies. In sum: We can have the best of both worlds — a world full of plenty of “tethered” appliances, but also plenty of generativity and openness. We need not make a choice between the two, and we certainly shouldn’t be demanding someone else make it for us.

One final point that didn’t really fit anywhere above.. Zittrain worries about “The famously ungovernable Internet suddenly becom[ing] much more governable, an outcome most libertarian types would be concerned about.” He’s referring to a concern addressed in more detail in his book (and Lessig’s Code) that the Net could become more “regulable” because of changes in code and architecture over time. To the extent this is a problem at all – and I have my doubts for the reasons noted above – this is a problem we should handle by putting more constraints on our government(s), not by imposing more regulations on code or coders. Consider privacy and data collection concerns. While, as a general principle, I think it wise for companies to minimize the amount of data they collect about consumers or websurfers, we need not, and ought not, force that by law, given the huge benefits of data collection and use for innovation and, yes, the openness if the Internet ecosystem! We should certainly hold companies to high standards when it comes to data security and breach (including by FTC enforcement). But, again, the way to deal with the “regulability” threat that Lessig and Zittrain raise is to tightly limit the powers of government to access private information through intermediaries in the first place.

The Washington, D.C., fight over “net neutrality” in some ways only scratches the surface of what’s really at stake in the question of government regulation of Internet service providers’ treatment of online content. The downside of permitting FCC and Congressional authority over cyberspace “neutrality” is hard to overstate.

A former colleague and friend, now at New Media Strategies, sent me a January 2010 article—“The Splinternet means the end of the Web’s golden age”—about the proliferation of non-compatible devices used online, and the shielding of much new content behind logins and passwords, like the way News Corp. “hides” Wall Street Journal content behind a paywall, and other perceived insults. The author doesn’t see the trend as reversible, but the tone implies what an ominous development this somehow is, as if all this abundance and customization is negative, and that caution is in order.

But the realities of pay models and splintering—like the fact that some journalists have families to feed and can’t write for free, that Google doesn’t see much of what’s on Facebook, and that I can’t stream your iTunes—have no metaphysical, free speech, or public policy implications. Emergent splintering online represents the beginnings of a groundbreaking expansion of the Web’s basic capabilities, not a curtailment. (Besides, many with pro-neutrality views have been upset with Google lately anyway.)

This hand-wringing and use of the term “splinternet” reminded me of a related speculation I’d made in Forbes nearly 10 years ago about the tailoring of networks and pipes. Disturbed by then-burgeoning calls for regulation of the Internet emerging from various quarters over issues like privacy, spam, porn and cyber-trespass, I called for a “splinternet” mindset then and put it as follows:

The Internet needs borders beyond which users can escape damaging political resolutions of [policy] battles, which are rooted in the Internet’s non-owned, common-property status. Conflicting legislative visions in a cyberspace populated by exhibitionists at one extreme and would-be inhabitants of gated communities on the other, reveal the basic truth that not everybody wants or needs to be connected to everybody else.

Infrastructure and communications wealth—even the innovations with names like “iPad”—will make this ability to choose more feasible than ever—without sacrificing access to content and ideas. My colleague Adam Thierer and I also described such undercurrents—which could become tsunamis—in the introduction to the book Who Rules the Net?

The situation on the ground now is that FCC planners fancy themselves guardians of the idea that all content shall be treated the same. They presume to decide for everyone else, here in 2010, that network properties henceforth cannot be proprietary, and that no content can experience—brace for this—“discrimination.” But why? And how would they carry out such goals? With the technological shakeups taking place in content, infrastructure, and devices, it’s vitally important to appreciate what possibilities regulations can shut off, what carnage it can inflict to wealth creation—including content creation; it’s urgent that we explore and permit ways of making the net more profitable, and internalizing the net’s “externalities” that otherwise inspire planners to think they can control it better (or “neutralize” it).

FCC regulation is no substitute for the proper alternative, which is precisely the confusing and sometimes infuriating emerging content, network and device proliferation we now see. The frenzy is a good thing. Indeed, today’s cyberspace, if it isn’t careful, might be merely one of many that our descendants surf that feature varying levels of openness and neutrality. As communications wealth expands, the content of networks, no matter how big they are or whether they are closed or neutral, can increasingly be “cut and pasted” among one another in complex commercial arrangements. Figuring out how to do that is itself a future business model. That is, businesses of tomorrow may profit from having presences across several such dedicated “cyberspaces” and “splinternets” the way they do now across magazines, TV, radio and the net in the advertising niche. And if Washington were to do its proper job and deregulate network industries like water, power, sewer, rail, gas (instead of trying to re-regulate telecom), infrastructure too could expand well beyond our imagining. Now that would be stimulus, in case such a thing were anyone’s goal.

In other words, the Golden Age isn’t even here yet as far as the Information Revolution is concerned. As societies get wealthier, and old burgermeister meisterburgers die off (still another hint to FCC and it’s agenda), and decades and centuries pass, the “capital-I” Internet, the one spoken of today with a reverent tremble, could become far more antiquated and incapable of optimally supporting the smart devices yet to be invented (3-D Internet? Hologram displays? DNA computing?). Public policy always forgets we are not immortal; that’s the only way today’s FCC-style planners can imagine themselves smart and visionary enough to assert that net neutrality is the right thing to do; or rather, to force others to do. They have the answers; you are just the people they do things to.

We no longer use the barbed-wire telephone network of the past; we no longer use 28K modems. The future could be one of content spewing across a bouquet of networks, bits and wires alike duplicated and redundant in ways not conceivable today; businesses not even in existence yet will profit and help you profit by maintaining various presences across these “cyberspaces.” At least as far as public policy is concerned, it’s Internet technology, not the physical net and its particular ownership structure and hardware and infrastructure assortment of 2010, that will matter decades and generations hence—whether or not such networks actually come into being. Put still another way, from the other end of the telescope, tomorrow’s world in which all the content of today’s Internet might, for all we know, easily fit locally on a handheld device will be a very different world from that of today.

To that world, neutrality has nothing to offer except destruction, especially if it keeps today’s inventory of hardware artificially dumb, as warned here to FCC in 2008.

If net neutrality wins, it would entrench for us an inferior and rather unresponsive husk, the C&O Canal of Cyberspace. Thanks FCC.

Comments I just filed to FCC on its proposed “net neutrality” commandments defend in depth the notion of customized networks, pointing out how achingly “dumb” it can be to interfere in any way with smart communications pipes, especially when “dumb” ones, the “background hum” of the net you might say, can easily proliferate alongside. The neutrality issue seems even more perverse given policymaker’s simultaneous demands today for smart grids for electric power. So guys: go home. Internets, splinternets and cyberspaces will be far better off without you. I’m just glad you didn’t lock things in at 28 kilobits per second.

Over the past couple of years here, I have relentlessly hammered Harvard’s dynamic duo of digital doom, Jonathan Zittrain (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and Lawrence Lessig (see 1, 2, 3), for their extraordinarily gloomy predictions about the Internet creating a world of “perfect control.”  In the hyper-pessimistic Lessig-Zittrain view of things, cyberspace is perpetually haunted by the specter of nefarious corporate schemers out to suffocate innovation, screw consumers, and quash dissent.  In the 1990s, Lessig’s big-bad-bogeyman was AOL.  Today, Zittrain casts Apple in the lead role of Cyber-Big Brother.  The problem with their thesis? In a word: Reality.  As Tim Lee has pointed out before, “Lessig’s specific predictions in Code turned out to be… spectacularly wrong”:

Lessig was absolutely convinced that a system of robust user authentication would put an end to the Internet’s free-wheeling, decentralized nature. Not only has that not happened, but I suspect that few would seriously defend Lessig’s specific prediction will come to pass.

Absolutely correct, and the same is true of the fears and predictions Zittrain tosses around in The Future of the Internet.  And yet, as we saw most recently during my debate with Lessig and Zittrain over at Cato Unbound upon the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the publication Code, neither of them have relented one bit. Indeed, they have actually been escalating their morose rhetoric recently.

The fact that Zittrain casts Apple as the central villain in his drama is particularly interesting because millions upon millions of people absolutely love the company and its amazingly innovative products — even if I’m not one of them.  And there is absolutely no way Zittrain can continue to sell us this story of Apple quashing innovation when, in just one year’s time, there were 1.5 Billion iPhone Store downloads of over 65,000 free and paid apps by consumers in 77 countries.  I mean, seriously, is there any application you cannot get for the iPhone these days?

Apparently not, because over at the Wall Street Journal “Digits” blog,  Andrew LaVallee writes of the latest innovative application to pop up in the Apple iPhone Store, iPot — a tool to help you find dope shops in California!!

Seeing an untapped opportunity in the growing number of legal California dispensaries and limited advertising outlets, app developer NexStudios launched iPot, an application for Apple’s iPhone that lists nearby stores. .. The free version of the app provides basic location information for nearby stores, while the $2 upgrade adds reviews and ratings and does away with advertising. The two apps have been downloaded nearly 100,000 times since their July launch, with about 80% opting for the free one.

Holy smokes, pot on your iPhone!  Geo-located in real time!  With reviews!  Am I living in a “Cheech & Chong” movie?

OK, seriously, let’s get back to that Zittrain-Lessig thesis.  My point here is that, contrary to their belief that the whole digital world is going to hell in a handbasket because of excessive “control” by corporate actors, in reality, things are getting better all the time.  Does Apple exercise some “control” over the iPhone store? Yes. Do they use that control to bock innovation at every juncture, restrict choice, and screw consumers?  Show me the evidence.

And when I say I want to see evidence, it has to be something more than a random anecdote like this “gem” I have heard Zittrain use many times:

Recently Apple got rid of the “I Am Rich” app, which cost the maximum $999.99, and simply featured a glowing red gem on buyers’ screens. Eight people apparently bought it, with several receiving refunds.  (”Category: Lifestyle.”  Heh.)  The app’s author doesn’t yet know whether he’ll get the money from the rest, minus Apple’s 30% vig.

Come on, seriously?  Is that the best you got? Moreover, Jonathan is willing to acknowledge that at least a certain amount of “gatekeeping might help keep malicious or poor quality apps away.”  Indeed, that’s about all the gatekeeping Apple does.  For God’s sake they are apparently not even trying to keep out the potheads anymore!  And finally, it goes without saying that Apple can’t even keep people from jailbreaking their phones in a matter of hours after release when users want to do even more with them.

How all this adds up to the specter of “perfect control” is beyond me.

Well, here we go again. Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain has penned another gloomy essay about how “freedom is at risk in the cloud” and the future of the Internet is in peril because nefarious digital schemers like Apple, Facebook, and Google are supposedly out to lock you into their services and take away your digital rights.  And so, as I have done here many times before (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 + video!), I will offer a response arguing that Jonathan’s cyber-Chicken Little-ism is largely unwarranted.

Zittrain’s latest piece is entitled “Lost in the Cloud” and it appears in today’s New York Times.  It closely tracks the arguments he has set forth in his book The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It, which I named the most important technology policy book of 2008, but not because I agreed with its central thesis.  Zittrain’s book and his new NYT essay are the ultimate exposition of Lessigite technological pessimism.  I don’t know what they put in the water up at the Berkman Center to make these guys so remarkably cranky and despondent about the future of of the Internet, but starting with Lawrence Lessig’s Code in 1999 and running through to Zittrain’s Future of the Internet we have been forced to endure endless Tales of the Coming Techno-Apocalypse from these guys.  Back in the late 90s, Prof. Lessig warned us that AOL and some other companies would soon take over the new digital frontier since “Left to itself, cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control.”  Ah yes, how was it that we threw off the chains of our techno-oppressors and freed ourselves from that wicked walled garden hell?  Oh yeah, we clicked our mouses and left! And that was pretty much the end of AOL’s “perfect control” fantasies. [See my recent debate with Prof. Lessig over at Cato Unbound for more about this “illusion of perfect control,” as I have labeled it.]

But Zittrain is the equivalent of the St. Peter upon which the Church of Lessigism has been built and, like any good disciple, he’s still vociferously preaching to the unconverted and using fire and brimstone sermons to warn of our impending digital damnation. In fact, he’s taken it to all new extremes. In Future of the Internet, Jonathan argues that we run the risk of seeing the glorious days of the generative, open Net and digital devices give way to more “sterile, tethered devices” and closed networks. The future that he hopes to “stop” is one in which Apple, TiVo, Facebook, and Google — the central villains in his drama — are supposedly ceded too much authority over our daily lives because of a combination of (a) their wicked ways and (b) our ignorant ones.

First, let’s talk about those corporate wicked ways. Jonathan waxes nostalgic about a mythical time not long ago when technologies were supposedly far more “open and generative” than they are now. In Jonathan’s revisionist history of the digital olden times, we are told that the early PC era was somehow the model for openness and generativity.  That’s damn peculiar to an old-timer like me because all I remember from those days is the tall stacks of proprietary programs sitting on my desk + a keyboard and other peripherals that were all hard-wired to the monitor + a guy named Bill Gates who was typically likened to the Darth Vader of openness.  In Zittrain’s retelling of things, however, those Digital Dark Ages have suddenly become the good ol’ days!  The real threat to openness and digital freedom, however, is now right before us.. or just over our head it seems. It’s up there in the cloud, he tells us. The freedom that “tinkerers and hackers” once enjoyed in those glorious good ‘ol days “is at risk in the cloud, where the vendor of a platform has much more control over whether and how to let others write new software,” Zittrain says.

Excuse me? Why would it be the case that generativity is now somehow more at risk today than it was in the era where we had to wake up every morning and wait for a C:\ prompt before loading an operating system or $50 spreadsheet software via three different 5.25 floppy disks?  [Seriously, does anybody else besides me remember how much those days sucked?]  Well, it turns out that the answer to that question goes back to the ignorant ways of the digital hoi polloi that I mentioned above.  You see, we are all sheep who just don’t know what’s good for us. Or here’s how Jonathan puts it, albeit spinning it in such a way to make his elitist pronouncements somewhat easier to swallow:

The market is churning through these issues. […] But the dynamics here are complicated. When we vest our activities and identities in one place in the cloud, it takes a lot of dissatisfaction for us to move. And many software developers who once would have been writing whatever they wanted for PCs are simply developing less adventurous, less subversive, less game-changing code under the watchful eyes of Facebook and Apple.

Ooooo.. spooky!  Beware ye naive Netizens, for “the watchful eyes of Facebook and Apple” are upon you!

No, seriously, what the hell does all that mean and what the heck is the problem here? By no conceivable stretch of the imagination can one paint a portrait of the Digital Dark Ages for me that makes that era look better than the Digital Renaissance we are now living through. There’s never been a better time to be tinkerers, hackers, or just regular citizen-consumers in cyberspace.

So, what gives?  Why is it that two smart guys like Lessig and Zittrain always seem to fear to worst even in the midst of a cornucopia of cyber-choices?  It comes back to the hyper-pessimism and remarkable short-sightedness of the Lessig-Zittrain worldview. In terms of their myopia, here’s how I put it in that recent debate with Lessig:

Lessig failed to appreciate that markets are evolutionary and dynamic, and when those markets are built upon code, the pace and nature of change becomes unrelenting and utterly unpredictable. …  a largely unfettered cyberspace has left digital denizens better off in terms of the information they can access as well as the goods and services from which they can choose. Oh, and did I mention it’s all pretty much free-of-charge? Say what you want about our cyber-existence, but you can’t argue with the price!

But there’s something else which drives their reasoning, and for lack of a softer term I will just label it what I think it really is: Elitism. At the end of the day, if we are to believe the scary tales that Zittrain and Lessig try to weave in their work we have to accept the notion that neither companies not consumers can really be trusted to make sensible decisions.  Basically, cyber-companies are only out to screw us and we’re just too stupid to realize it. Luckily for us, however, the fine folks up at Berkman know what’s best for us and, guess what, it’s not Facebook, Apple, TiVo, or Google!  These companies are apparently guilty of the heinous crime of giving consumers too much of what they want, and we can’t allow that because “it takes a lot of dissatisfaction for us to move.”  Or as Jonathan noted in an earlier essay:

I think we can get locked into these platforms as we (rightly, unfortunately) fear the wildness of the open Internet and general purpose PC, and as we shift and accumulate more and more of our data and relationships there. After the markets coalesce to these tamer gated communities, governments can later come along and insist that these platforms be tuned towards surveillance and control far more successfully than the wilder Internet that preceded them.

In other words, we’re lazy fools. Or perhaps maybe — just maybe — we’re reasonably happy with the choices we have been given and don’t have a good reason to flee some of our current favorite providers. My God, could it be that markets work!  No, no, no, Zittrain tells us, for these “tamer gated communities” (tamer than what?) have lulled us into a sleep as they concoct a plan to “tame” the Net, quash software innovation, and then invite the government in to take all our info or property.

So, we’re right back at Lessig’s AOL horror story from 1999, except now it’s Facebook, Apple, and Google staring in the role of our corporate captors — again, even though they offer us constantly improving services and constantly falling prices (and are completely free of charge in the case of Facebook and Google).  Regardless, the fear of lock-in and what Lessig and Zittrain refer to as the “regulability” of some of these services and platforms, leads them to argue that something ominous lurks around every cyber-corner.  Consequently, just as Lessig counseled a fair degree of government oversight and intervention back in ’99 to deal with the AOL era (non-)problem of walled gardens, a decade later, Zittrain is ready to call in the code cops to correct for our foolish allegiances to the latest crop of popular software providers or media platforms:

If the market settles into a handful of gated cloud communities whose proprietors control the availability of new code, the time may come to ensure that their platforms do not discriminate. Such a demand could take many forms, from an outright regulatory requirement to a more subtle set of incentives — tax breaks or liability relief — that nudge companies to maintain the kind of openness that earlier allowed them a level playing field on which they could lure users from competing, mighty incumbents. We’ve only just begun to measure this problem, even as we fly directly into the cloud. That’s not a reason to turn around. But we must make sure the cloud does not hinder the creation of revolutionary software that, like the Web itself, can seem esoteric at first but utterly necessary later.

Sorry, but where is the evidence warranting this sort of techno-pessimism?  I just can’t buy into the story that Zittrain spins: That some folks in the cloud are currently “hinder[ing] the creation of revolutionary software” or that one day soon we’ll all wake up and find our digital lives and property completely controlled by cloud-based companies and we will be utterly without recourse.  Honestly, is Google locking you down? Did someone make you sign up for all their free services? Any reason you can’t use a second e-mail service or a different search provider?  Likewise, did Steve Jobs force you to buy an iPod or an iPhone?  I would think we should be celebrating the fact that in just one year’s time there has been 1.5 Billion downloads of over 65,000 free and paid apps by consumers in 77 countries.  I call that progress — and I don’t even own an iPhone!  Again, nothing is stopping consumers from exercising their right to choose from many other products besides Apple, Google, and Facebook, just as I have.

Now, do companies make mistakes? Of course they do. All the time, in fact. Amazon’s bone-headed book deletion this week is the latest exhibit. But people learn from these things. And companies do as well. Things evolve. Companies correct their mistakes or people bolt. AOL lost 20 million paying customers and billions in market share in the span of just a few years. Time Warner is still cursing the day they made that deal and has now spun it off entirely. Last time I checked, the old AOL model wasn’t a favorite among most web vendors. Moreover, does anyone really think there’s a future for Amazon if they make it a habit of deleting digital books on people’s Kindles?  Frankly, if you want more competition in the digital book market, you should be inviting Amazon to play such silly reindeer games. It would be the best incentive ever for people to switch! But the fact remains, that’s the exception to the rule. Locking down customers or playing games with their digital goodies isn’t a viable long-term business model that I see many firms adopting these days. And if they do, they are screwing themselves.

This same principle applies to Facebook and the fear that they will hold onto customers or their data.  When they get too heavy-handed, people respond. Does anyone remember the Beacon incident or the flare-up of Facebook’s changing Terms of Service?  People got pissed, and the company listened. That’s a healthy sign that consumers have real power in the social networking market.  Moreover, how hard is it to escape from Facebook Land? It’s not a maximum security data prison. I went there for all of about a day, found it wasn’t for me, and then deleted everything and set up camp over at LinkedIn instead.  (Yes, that’s right, I do NOT have a Facebook account.  Somehow the sky hasn’t fallen on me.  People still find me just fine.)

So what about those solutions that Zittrain recommends for these new non-problems? In Future of the Net, he was surprisingly short on specific solutions. But in today’s NYT editorial he gets a bit more concrete with that suggestion “the time may come to ensure that their platforms do not discriminate,” possibly through regulation or other Sunstein-ian “nudges.” Here we have the truly frightening prospect of a handful of faceless bureaucrats becoming Facebook’s overlords.  I’m not even sure what it means to have the government “ensure they do not discriminate,” but I really don’t want to find out.  For Google it’s a lot easier to figure out what Zittrain’s medicine will taste like: Can you say “Right of Reply Mandates & a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet?”  Frank Pasquale and Oren Bracha can and they’ve already sketched the blueprint for what a new Federal Search Commission might look like to address “search bias.” [See Berin’s critique here. ]  And for Apple, non-discrimination at the device level would take the form of forced commoditization of the iPhone.  They’d be required to give it to any carrier that wanted it on government-approved terms and the iPhone Store would be regulated like grain elevator and subjected to common carrier rules.  You know, because that model worked soooo well in other contexts.  And then, just for good measure, we would layer on a bunch of restrictions on all these companies in the form of online advertising regulations.  We can’t have the mindless sheep of the Internet being subjected to more targeted ads, after all!   To be clear, Zittrain hasn’t recommended these specific regulatory remedies yet, but this is where his logic is taking us. The old regulatory playbook will become the new regulatory playbook.

OK, now that I have been so snarky and dismissive of most of what Jonathan says in his editorial today and in his book, let me close by noting where I (partially) agree with him and Lessig. Are some digital technologies “regulable” such that our government could coerce them to divulge data or personal information?  Yes, this is true.  But here’s how I addressed that concern in my recent Cato Unbound debate with Lessig:

[cyber-libertarians] are in league with Lessig [and Zittrain] when it comes to the forcible surrender of personal information or technological capabilities to government officials. When the Department of Justice comes knocking on Google’s door asking for records of our search histories to see who’s looking for online porn (or anything else), that’s a problem. The “deputization of the middleman” has long been a legitimate fear because, with the threat of liability hanging over their necks, online intermediaries could be coerced into giving the state information that leads to fines, imprisonment, censorship, or some other type of government harassment. However, this is a problem we should handle by putting more constraints on our government(s), not by imposing more regulations on code or coders. While, as a general principle, I think it wise for companies to minimize the amount of data they collect about consumers or websurfers, we need not force that by law. And we should certainly hold companies to high standards when it comes to data security and breach. But, again, the way to deal with the “regulability” threat that Lessig and Zittrain raise is to tightly limit the powers of government to access private information through intermediaries in the first place. Most obviously, we could start by tightening up the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other laws that limit government data access. More subtly, we must continue to defend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields intermediaries from liability for information posted or published by users of their systems, because (among many things) such liability would make online intermediaries more susceptible to the kind of back-room coercion that concerns Lessig. If we’re going to be legislating about the Internet, we need more laws like that, not those of the “middleman deputization” model.

But that is the extent of my agreement with Lessig and Zittrain. All this techno-pessimism emanating out of Berkman and their books is largely unwarranted.  I suppose one could argue that they are just sounding alarms in the hope of preemptively checking bone-headed corporate moves, but the problem is that they increasingly back up their pessimism with large doses of heavy-handed political prescriptions to keep the Net “healthy.”  Instead, they’ll just poison the wonderfully free waters of cyberspace with the same regulatory nonsense that has strangled traditional media markets for decades. And unless your idea of cyber-nirvana resembles the broadcast marketplace, you have to think that won’t benefit consumers one bit.

Signed,

An Unrepentant Techno-Optimist

Building on this week’s Cato Unbound online debate over the impact of Lawrence Lessig’s Code ten years after it’s release, Tim Lee has posted a terrific essay over at the Freedom to Tinker Blog “Sizing Up “Code” with 20/20 Hindsight.”  Tim concludes:

It seems to me that the Internet is rather less malleable than Lessig imagined a decade ago. We would have gotten more or less the Internet we got regardless of what Congress or the FCC did over the last decade. And therefore, Lessig’s urgent call to action — his argument that we must act in 1999 to ensure that we have the kind of Internet we want in 2009 — was misguided. In general, it works pretty well to wait until new technologies emerge and then debate whether to regulate them after the fact, rather than trying to regulate preemptively to shape the kinds of technologies that are developed. As I wrote a few months back, I think Jonathan Zittrain’s The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It makes the same kind of mistake Lessig made a decade ago: overestimating regulators’ ability to shape the evolution of new technologies and underestimating the robustness of open platforms. The evolution of technology is mostly shaped by engineering and economic constraints. Government policies can sometimes force new technologies underground, but regulators rarely have the kind of fine-grained control they would need to promote “generative” technologies over sterile ones, any more than they could have stopped the emergence of cookies or DPI if they’d made different policy choices a decade ago.

I agree whole-heartedly, of course, and this is the point I was trying to make in my in my first essay in the Cato debate when I argued:

Lessig’s lugubrious predictions proved largely unwarranted. Code has not become the great regulator of markets or enslaver of man; it has been a liberator of both. Indeed, the story of the past digital decade has been the exact opposite of the one Lessig envisioned in Code. Cyberspace has proven far more difficult to “control” or regulate than any of us ever imagined. More importantly, the volume and pace of technological innovation we have witnessed over the past decade has been nothing short of stunning.

Anyway, read Tim’s entire essay.

I’ve posted another response in the Cato Unbound online debate over the impact of Lawrence Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace upon the book’s 10th anniversary.  You will recall that I went fairly hard on Prof. Lessig in my essay, “Code, Pessimism, and the Illusion of ‘Perfect Control,’” and Lessig responded with a counter-punch that went after me for it.  I respond in a new essay about “Our Conflict of Cyber-Visions.” In the piece, I address Lessig’s assertion that I just didn’t understand the central teachings of Code, as well as his reluctance to accept the “cyber-collectivism” label that I affixed to his book and life’s work.  Again, please hop over to Cato Unbound for my complete response.

But one thing from the essay that I thought worth reproducing here is my effort to better define the key principles that separate the cyber-libertarian and cyber-collectivist schools of thinking.  I argue that it comes down to this:

The cyber-libertarian believes that “code failures” are ultimately better addressed by voluntary, spontaneous, bottom-up, marketplace responses than by coerced, top-down, governmental solutions. Moreover, the decisive advantage of the market-driven approach to correcting code failure comes down to the rapidity and nimbleness of those response(s).

Of course, another key difference relates to how quickly one jumps to the conclusion that “code failures” are actually occurring at all. I argue:

What concerns me about the way Prof. Lessig approaches these issues in Code and in his subsequent work is that he is far too quick to declare the debate over by labeling short-term code hiccups as sky-is-falling market failures. The end result of such myopic techno-pessimism is the inevitable call for governments to intervene and “do something” to correct supposed code failures.  The cyber-libertarian instead counsels patience. Let’s give those other forces — alternative platforms, new innovators, social norms, public pressure, etc. — a chance to work some magic. Evolution happens, if you let it. Moreover, if you are always running around crying “market failure!” and calling in the code cops, it creates perverse marketplace incentives by discouraging efforts to innovate or “route around” bad code or code failure. We don’t want the whole world sitting around waiting for government to regulate the mousetrap to improve it or even give everyone better access to it; we should want the world to be innovating to create better mousetraps! To reiterate a key point I already stressed in my original essay: One need not believe that the markets in code are “perfectly competitive” to accept that they are “competitive enough” — or at least, better than regulatory alternatives.

Anyway, please head over to the Cato site to read the whole thing and let me know what you think.  If nothing else, I’m sure that Seth Finkelstein will have something incredibly nasty to say about me!  And I will wear his scorn as a badge of honor.

The week-long Cato Unbound online debate about the 10th anniversary of Lawrence Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace continues today with Prof. Lessig’s response to Declan McCullagh’s opening essay, “What Larry Didn’t Get,” Jonathan Zittrain’s follow-up essay, and my essay on, “Code, Pessimism, and the Illusion of ‘Perfect Control.’”  Needless to say, Prof. Lessig isn’t too happy with my response. You should jump over to the Cato site to read the entire thing, but here are a couple of excerpts and my response.

To my suggestion that there is a qualitative difference between law and code, Prof. Lessig says:

I’ve argued that things aren’t quite a simple as some libertarians would suggest. That there’s not just bad law. There’s bad code. That we don’t need to worry just about Mussolini. We also need to worry about DRM or the code AT&T deploys to help the government spy upon users. That public threats to liberty can be complemented by private threats to liberty. And that the libertarian must be focused on both.  […] Of course, law is law. Who could be oblivious to that? And who would need a book to explain it?  But the fact that “law is law” does not imply that it has a “much greater impact in shaping markets and human behavior.” Sometimes it does — especially when that “law” is delivered by a B1 bomber. But ask the RIAA whether it is law or code that is having a “greater impact in shaping markets” for music. Or ask the makers of Second Life whether the citizens of that space find themselves more constrained by the commercial code of their geo-jurisdiction or by the fact that the software code of Second Life doesn’t permit you simply to walk away (so to speak) with another person’s scepter. Whether and when law is more effective than code is an empirical matter — something to be studied, and considered, not dismissed by banalities spruced up with italics.

Well, I beg the professor’s pardon for excessive use of italics.  [I won’t ask for an apology for misspelling my last name in his piece!] Regardless, it’s obvious that we’ll just never see eye-to-eye on the crucial distinction between law and code. Again, as I stated in my essay: “With code, escape is possible. Law, by contrast, tends to lock in and limit; spontaneous evolution is supplanted by the stagnation of top-down, one-size-fits-all regulatory schemes.”

Lessig largely dismisses much of this with that last line above, suggesting that we just need to keep studying the matter to determine the right mix of what works best.  To be clear, while I’m all for studying the impact of law vs. code as “an empirical matter,” that in turn begs the question of how we define effectiveness or success. I suspect that the professor and I would have a “values clash” over some rather important first principles in that regard.  This is, of course, a conflict of visions that we see throughout the history of philosophy; a conflict between those who put the individual and the individual’s rights at the core of any ethical political system versus those who would place the rights of “the community,” “the public” or some other amorphous grouping(s) at the center of everything.  It’s a classic libertarian vs. communitarian / collectivist debate.

Lessig, however, makes it clear in his response that he doesn’t take kindly to being called a cyber-collectivist, even accusing me of “red-baiting” by using the term.  But the collectivism of which I speak is a more generic type; not the hard-edged Marxist brand of collectivism of modern times.   What separates Lessig’s brand of cyber-collectivism from the cyber-libertarianism that I espouse is a general preference for who calls the shots most of the time.  Quite obviously, I place an enormous amount of faith in largely unfettered markets in code to generally advance the values of individual liberty, freedom of speech, and economic innovation more often than rule by politics and public officials will.  Prof. Lessig is obviously far more enamored with the potential of the state and politics to play a beneficial role in shaping things.

Thus, even though Prof. Lessig rejects the association, Declan McCullagh was right to point to the distant influence of Plato on Code and much of Lessig’s other work.  (And there’s a bit of Rousseauian influence there, too.)  In any event, if Prof. Lessig takes offense at this label and wants to call his approach something other than cyber-collectivism, than by all means be my guest; invent a new term and I’ll use it.  But to me, as a student of political philosophy, I see his philosophy as just another variant of collectivism and just don’t know what else to call it.  This isn’t “red-baiting;” it’s simply an exercise in philosophical classification.

To some extent, Prof.  Lessig undercuts my arguments here in concluding his essay by asking that we “focus on a large number of difficult questions that remain… about how to preserve the liberty of society and the Net against the ever-expanding harm caused by the captured corruption that we call democratic government.”  Hey, now that sounds like something a true libertarian might say! (Except that we would have likely used the phrase “preserve the liberty of the individual” instead of “society”!) Regardless, Lessig is at least willing to admit that there may be some problems in paradise for Platonist thinking or Rousseauian romanticism.

Alas, for reasons articulated quite nicely here by Tim Lee in the past, “Lessig clearly understands what it takes to catch the interest of conservative- and libertarian-minded readers, and he’s not above spinning his arguments to maximize their appeal to the people he’s addressing.” For the libertarian, there is only one fool-proof solution to the problem of government corruption: You shrink the Leviathan. From what I’ve seen of Lessig’s proposals so far to address corruption, however, he’s not really willing to have that conversation. It’s all about the old “getting money out of politics” and “kill all the lobbyists” approach. Unfortunately, as Tim notes:

The problem isn’t that there’s a discrete list of corrupt practices that we can identify and prohibit. The problem is that if politicians are willing to be corrupted, and special interests are willing to spend resources to corrupt them, they’ll find ways to get it done. You can certainly reduce the effect on the margin — by banning overt bribery, for example — but once you’ve banned the really obvious categories of back-scratching, it becomes more and more difficult to make any further progress. What’s going on in Washington is disgusting, to be sure, but it’s not new or unique to the United States. And I think fixing it is going to be a lot more challenging than Lessig imagines.

I couldn’t agree more.  Nonetheless, I eagerly await more details from Prof. Lessig regarding his new effort to address corruption in our political system, however he defines it.  He may set forth some reform proposals that we libertarians find quite sensible and ultimately endorse.  But if “reform” instead comes in the form of layers of additional campaign finance regulations, well then, I think we’ll find ourselves disagreeing once again. Because many of those so-called reforms are simply free-speech violating restrictions on the rights of both individuals to petition their government.

But to conclude this exchange on a good note, let me just say that — at least in theory — I wholeheartedly endorse Lawrence Lessig’s call to protect “the Net against the ever-expanding harm caused by the captured corruption that we call democratic government.”   And I hope someday he will be more open to the notion that limits on the power of the state are the ultimate key to accomplishing that goal.

The Cato Unbound online debate about the 10th anniversary of Lawrence Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace continues today with my response to Declan McCullagh’s opening essay, “What Larry Didn’t Get,” as well as Jonathan Zittrain’s follow-up.

In my response, “Code, Pessimism, and the Illusion of ‘Perfect Control,'” I begin by arguing that:

The problem with peddling tales of a pending techno-apocalypse is that, at some point, you may have to account for your prophecies — or false prophecies as the case may be. Hence, the problem for Lawrence Lessig ten years after the publication of his seminal book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.

I go on to argue that:

Lessig’s lugubrious predictions proved largely unwarranted. Code has not become the great regulator of markets or enslaver of man; it has been a liberator of both. Indeed, the story of the past digital decade has been the exact opposite of the one Lessig envisioned in Code.

After providing several examples of just how wrong Lessig’s predictions were, I then ask:

[W]hy have Lessig’s predictions proven so off the mark? Lessig failed to appreciate that markets are evolutionary and dynamic, and when those markets are built upon code, the pace and nature of change becomes unrelenting and utterly unpredictable. With the exception of some of the problems identified above, a largely unfettered cyberspace has left digital denizens better off in terms of the information they can access as well as the goods and services from which they can choose. Oh, and did I mention it’s all pretty much free-of-charge? Say what you want about our cyber-existence, but you can’t argue with the price!

I am forced to admit, however, that Lessig’s book has had enormous impact of the field of cyberlaw and digital technology policy:

This brings me to what I believe is the most important impact of Code: the philosophical movement it has spawned. As Declan noted in his opening essay, Code “offered a burgeoning protest movement [a] unifying theme and philosophy” in that it was both a polemic against cyber-libertarianism and a sort of call-to-arms for cyber-collectivism. It gave this movement its central operating principle: Code and cyberspace can be bent to the will of the collective, and it often must be if we are to avoid any number of impending disasters brought on by those nefarious (or just plain incompetent) folks in corporate America. Led by a gifted, prolific set of disciples such as Jonathan Zittrain and Tim Wu, as well as increasingly influential activist groups such as Public Knowledge and Free Press, Lessig’s cyber-collectivists continue to preach skepticism regarding markets and property rights, and a general openness to — and frequent embrace of — government solutions to digital-era dilemmas. […]  Prof. Lessig and his movement are winning the battle of ideas on the cyber-front today. We have Code to thank — or blame — for that.

Please head over to the Cato Unbound website to read the entire thing.  Prof. Lessig’s response is scheduled to be posted on Monday.

As I mentioned on Monday,  the folks over at Cato Unbound have put together an online debate about the impact of Lawrence Lessig’s Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace as it turns 10 this year.

The opening essay from Declan McCullagh, “What Larry Didn’t Get,” took Lessig to task for favoring rule by “technocratic philosopher kings” over the spontaneous invisible hand of code.   In Round 2 of the debate, Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain comes to Lessig’s defense and suggests that the gap between Lessig and libertarians is not as wide as Declan suggests:

The debate between Larry and the libertarians is more subtle. Larry says: I’m with you on the aim — I want to maintain a free Internet, defined roughly as one in which bits can move between people without much scrutiny by the authorities or gatekeeping by private entities. Code’s argument was and is that this state of freedom isn’t self-perpetuating. Sooner or later government will wake up to the possibilities of regulation through code, and where it makes sense to regulate that way, we might give way — especially if it forestalls broader interventions.

Run over to Cato Unbound to read the rest.  My response will be going up next (on Friday) and then Prof. Lessig’s will be up next Monday.

It’s been a big year for tech policy books. Several important titles were released in 2008 that offer interesting perspectives about the future of the Internet and the impact digital technologies are having on our lives, culture, and economy. Back in September, I compared some of the most popular technology policy books of the past five years and tried to group them into two camps: “Internet optimists” vs. “Internet pessimists.” That post generated a great deal of discussion and I plan on expanding it into a longer article soon. In this post, however, I will merely list what I regard as the most important technology policy books of the past year.

What qualifies as an “important” tech policy book? Basically, it’s a title that many people in this field are currently discussing and that we will likely be talking about for many years to come. I want to make it clear, however, that merely because a book appears on this list it does not necessarily mean I agree with everything said in it. In fact, I found much with which to disagree in my picks for the two most important books of 2008, as well as many of the other books on the list. [Moreover, after reading all these books, I am more convinced than ever that libertarians are badly losing the intellectual battle of ideas over Internet issues and digital technology policy. There’s just very few people defending a “Hands-Off-the-Net” approach anymore. But that’s a subject for another day!]

Another caveat: Narrowly focused titles lose a few points on my list. For example, as was the case in past years, a number of important IP-related books have come out this year. If a book deals exclusively with copyright or patent issues, it does not exactly qualify as the same sort of “tech policy book” as other titles found on this list since it is a narrow exploration of just one set of issues that have a bearing on digital technology policy. The same could be said of a book that deals exclusively with privacy policy, like Solove’s Understanding Privacy. It’s an important book with implications for the future of tech policy, but I demoted it a bit because of its narrow focus.

With those caveats in mind, here are my Top 10 Most Important Tech Policy Books of 2008 (and please let me know about your picks for book of the year):

(1) Jonathan Zittrain ­– The Future of the Internet, and How to Stop It

Zittrain’s book is the most important of 2008 because it’s the one we will still be talking the most about a decade from now. However, I think we’ll be talking about how wrong his thesis was that the “generative” Internet and general purpose PCs are dying.  Indeed, I’ve been quite critical of the thesis that Jonathan sets forth in his book, and I have discussed my reservations in a lengthy book review and a series of follow-up essays here and elsewhere. (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).  We’ve also debated his book on the an NPR-Boston [audio is here] and we debated in person at New America Foundation in early November [video is here].

Despite my serious reservations, Jonathan’s book is important, well-written, and absolutely deserves your attention if you care about the future of technology policy.

(2) Nick Carr – The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google

Part 1 of Nick Carr’s book is an eloquent early history of cloud computing, nicely comparing it to previous technological revolutions. It’s beautifully done. In Part 2 of the book, however, Carr turns sour and argues that the impact of cloud computing will be quite miserable for our economy, culture, and society. The Big Switch probably makes the best case than any Net pessimist has been penned thus far, and for that reason alone it deserves your attention. Ultimately, however, I found his case unconvincing.

You can find my complete review of Carr’s book here.

(3) John Palfrey and Urs Gasser – Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives

Palfrey and Gasser’s fine early history of this generation of “Digital Natives” serves as a starting point for any conversation about how to mentor and interact with the children of the Web. It’s a comprehensive and very even-handed discussion about a variety of concerns or Internet pathologies, including: online safety, personal privacy, copyright piracy, offensive content, classroom learning, and much more. Despite a few nitpicks, I really enjoyed this book and highly recommend it. Importantly, it is a very accessible book that even the non-tech layman can pick up and appreciate. [Note: Don Tapscott’s Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World, shares a lot in common with Born Digital, but Tapscott doesn’t spend much time on policy issues and that’s why his book isn’t on my list.]

My review of Palfrey and Gasser’s Born Digital is here. [Update Feb 2009: I also hosted a podcast about the book featuring Prof. Palfrey.]

(4) Clay Shirky – Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations

While Nick Carr [see #2 above] and Lee Siegel [see #5 below] are leading the “techno-pessimist” parade this year, Clay Shirky is this year’s leading cheerleader for “cyber-optimism.” Shirky argues that the falling costs and growing ease of digital distribution are making it increasingly easy for individuals to engage in group-forming and collective action endeavors. The resulting rise of “mass amateurization” poses a significant challenge to old media operations and traditional business models and practices. In this sense, Shirky is building on many of the themes and arguments previously set forth in books like The Wealth of Networks (Benkler), Wikinomics (Tapscott and Williams), and Convergence Culture (Jenkins). If you’ve already read those titles, you’ll find a great deal of familiar thinking here.

I never got around to putting together a full review of Here Comes Everybody, but Tim Lee had a nice write-up over at Ars earlier this year.

(5) Lee Siegel – Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob

Siegal is this year’s Andrew Keen; a cyber-sourpuss who thinks the whole world is going to hell and that the Internet is to blame. Like Keen’s Cult of the Amateur, Siegel’s Against the Machine is an anti-Web 2.0 screed that finds no redeeming qualities about the Internet or user-generated content.  In particular, Wikipedia and amateur production are blasted as being detrimental to professional media.

Both Siegel and Keen are essentially channeling the ghost of the late Neil Postman, whose 1992 book Technopoly remains the classic statement of techno-pessimism. They prove worthy disciples as they preach the Gospel According to Chicken Little and push for a neo-Luddite revival. But Siegel’s techno-pessimism is boundless and his hatred for all things digital is truly breathtaking. For that reason, however, his book deserves attention.

My lengthy critique of Siegel’s book can be found here.

(6) Ronald J. Deibert, John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain (eds.) – Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering

This is essential reading for anyone studying the methods governments are using to stifle online expression. The contributors provide a regional and country-by-country overview of the global state of online speech controls and discuss the long-term ramifications of increasing government filtering of online networks. Even if you don’t read the whole thing, this is a must-have title for your bookshelf since there is no other resource out there like this. And it should be required reading in every cyberlaw class in America. [Note: It also contains a very helpful chapter on the mechanics of Net filtering.]  Very highly recommended.

(7) Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis – Blown to Bits: Your Life, Liberty, and Happiness After the Digital Explosion

Think of this book as “Internet Policy for the Educated Layman.” Abelson, Ledeen, and Lewis survey a broad swath of tech policy territory — privacy, search, encryption, free speech, copyright, spectrum policy — and provide the reader with a nice history and technology primer on each topic. Like Palfrey and Gasser’s Born Digital [see #3 above], Blown to Bits is very accessible and each chapter contains a great deal of useful information to bring you up to speed on the hottest tech policy debates under the sun. Recommended.

My review of Blown to Bits can be found here.

(8) Lawrence Lessig – Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy

Remix treads a lot of ground already covered in Lessig’s other books and essays (perhaps it should have been called “Rehash”), but it more fully develops his thinking on the legal treatment of derivative works. Actually, in some ways (especially in the second half of the book), it’s more of a restatement of much of what is found in Benkler’s Wealth of Networks, albeit in a far less verbose fashion. Regardless, Prof. Lessig has attained rock-star status in tech policy circles and the release of each of his new books or papers becomes a bit of an event. Remix has been no different. It has already attracted a great deal of attention and deserves to be on this list for that reason alone. But if you have read his previous work, you’ll already be familiar with much of what you find in Remix.

Generally speaking, I thought Prof. Lessig made a good case regarding the benefits of remix culture and why copyright law should leave breathing room for the various derivative works of amateur creators. But he too often blurs remix culture with “ripoff culture” (i.e., those who aren’t out to create anything new but instead just take something without paying a penny for it). To solve that latter problem, he endorses a “simple” blanket licensing scheme for the Internet. In this essay, I addressed why blanket online licensing would be anything but simple.

(9) James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer – Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk

Bessen and Meurer argue that America’s patent system is in trouble because “it fail[s] to provide clear and efficient notice of the boundaries of the rights granted.” Patent litigation has exploded, they say, and the costs of the system now outweigh the benefits. Generally speaking, with the exception of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, Bessen and Meurer don’t feel the patent system does a lot of good.”[I]t seems unlikely that patents today are an effective policy instrument to encourage innovation overall,” they conclude. They detail several reforms to help improve notice and to “make patents work as property” again the way they claim they once did.

Although the authors deal with patents broadly, the book has great relevance to digital technology policy because of their discussion of business method patents and software patents. (Incidentally, that chapter from the book is available online). They argue that software technology is especially prone to problems of “abstraction” and obviousness. As a result, software patenting has been a major contributor to the litigation explosion we have seen in recent years.

Although I agree with their case against software patents, I remain unconvinced that the patent system is failing as badly as Bessen and Meurer claim. Nonetheless, they present a powerful case that deserves to be taken seriously. Patent Failure will have an enormous impact on these debates going forward.

For more opinions on the book… Tim Lee posted a favorable review of Patent Failure over at Ars this summer. And, back in March, there was a lively discussion about the book over at Patently-O. Finally, at last year’s PFF “Aspen Summit,” Michael Meurer debated these issues with some of America’s leading patent law experts. Bronwyn H. Hall, Professor of Economics at Cal-Berkeley, challenges his findings. The video of that panel is here.

(10) Daniel Solove – Understanding Privacy

Daniel Solove’s book — and his approach to classifying and dealing with privacy problems — will have a profound impact on all future privacy debates. In that sense, it is a vital text; a must read for all who follow, or engage in, privacy debates.  On the other hand, Solove’s claim that he can construct a new paradigm based strictly on a pragmatic, utilitarian, “?problem-solving” approach, is ultimately a failure. There is just no getting around the fact that, at some point, you are going to have to provide a more robust theory of rights or justice to explain why one right trumps another. I elaborate in this lengthy critique of Solove’s Understanding Privacy.

Honorable Mentions: Here are a couple of titles that I couldn’t fit on my list but that you might want to also consider reading: Neil Netanel – Copyright’s Paradox; Matt Mason – The Pirate’s Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism; David Friedman – Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World; Cory Doctorow — Content; and Don Tapscott — Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World.

Please let me know if there are other titles I have overlooked, and let me know your opinion about the best technology policy book(s) of 2008 by voting in our poll and commenting more down below.

[poll id=”3″]

A few months ago, I penned a mega book review about the growing divide between “Internet optimists and pessimists.” I noted that the Internet optimists — people like Chris Anderson, Clay Shirky, Yochai Benkler, Kevin Kelly, and others — believe that the Internet is generally improving our culture, economy, and society for the better. They believe the Net has empowered and liberated the masses, sparked unparalleled human creativity and communication, provided greater personalization and customization of media content, and created greater diversity of thought and a more deliberative democracy. By contrast, the Internet pessimists — including Nick Carr, Andrew Keen, Lee Siegel, and others — argue that the Internet is destroying popular culture and professional media, calling “truth” and “authority” into question by over-glamorizing amateurism and user-generated content, and that increased personalization is damaging deliberative democracy by leading to homogenization, close-mindedness, and an online echo-chamber. Needless to say, it’s a very heated debate!

I am currently working on a greatly expanded version of my “Net optimists vs. pessimists” essay for a magazine in which I will draw out more of these distinctions and weigh the arguments made by those in both camps. I plan on concluding that article by arguing that the optimists generally have the better of the argument, but that the pessimists make some fair points about the downsides of the Net’s radically disintermediating role on culture and economy.

So, this got me thinking that I needed to come up with some sort of a label for my middle-of-the-road position as well as a statement of my personal beliefs. As far as labels go, I guess I would call myself a “pragmatic optimist” since I generally side with the optimists in most of these debates, but not without some occasional reservations. Specifically, I don’t always subscribe to the Pollyanna-ish, rose-colored view of the world that some optimists seem to adopt. But the outright Chicken Little-like Ludditism of some Internet pessimists is even more over-the-top at times. Anyway, what follows is my “Pragmatic (Internet) Optimist’s Creed” which better explains my views. (Again, read my old essay first for some context about the relevant battle lines in this intellectual war).

The Pragmatic (Internet) Optimist’s Creed

I believe that the Internet is reshaping our culture, economy, and society – in most ways for the better, but not without some 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 vital ones (ex: daily local newspapers) will struggle to re-invent themselves, or may wither away entirely.

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 offered society enormous 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.

I believe there is a difference between “remix culture” and “ripoff culture.” Remixing (including mash-ups of all sorts) generally enhances and extends culture and creativity. Blatant content piracy, on the other hand, can discourage the creative efforts of the masses. 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 espoused by some about how the Net “remaking man” or changing human nature in a fundamental way. The Internet does not liberate us from all earthly constraints and it cannot magically solve all of humanity’s problems.

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

I believe in the 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 harmful, speech and content. On net, however, (excuse the pun) the Internet is the most important medium of human communication and expression that the world has ever known.

In sum, I believe 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.

This afternoon at the New America Foundation, Jonathan Zittrain and I engaged in a spirited debate about his provocative new book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. As always, Jonathan gave an us an interesting and highly entertaining show, and it was a great honor for me to be given the opportunity to provide some feedback about his book. I’ve been quite critical of the thesis that Jonathan sets forth in his book, and I have discussed my reservations in a lengthy book review and a series of follow-up essays here and elsewhere. (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).

Jonathan opens with about 45 minutes of remarks and I come into the conversation around the 49 mark of the video. Michael Calabrese of NAF also has some comments about Jonathan’s book after I speak and then there is some interaction with the audience.

If you’re here in D.C. next Thursday, you might want to drop by the New America Foundation to watch Jonathan Zittrain and me go at it about his important new book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It.  Our debate will take place on Thursday, November 6th from 3:30 – 5:00 p.m. at New America Foundation headquarters (1630 Connecticut Ave, NW, 7th Floor).  My old friend (but frequent intellectual sparring partner) Michael Calabrese will also be speaking.  Michael is the Director of New America’s “Wireless Future Program” and one of the all-around nicest guys in the world of tech policy.  You can RSVP for the event here.

I’ve been quite critical of the thesis that Jonathan sets forth in his book, and I have discussed my reservations in a lengthy book review and a series of follow-up essays here and elsewhere. (Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). We’ve also debated his book on the an NPR-Boston affiliate station if you care to hear a preview of our debate next week.  That show is online here.

I encourage you to join us for what promises to be a very interesting discussion.  As I pointed out in my original review of his book, if you have never had the chance to hear Jonathan speak, you’re in for a real treat.  He is, bar none, the most entertaining tech policy wonk in the world.

Again, RSVP here.

“Hasn’t Steve Jobs learned anything in the last 30 years?” asks Farhad Manjoo of Slate in an interesting piece about “The Cell Phone Wars” currently raging between Apple’s iPhone and the Google’s new G1, Android-based phone. Manjoo wonders if whether Steve Jobs remembers what happen the last time he closed up a platform: “because Apple closed its platform, it was IBM, Dell, HP, and especially Microsoft that reaped the benefits of Apple’s innovations.” Thus, if Jobs didn’t learn his lesson, will he now with the iPhone? Manjoo continues:

Well, maybe he has—and maybe he’s betting that these days, “openness” is overrated. For one thing, an open platform is much more technically complex than a closed one. Your Windows computer crashes more often than your Mac computer because—among many other reasons—Windows has to accommodate a wider variety of hardware. Dell’s machines use different hard drives and graphics cards and memory chips than Gateway’s, and they’re both different from Lenovo’s. The Mac OS, meanwhile, has to work on just a small range of Apple’s rigorously tested internal components—which is part of the reason it can run so smoothly. And why is your PC glutted with viruses and spyware? The same openness that makes a platform attractive to legitimate developers makes it a target for illegitimate ones.

I discussed these issues in greater detail in my essay on”Apple, Openness, and the Zittrain Thesis” and in a follow-up essay about how the Apple iPhone 2.0 was cracked in mere hours. My point in these and other essays is that the whole “open vs. closed” dichotomy is greatly overplayed. Each has its benefits and drawbacks, but there is no reason we need to make a false choice between the two for the sake of “the future of the Net” or anything like that.

In fact, the hybrid world we live in — full of a wide variety of open and proprietary platforms, networks, and solutions — presents us with the best of all worlds. As I argued in my original review of Jonathan Zittrain’s book, “Hybrid solutions often make a great deal of sense. They offer creative opportunities within certain confines in an attempt to balance openness and stability.”  It’s a sign of great progress that we now have different open vs. closed models that appeal to different types of users.  It’s a false choice to imagine that we need to choose between these various models.

Which raises a second point I always stress: There are an infinite number of points along the “open vs. closed” spectrum.  In reality, there are very few products that are perfectly “open” or “closed” out there. These are terms of art, not science.  The iPhone is becoming more “open” with each passing day.  Granted, it’s not as open as the Windows Mobile and certainly not as open as Android, but many people feel those platforms aren’t perfectly open either, or have that they have their own sets of problems.  Bottom line is, you can shop around and find the phone (and level of “openness”) that is right for you. No one is forcing you to buy an iPhone.

Third, efforts to tightly bottle up any technology or business model these days are usually doomed to fail. It’s not just the iPhone that is cracked in mere hours these days; seemingly every new gadget and service has a small army of hackers waiting to pounce when the product doesn’t do everything that consumers want it to. It’s getting harder and harder for product developers to “cripple” or limit functionality out of the gate.  They either offer it immediately or someone else we make sure it is offered for them.

Fourth and final point: The proper policy position with regards to the “open vs. closed” debate should be one of techno-agnosticism.  Lawmakers and courts should not be tilting the balance in one direction or the other.  Let the great experiment (and debate) continue.

I swear I’m not trying to pick on Jonathan Zittrain, but I continue to find examples that create problems for his thesis from The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It that the whole world is going to hell because of the rise of what he contemptuously calls “sterile, tethered devices.” Again, in his provocative book, Zittrain argues that, for a variety of reasons, the glorious days of the generative, open Internet and general-purpose PCs are supposedly giving way to closed networks and closed devices. In my lengthy review of his book, I argued that Zittrain was over-stating things and creating a false choice of possible futures from which we must choose. I see no reason why we can’t have the best of both worlds–a world full of plenty of tethered appliances, but also plenty of generativity and openness. In a follow-up essay, I pointed out how Apple’s products create a particular problem for Zittrain’s thesis because even though they are “sterile and tethered,” there is no doubt that the company’s approach has produced some wonderful results. As I said..

Personally… I prefer all those “general purpose” devices that Zittrain lionizes. But, again, we can have both. Let Steve Jobs be a control freak and keep those walls around Apple’s digital garden high and tight if he wants. There are plenty of other wide open gardens for the rest of us to play in.

In my original review, I briefly mentioned another problem for the Zittrain thesis: old people! I was reminded about this when I was reading this New York Times article today entitled, “At a Certain Age, Simplicity Sells in High-Tech Gadgets,” by Alina Tugend. Tugend argues:

All right, everyone under the age of 40, go run around the block or something. This column is not for you. It is for people like me, inching toward 50, who are, let us say, not technology-averse, but do not embrace it with the unquestioning love that our children do. For them, no gadget is unnecessary, no add-on excessive, no upgrade superfluous. Now, I know this is not just a generational divide. Some people of any age — we all know a few — buy every new gizmo, the more bells and whistles and buttons, the better. And some people in their 20s and 30s are not enamored with the high-tech side of life. But for those of us who remember getting off the couch to change the channel, technology is not necessarily as innate a part of our lives as it is for those chronologically behind us. I’m sure many of you have played the game with your children, seeing what most shocks them: “We had to watch movies in theaters!” “Phones were attached to the wall!” “We only had an AM-FM radio in the car!” And my personal favorite, “I typed my college senior thesis on an electric typewriter, and used Wite-Out for mistakes!” O.K., enough dawdling on memory lane. The point is that technology does not always come naturally. And everything seems to be getting more diminutive and more complex just as I am getting older and slower. “There are folks who are feeling that things are getting too complicated,” said Jim Barry, a spokesman for the Consumer Electronics Association. “The good news is that you have a lot of choices. The bad news is that you have a lot of choices.”

What this proves is that preferences cannot be generalized. What’s good for tech geeks and the digerati may not be best for everyone else. Here’s how I put it in my original review of Zittrain’s book:

put yourself in the shoes of a mere mortal. It’s easy for many us who are tech geeks to look down our noses at those who seem to want to have the hand held through cyberspace or digital experiences. But there’s nothing wrong with those people who seek stability and security in digital devices and their networking experiences—even if they find those solutions in the form of “tethered appliances.” Not everyone wants to have the same cyber-experiences we do. Not everyone wants to reprogram their mobile phones, hack their consoles, write their own code, or even just write a blog or join a social networking site. Millions upon millions of people live perfectly normal lives without ever doing any of these things! (It’s true, I even met a couple of these people… They are called my parents!) Still, many of those mere mortals WILL want to use many of the same toys we tech geeks use, or take cautious steps into the occasional cold pool called cyberspace—one tippy toe at a time. Why shouldn’t those folks be accommodated with “lesser” devices?

Tugend’s NYT article points out that the market for such devices is developing rapidly because there is hot demand for “simpler” devices (i.e., Zittrain’s much-lamented “sterile, tethered devices”):

Consider the ubiquitous cellphone. Two models of phones, Jitterbug by GreatCall Inc. and Coupe by Verizon, offer the most basic services available. One version of the Samsung Jitterbug, for example, has only three buttons: one you can program to call one number, say a friend, work or home; another to call a live operator; and a third to call 911. The other Jitterbug is more like a regular phone, but both have dial tones and larger keypads. Each Jitterbug costs $147, with minutes extra. There is no contract required. Although the Jitterbug is being marketed primarily to older people (hearing aid compatible), with no cameras, games or confusing icons, I can certainly see the appeal. My children, however, laughed when they heard about the phone. “What’s the point with no games?” my older son asked. Consumer Reports, in fact, called the Jitterbug a cellphone “for the technology weary.” The Coupe ($40 with a two-year calling plan) is aimed at a similar market. It has a few more features than the Jitterbug. Both phones have received mixed reviews from users. Microsoft and Apple have certainly noticed this growing market. Last year, Microsoft began selling the SeniorPC (Memo: may want to think about a name change). Hewlett-Packard’s computers, available as desktops or laptops, come with mental acuity games, prescription software (that provides reminders when to take medication at the correct dosage and when to reorder, as well as medical history), financial software and the option of a keyboard with larger buttons. They can also be used with a simplified desktop screen that hides options, for those who need just a few functions, said Rob Sinclair, director for accessibility at Microsoft. “A lot of technology was originally developed for people with severe disabilities,” Mr. Sinclair said. “But these solutions are proving valuable to a much broader range of people.” Many of these features, known as “ease of access settings,” are automatically available with Windows Vista, like screen readers that audibly describe what is on the screen, screen magnifiers, colors and fonts for easy reading and speech recognition, which allows you to direct the computer with your voice. We have Windows XP, the earlier version of the operating system, and it is easy to click into the accessibility options, which do not include speech recognition, through the control panel. But it has a wheelchair icon, which has been eliminated in the later version. “We now talk about ‘ease of access’ to a computer rather than ‘accessibility,’ ” Mr. Sinclair said. “The subtle change in language reflects a significant change in our approach.”

And what’s wrong with this? Answer: Nothing! People are getting the choices and configurations they want. Older generations are simply not comfortable with the “general purpose” devices that tinker-happy gadgeteers like Zittrain and me prefer. Shouldn’t those people get to enjoy some of the same digital experiences and communications options that the rest of us do without being expected to configure their cell phones or program their PCs?

Again, markets are responding to these needs, but not in ways that Prof. Zittrain prefers. Perhaps in another 25 years, when today’s generation of techno-geeks are grandparents, we’ll all be perfectly comfortable with the devices and networks that Zittrain (and I) prefer. For now, that is not enough. People demand more choices–even if they are “sterile and tethered.” They should get them, and luckily they are.

Jonathan Zittrain, who is affiliated with Oxford University and Harvard’s Berkman Center, recently released a provocatively titled book: The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It. It’s an interesting read and I recommend you pick it up despite what I’ll say about it in a moment. (Incidentally, if you ever have a chance to hear Jonathan speak, I highly recommend you do so. He is, bar none, the most entertaining tech policy geek in the world. Imagine Dennis Miller with a cyberlaw degree.)

Jonathan’s book contrasts two different paradigms that he argues could define the Net’s future: The “generative” Net versus what he refers to as a world of “tethered, sterile appliances.” By “generative” he means technologies or networks that invite or allow tinkering and all sorts of creative uses. Think general-purpose personal computers and the traditional “best efforts” Internet. “Tethered, sterile appliances” by contrast, are technologies or networks that discourage or disallow tinkering. Basically, “take it or leave it” proprietary devices like Apple’s iPhone or the TiVo, or online walled gardens like the old AOL and current cell phone networks.

Jonathan’s thesis is that, for a variety of reasons [viruses, Spam, identify theft, etc], we run the risk of seeing the glorious days of the generative, open Net give way to more tethered devices and closed networks. He states:

“Today, the same qualities that led to [the success of the Internet and general-purpose PCs] are causing [them] to falter. As ubiquitous as Internet technologies are today, the pieces are in place for a wholesale shift away from the original chaotic design that has given rise to the modern information revolution. This counterrevolution would push mainstream users away from the generative Internet that fosters innovation and disruption, to an appliancized network that incorporates some of the most powerful features of today’s Internet while greatly limiting its innovative capacity—and, for better or worse, heightening its regulability. A seductive and more powerful generation of proprietary networks and information appliances is waiting for round two. If the problems associated with the Internet and PC are not addressed, a set of blunt solutions will likely be applied to solves problems at the expense of much of what we love about today’s information ecosystem.” [p. 8].

In other words, Jonathan fears that many people will flock to tethered appliances in a search for stability or security. That’s bad, in his opinion, because those tethered appliances are less “open” and more likely to be “regulable,” either by large corporate intermediaries or government officials. Thus, the “future of the Internet” he is hoping to “stop” is a world dominated by tethered digital appliances because it is too limiting and too easy for others to control.

My primary objection to Jonathan’s thesis is that (1) he seems to be over-stating things quite a bit; and in doing so, (2) he creates a false choice of possible futures from which we must choose. What I mean by false choice is that Jonathan doesn’t seem to believe a hybrid future is possible or desirable. I see no reason why we can’t have the best of both worlds–a world full of plenty of tethered appliances, but also plenty of generativity and openness.

Importantly–and Jonathan acknowledges this point to some extent–the boundaries between “generative” and “tethered appliances” are growing increasingly murky. Social networking sites, for example, allow a great deal of generative activity, but they also impose some limitations on what can be posted, or limit the porting of profiles / information over to other sites. Similarly, the iPhone—which Jonathan calls a “sterile” technology—was completely closed at first, but is now growing more open to tinkering with the SDK rollout. But it’s unlikely it will ever be perfectly open. Finally, the TiVo, which Jonathan also throws into the “sterile” bucket, is a tightly controlled technology in some ways, but allows consumers to do some truly wonderful things with it within certain confines.

And there’s a good reason for all of this: Hybrid solutions often make a great deal of sense. They offer creative opportunities within certain confines in an attempt to balance openness and stability. And this brings us back to how Jonathan is over-stating his thesis, in my opinion; he just doesn’t convince me that the old order—of open networks & general-purpose PCs—is dying. It’s still around and always will be. It’s just that a new crop of characters—let’s call them “mere mortals”—have joined us in cyberspace and are increasingly part of the ongoing digital experience. But those of us who are true-blue tech geeks and tinker-happy gadgeteers still have plenty of generative toys at our disposal even though the mere mortals now walk among us.

For example, like many other tech geeks, I have an outrageously expensive mobile phone that allows me to add just about any application I want to it. Problem is, the more I muck with it, the slower and less reliable it gets in some ways, which is precisely why some mere mortals just want a good old-fashion “sterile” phone that won’t give them any hassles. Regardless, on the “generative-vs.-sterile appliance” spectrum, the range of mobile devices just continues to grow and grow in both directions. You can decide what type of device you want. I want something more generative—warts and all. My wife—a true mere mortal if there ever was one—just wants something that works, even if has far fewer options in terms of generative capabilities. (Of course, she’s not trying to compose blog posts like this on her phone like I am! She just wants to check e-mail on occasion and make phone calls. Imagine that: using a phone just to make calls. Crazy!)

So, my question to Jonathan is—to quote the great philosopher Rodney King—Why can’t we all just get along? Isn’t it a sign of progress that we now have different models that appeal to different types of users? After all, those supposedly “sterile” applications like the iPhone and Tivo are loved by millions. Even calling them “sterile” seems a bit silly to me. After all, those devices have “fostered innovation and disruption” just like PCs and the Net have, just in a different way. Regardless, does Jonathan think all those people would really be better off if they were forced to fend for themselves with completely open iPhones and TiVos? Should the iPhone be shipped to market with no apps loaded on the main screen, forcing everyone to get them for on their own? Should TiVos have no interactive menus out-of-the-box, forcing you to go online and find some homebrew that someone whipped up to give you an open source guide in all its blocky ugliness?

Again, before you answer that question for yourself, put yourself in the shoes of a mere mortal. It’s easy for many us who are tech geeks to look down our noses at those who seem to want to have the hand held through cyberspace or digital experiences. But there’s nothing wrong with those people who seek stability and security in digital devices and their networking experiences—even if they find those solutions in the form of “tethered appliances.” Not everyone wants to have the same cyber-experiences we do. Not everyone wants to reprogram their mobile phones, hack their consoles, write their own code, or even just write a blog or join a social networking site. Millions upon millions of people live perfectly normal lives without ever doing any of these things! (It’s true, I’ve even met a couple of these people… They are called my parents!) Still, many of those mere mortals WILL want to use many of the same toys we tech geeks use, or take cautious steps into the occasional cold pool called cyberspace—one tippy toe at a time. Why shouldn’t those folks be accommodated with “lesser” devices?

I fear that Jonathan has spent a little too much time in the ivory tower surrounded by countless people like me who are almost part cyborg in that they use so much technology that they are practically at one with their devices. (If I don’t have a laptop in my backpack and a mobile phone in my pocket I start to experience phantom pains, like I am missing appendages). If one finds themselves stuck in an echo chamber with enough of these other cyborg-humans, they can start to fear the consequences of what might happen when the mere mortals start walking in the front door and asking asinine questions about how to boot up their devices or log on to certain websites. But we have nothing to fear from these aliens. They can have their closed systems and we can have our open systems. We can tinker; they can just play with what they are given. We can be highly interactive cyber-goobers; they can be utterly passive couch potatoes. And so on.

Moreover, a big part of the gap here is simply generational and will pass with time. Once today’s tech geeks are grandparents, most of our kids and grandkids will largely demand the same sort of systems we do because they will be more accustomed to the occasional downsides that accompany the Wild West that cyberspace can sometimes be. But there will always be a crowd who demands some hand-holding and added security.

Jonathan’s short-term concern about how the desire for more stable and secure systems will lead to a more “regulable” world, is understandable. Concerns about privacy, child safety, defamation, identity theft and so on, will continue to lead to calls for more intervention. At the corporate level, however, some of that potential intervention makes a great deal of sense. For example, if ISPs are in a position to help do something to help alleviate some of these problems—especially Spam and viruses—what’s wrong with that? Of course, it gets a lot trickier with things like child safety and copyright issues. That’s where excessive intervention by ISPs could create serious speech and privacy problems—namely in the form of a forced surrender of anonymity.

But, again, I think there is a happy balance here. Bruce Owen, one of my intellectual heroes, really nails it in his response to Jonathan’s thesis:

“Why does Zittrain think that overreaction is likely, and that its costs will be unusually large? Neither prediction is self-evident. Faced with the risk of infection or mishap, many users already restrain their own taste for PC-mediated adventure, or install protective software with similar effect. For the most risk-averse PC users, it may be reasonable to welcome “tethered” PCs whose suppliers compete to offer the most popular combinations of freedom and safety. Such risk-averse users are reacting, in part, to negative externalities from the poor hygiene of other users, but such users in turn create positive externalities by limiting the population of PCs vulnerable to contagion or hijacking. As far as one can tell, this can as easily produce balance or under reaction as overreaction—it is an empirical question. But, as long as flexibility has value to users, suppliers of hardware and interconnection services will have incentives to offer it, in measured ways, or as options.”

That’s exactly right. We can find happy middle-ground solutions. By contrast, Jonathan’s alternative solutions to these problems are quite amorphous. He speaks of the need for a “latter-day Manhattan project, not to build a bomb but to design the tools and conventions by which to continuously defuse one.” (p. 173). That seems like a strange metaphor or paradigm for him to choose since the Manhattan project was highly secretive and centrally planned, the exact opposite of what he seems to desire. But, again, what he desires remains very murky. It seems he wants to solve the problems brought about by openness with more openness—primarily in the form of collective intelligence and action. If we all just find smart ways to work together, we can improve open systems, he argues. Well, sure we can.. sorta. But it will never work perfectly on its own. Some people are going to want more safety and security. They should get it, even if comes in the form of “sterile appliances and tethered devices.” Because, again, the rest of us always have the option to choose something else.

One proposed solution that Jonathan does spell out in a bit more detail troubles me greatly. When discussing the future of Net neutrality, he makes some interesting arguments similar to those we often make here about how unlikely it is that network intermediaries will really be able to stifle the free flow of bits. But then Jonathan goes on to say:

“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.” (p. 181)

He then blasts cable and satellite boxes as being “walled gardens” and creating “mediated experiences” and goes on to ask: “So when should we consider network neutrality-style mandates for appliancized systems?” I would have hoped the answer would be NEVER, since we don’t want pesky FCC bureaucrats making those sort of calls for us and stifling device innovation as a result. Alas, Jonathan seems to feel differently, and 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)

I have many problems with that logic. 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.

Anyway, read Jonathan’s book. I’ve probably gone a bit too hard on him here, but it’s an important and enlightening book about one possible vision of the Net’s future. In the end, I guess my outlook is just a little rosier than his.

( Update: Following this review, I discussed my reservations in a series of follow-up essays. (Part 2, 3, 4, 5).  We’ve also debated his book on the an NPR-Boston [audio is here] and we debated in person at New America Foundation in early November [video is here]. Finally, I named Jonathan’s book the “most important tech policy book of 2008” on my end-of-year Top 10 list.)