Here’s a new animated explainer video that I narrated for the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project. The 3-minute video discusses how earlier “tech giants” rose and fell as technological innovation and new competition sent them off to what the New York Times once appropriately called “The Hall of Fallen Giants.” It’s a continuing testament to the power of “creative destruction” to upend and reorder markets, even as many pundits insist that there’s no possibility change can happen.

This is an important lesson for us to remember today, as I noted in the recent editorial for The Hill about why, “Open-ended antitrust is an innovation killer“:

Those who worry about today’s largest tech giants becoming supposedly unassailable monopolies should consider how similar fears were expressed not so long ago about other tech titans, many of which we laugh about today. Just 14 years ago, headlines proclaimed that “MySpace Is a Natural Monopoly,” and asked, “Will MySpace Ever Lose Its Monopoly?” We all know how that “monopoly” ceased to exist. At the same time, pundits insisted “Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone,” since “there is no likelihood that Apple can be successful in a business this competitive.” The smartphone market of that era was viewed as completely under the control of BlackBerry, Palm, Motorola and Nokia. A few years prior to that, critics lambasted the merger of AOL and TimeWarner as a new corporate “Big Brother” that would decimate digital diversity and online competition.

Accordingly, policymakers should be humble and recognize that, “it’s better to let rivalry and innovation emerge organically,” and only bring in the wrecking ball of heavy-handed antitrust regulation as a last resort, I argued. Technological change and entrepreneurialism has a way of upending and reordering markets when we least expect it. Just ask all those members of the Hall of Fallen Giants.

Does anyone remember Blockbuster and Hollywood Video? I assume most of you do, but wow, doesn’t it seem like forever ago when we actually had to drive to stores to get movies to watch at home? What a drag that was!

Yet, just 15 years ago, that was the norm and those two firms were the titans of video distribution, so much so that federal regulators at the Federal Trade Commission looked to stop their hegemony through antitrust intervention. But then those firms and whatever “market power” they possessed quickly evaporated as a wave of Schumpeterian creative destruction swept through video distribution markets. Both those firms and antitrust regulators had completely failed to anticipate the tsunami of technological and marketplace changes about to hit in the form of alternative online video distribution platforms as well as the rise of smartphones and robust nationwide mobile networks.

Today, this serves as a cautionary tale of what happens when regulatory hubris triumphs over policy humility, as Trace Mitchell and I explain in this new essay for  National Review Online entitled, “The Crystal Ball of Antitrust Regulators Is Cracked.” As we note:

There is no discernable end point to the process of entrepreneurial-driven change. In fact, it seems to be proliferating rapidly. To survive, even the most successful companies must be willing to quickly dispense with yesterday’s successful business plans, lest they be steamrolled by the relentless pace of technological change and ever-shifting consumer demands. It is easy to understand why some people find it hard to imagine a time when Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google won’t be quite as dominant as they are today. But it was equally challenging 20 years ago to imagine that those same companies could disrupt the giants of that era.

Hopefully today’s policymakers will have a little more patience and trust competition and continued technological innovation to bring us still more wonderful video choices.

[OC] Blockbuster Video US store locations between 1986 and 2019 from r/dataisbeautiful

Here’s a webinar video of a discussion I had recently with Kevin Gomez and his colleague at the Institute for Economic Inquiry at Creighton University’s School of Business.  We discussed my new book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments and the future of “permissionless innovation” more generally. My thanks to Kevin and his team at Creighton for inviting me to join them for a fun discussion. Topics include:

• why evasive entrepreneurialism is expanding
• the growth of innovation arbitrage
• the difference between technologies that are “born free” versus “born in captivity”
• the nature of “the pacing problem” and what it means for policy
• the problem with “set-it-and-forget-it” & “build-and-freeze” regulations
• technological risk and the potential for “soft law” governance
• sensible legislative reforms to advance permissionless innovation (such as “the innovator’s presumption” and “the sunsetting imperative”)
• how the COVID crisis potentially opens the Overton Window to much-needed policy change

Here’s a video chat I did today with Americans for Prosperity – Virginia. My thanks to Benjamin Knotts for hosting the discussion. We talked about my recent book (Evasive Entrepreneurs) and my last one (Permissionless Innovation). We also discussed my new proposal with Matt Mitchell and Patrick McLaughlin to create “Fresh Start Initiatives” to address rules suspended during the COVID crisis.  Watch the 30 min video here:

Here’s yesterday’s full launch event video for the release of my new book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments. My thanks to Matthew Feeney, Director of the Project on Emerging Technologies at the Cato Institute, for hosting the discussion and sorting through audience questions. The video is below and some of the topics we discussed are listed down below:

I was pleased to see the American Psychological Association’s new statement slowly reversing course on misguided past statements about video games and acts of real-world violence. As Kyle Orland reports in Ars Technica, the APA has clarified its earlier statement on this relationship between watching video game depictions of violence and actual youth behavior. The APA’s old statement said that evidence “confirms [the] link between playing violent video games and aggression.”  But the APA has come around and now says that, “there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior.” More specifically, the APA says: 

The following resolution should not be misinterpreted or misused by attributing violence, such as mass shootings, to violent video game use. Violence is a complex social problem that likely stems from many factors that warrant attention from researchers, policy makers and the public. Attributing violence to violent video gaming is not scientifically sound and draws attention away from other factors.

This is a welcome change of course because the APA’s earlier statements were being used by politicians and media activists who favored censorship of video games. Hopefully that will no longer happen.

“Monkey see, monkey do” theories of media exposure leading to acts of real-world violence have long been among the most outrageously flawed theories in the fields of psychology and media studies.  All the evidence points the opposite way, as I documented a decade ago in a variety of studies. (For a summary, see my 2010 essay, “More on Monkey See-Monkey Do Theories about Media Violence & Real-World Crime.”)

In fact, there might even be something to the “cathartic effect hypothesis,” or the idea first articulated by Aristotle (“katharsis”) that watching dramatic portrayals of violence could lead to “the proper purgation of these emotions.” (See my 2010 essay on this, “Video Games, Media Violence & the Cathartic Effect Hypothesis.”)

Of course, this doesn’t mean that endless exposure to video game or TV and movie violence is a good thing. Prudence and good parenting are still essential. Some limits are smart. But the idea that a kid playing or watching violent act will automatically become violent themselves was always nonsense. It’s time we put that theory to rest. Thanks to the new APA statement, we are one step closer.

P.S. I recently penned an essay about my long love affair with video games that you might find entertaining: “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics”

A decade ago, a heated debate raged over the benefits of “a la carte” (or “unbundling”) mandates for cable and satellite TV operators. Regulatory advocates said consumers wanted to buy all TV channels individually to lower costs. The FCC under former Republican Chairman Kevin Martin got close to mandating a la carte regulation.

But the math just didn’t add up. A la carte mandates, many economists noted, would actually cost consumers just as much (or even more) once they repurchased all the individual channels they desired. And it wasn’t clear people really wanted a completely atomized one-by-one content shopping experience anyway.

Throughout media history, bundles of all different sorts had been used across many different sectors (books, newspapers, music, etc.). This was because consumers often enjoyed the benefits of getting a package of diverse content delivered to them in an all-in-one package. Bundling also helped media operators create and sustain a diversity of content using creative cross-subsidization schemes. The traditional newspaper format and business is perhaps the greatest example of media bundling. The classifieds and sports sections helped cross-subsidize hard news (especially local reporting). See this 2008 essay by Jeff Eisenach and me for details for more details on the economics of a la carte.

Yet, with the rise of cable and satellite television, some critics protested the use of bundles for delivering content. Even though it was clear that the incredible diversity of 500+ channels on pay TV was directly attributable to strong channels cross-subsidizing weaker ones, many regulatory advocates said we would be better off without bundles. Moreover, they said, online video markets could show us the path forward in the form of radically atomized content options and cheaper prices.

Flash-forward to today. As this Wall Street Journal article points out, online video providers are rejecting a la carte and recreating content bundles to keep a diversity of programming flowing. This happened in unregulated markets without any FCC rules. YouTube, Hulu, PlayStation, and many other online video providers are creating new bundles and monetization schemes.

It is also worth noting that this same sort of “re-bundling” of content is happening with online news sources and other digital platforms as various sites struggle to find content monetization schemes that can sustain diverse, high-quality content in the Digital Era. Content bundling and various paywall schemes are helping them do so.

The lesson here is that the economics of content creation and delivery are quite dynamic, challenging, and extremely hard to predict. Mandating “a la carte” unbundling of content sounded smart and well-intentioned to many people a decade ago, but it proved to be problematic even in highly competitive online markets. Thankfully, we did not mandate unbundling by law. We waited and watched to see how it naturally played out in various markets. We now have a better feel for how big of a mistake mandatory a la carte would have likely been in practice.

Last month, it was my great honor to be invited to be a keynote speaker at Lincoln Network’s Reboot 2018 “Innovation Under Threat” conference. Zach Graves interviewed me for 30 minutes about a wide range of topics, including: innovation arbitrage, evasive entrepreneurialism, technopanics, the pacing problem, permissionless innovation, technological civil disobedience, existential risk, soft law and more. They’ve now posted the full event video and you can watch it down below.

[first published at The Bridge on August 9, 2018]

What happens when technological innovation outpaces the ability of laws and regulations to keep up?

This phenomenon is known as “the pacing problem,” and it has profound ramifications for the governance of emerging technologies. Indeed, the pacing problem is becoming the great equalizer in debates over technological governance because it forces governments to rethink their approach to the regulation of many sectors and technologies.

The Innovation Cornucopia

Had Rip Van Winkle woken up his famous nap today, he’d be shocked by all the changes around him. At-home genetics tests, personal drones, driverless cars, lab-grown meats, and 3D-printed prosthetic limbs are just some of the amazing innovations that would boggle his mind. New devices and services are flying at us so rapidly that we sometimes forget that most did not even exist a short time ago. At this point, it feels like our smartphones have been in our lives forever, but even just a decade ago, very few of us had one. Likewise, plenty of people now regularly enjoy the benefits of the sharing economy, but ten years ago, Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb did not even exist. Most of the social networking platforms or online video and audio streaming services that we use today had not even been created 15 years ago. Back then, Netflix’s DVD mail subscription service seemed downright revolutionary.

With every innovation comes more questions about how the law should keep pace, or whether it even can. “There has always been a pacing problem,” observes Yale University bioethicist Wendell Wallach, author of  A Dangerous Master: How to Keep Technology from Slipping beyond Our Control. But what Wallach and many other scholars worry about today is that the pace of change has been kicked into overdrive, making it more difficult than ever for traditional legal schemes and regulatory mechanisms to stay relevant. Larry Downes refers to this as “The Law of Disruption.” In his 2009 book on this “law,” Downes showed how “technology changes exponentially, but social, economic, and legal systems change incrementally” and that this law was becoming “a simple but unavoidable principle of modern life.”

Moore’s Law Quickens the Pace

There are three primary reasons the pacing problem is such a force in our modern world. The root cause lies in the power of “combinatorial innovation,” which is driven by “Moore’s Law.”  The Information Revolution spawned a stunning array of new technological capabilities that build on top of one another in a symbiotic fashion. Think about the shared foundational elements of most modern inventions: microchips, sensors, digital code, big data, cloud computing, remote data storage, wireless networking and geolocation capabilities, machine-learning, cryptography, and more. Each of these underlying capabilities is becoming faster, cheaper, smaller, more powerful, and easier to find and use. Innovators are combining them as part of their ongoing search for new and better ways of doing things.

Moore’s Law powers these developments. Moore’s Law is the principle named after Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore, who first observed in 1965 that “computing would dramatically increase in power, and decrease in relative cost, at an exponential pace” in coming years. Indeed, it has continued to do so for the past half century for many information technologies. A recent Technology Policy Institute white paper noted that “data transit prices fell from about $1200 per Mbps in 1998 to $0.02 per Mbps in 2017.”

These forces are now revolutionizing other sectors as “software eats the world” and innovators utilize these new technologies to address nearly every conceivable need and want. In the field of genetics, the biological equivalent of Moore’s Law is known as the “Carlson curve.” The past two decades have seen the cost of sequencing a human genome fall from over $100 million to under $1,000, a rate nearly three times faster than Moore’s Law.

What the Public Wants, the Public Gets

The second reason the pacing problem is accelerating is that the public wants it to! It is true that many people say they are uneasy with many emerging technologies. When new gadgets and services first gain attention, a “technopanic” attitude often ensues. That is unsurprising because, as others have noted, “fear has gone hand in hand with technological advancements throughout history.”

But societal attitudes toward technological change often shift rapidly. They do so even faster today as citizens quickly assimilate new tools into their daily lives and then expect that even more and better tools will be delivered tomorrow. As more people begin to realize how new technologies improve our lives in meaningful ways, it becomes extremely hard for policymakers to take those innovations away or even tell us not to expect better ones. This relationship between technological change and societal expectations acts as an extraordinarily powerful check on the ability of regulators to “roll back the clock” on innovative activities.

Broken Government Exacerbates the Problem

Finally, the pacing problem is becoming more acute because “demosclerosis” and “kludgeocracy” have taken hold within American government. Jonathan Rauch coined the term demosclerosis in his 1999 book Government’s End: Why Washington Stopped Working to describe “government’s progressive loss of the ability to adapt.” “[A]s layer is dropped upon layer,” he argued, “the accumulated mass becomes gradually less rational and less flexible.”

Instead of cleaning up old legalistic messes and adapting to the times, government solutions are more often clumsily cobbled together to patch past problems and create temporary solutions. Steven Teles refers to this as kludgeocracy. “The complexity and incoherence of our government often make it difficult for us to understand just what that government is doing,” Teles says. Kludgeocracy creates serious costs for individual citizens, governments themselves, and to our democratic systems more generally, he argues. Taken together, demosclerosis and kludgeocracy breed highly dysfunctional governments and make it even easier for the pacing problem to speed ahead.

Can Policymakers Adapt?

Regulators are not oblivious to the challenges posed by the pacing problem. “I have said more than once that innovation moves at the speed of imagination and that government has traditionally moved at, well, the speed of government,” remarked Michael Heurta, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, in a 2016 speech regarding drones. Shortly after Huerta made those comments, the Department of Transportation released a report on the regulation of driverless car technology which noted that “The speed with which [driverless cars] are advancing, combined with the complexity and novelty of these innovations, threatens to outpace the Agency’s conventional regulatory processes and capabilities.”

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulators have increasingly referenced the pacing problem when discussing the challenge of keeping up with new medical innovations.  The New York Times recently asked Dr. Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, how the agency planned to deal with hundreds of “rogue” stem cell treatment clinics. “There are hundreds and hundreds of these clinics,” he said. “We simply don’t have the bandwidth to go after all of them at once.”

The pacing problem has even crept into antitrust enforcement. The US Department of Justice (DOJ) sought to break up Microsoft in the late 1990s, but as the legal proceedings dragged on through the early 2000’s, the market moved and made the DOJ’s case moot. Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox emerged as legitimate competitors to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer without regulatory remedy. In the end, Microsoft reached a settlement with the DOJ that fell far short of the government’s original ambitions to bust up the firm, all because the market moved at a pace much faster than the regulator’s pace. More recent antitrust action in the US and EU also suffer from the pacing problem. Multi-year antitrust investigations reach conclusions that don’t reflect market trends in the intervening years and offer remedies that may be “too little, too late,” especially in the information technology sector.

Is the Pacing Problem Really the Pacing Benefit?

What should policymakers do in light of these new challenges? The extremes will not work. Lawmakers or regulators cannot simply double-down on the lethargic and unwieldy technocratic regulatory schemes of the past. Command-and-control tactics are not going to be effective in an age when technology evolves in a quicksilver fashion. In a world where “innovation arbitrage” is easier than ever, repressive crackdowns on new tech will often backfire. Evasive entrepreneurs will often move to those jurisdictions where their innovative acts are treated more hospitably. That, too, exacerbates the pacing problem.

From the perspective of many innovation advocates, this will make it seem like the pacing problem is more like the pacing  benefit. Generally speaking, that intuition is sound. Innovation is the fundamental driver of human betterment. We need more “moonshots”—“radical but feasible solutions to important problems”—to ensure that current and future generations enjoy more choices, greater mobility, increased wealth, better health, and longer lifespans. We don’t want archaic regulatory schemes and regimes holding that back.

Constructive Solutions

But policymakers will not abandon oversight of emerging technologies altogether, nor should we want them to. The potential harms associated with some new technologies could be significant enough that a certain degree of regulatory oversight will be required. But the pacing problem means the old, inflexible, top-down approaches will need to be discarded and that the administrative state itself must become more entrepreneurial.

In a forthcoming law review article entitled, “Soft Law for Hard Problems: The Governance of Emerging Technologies in an Uncertain Future,” Jennifer Skees, Ryan Hagemann, and I discuss how “soft law” mechanisms—multi-stakeholder processes, industry best practices and standards, workshops, agency guidance, and more—can help fill the governance gap as the pacing problem accelerates. Many agencies are already tapping soft law tools to help guide the development of new technologies such as driverless cars, drones, the Internet of Things, mobile medical applications, artificial intelligence, and others. In fact, we argue that soft law has already become the dominant form of technological governance for emerging tech in the US.

Critics might decry soft law as either being too lax (and open to private abuse) or too informal (and open to government abuse), but the pacing problem makes both arguments increasingly irrelevant. We need a new governance vision for the technological age. Our new governance systems must be more flexible and adaptive than the heavy-handed regulatory regimes that preceded them.

___________________

Related Reading

• Adam Thierer, “Evasive Entrepreneurialism and Technological Civil Disobedience: Basic Definitions,” The Bridge, July 20, 2018.
• Adam Thierer, “Making the World Safe for More Moonshots,” The Bridge, February 5, 2018.
• Jennifer Skees, “Do You Need a License to Innovate?” The Bridge, June 29, 2018,
• Andrea O’Sullivan & Adam Thierer, “3D Printers, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Tech Regulation,” The Bridge, August 1, 2018.
• Adam Thierer, “Does “Permissionless Innovation” Even Mean Anything?” Technology Liberation Front, May 18, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “Wendell Wallach on the Challenge of Engineering Better Technology Ethics,” Technology Liberation Front,  April 20, 2016,

On March 19th, I had the chance to debate Franklin Foer at a Patrick Henry College event focused on the question, “Is Big Tech Big Brother?” It was billed as a debate over the role of technology in American society and whether government should be regulating media and technology platforms more generally.  [The full event video is here.] Foer is the author of the new book, World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech, in which he advocates a fairly expansive regulatory regime for modern information technology platforms. He is open to building on regulatory ideas from the past, including broadcast-esque licensing regimes, “Fairness Doctrine”-like mandates for digital intermediaries, “fiduciary” responsibilities, beefed-up antitrust intervention, and other types of controls. In a review of the book for Reason, and then again during the debate at Patrick Henry University, I offered some reflections on what we can learn from history about how well ideas like those worked out in practice.

My closing statement of the debate, which lasted just a little over three minutes, offers a concise summation of what that history teaches us and why it would be so dangerous to repeat the mistakes of the past by wandering down that disastrous path again. That 3-minute clip is posted below. (The audience was polled before and after the event and asked the same question each time: “Do large tech companies wield too much power in our economy, media and personal lives and if so, should government(s) intervene?” Apparently at the beginning, the poll was roughly Yes – 70% and No – 30%, but after the debated ended it has reversed, with only 30% in favor of intervention and 70% against. Glad to turn around some minds on this one!)

via ytCropper

First, I attempt to show how the central fault line in almost all modern technology policy debates revolves around “the permission question,” which asks: Must the creators of new technologies seek the blessing of public officials before they develop and deploy their innovations? How that question is answered depends on the disposition one adopts toward new inventions. Two conflicting attitudes are evident.

One disposition is known as the “precautionary principle.” Generally speaking, it refers to the belief that new innovations should be curtailed or disallowed until their developers can prove that they will not cause any harms to individuals, groups, specific entities, cultural norms, or various existing laws, norms, or traditions.

The other vision can be labeled “permissionless innovation.” It refers to the notion that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention will bring serious harm to society, innovation should be allowed to continue unabated and problems, if they develop at all, can be addressed later.

I argue that we are witnessing a grand clash of visions between these two mindsets today in almost all major technology policy discussions today.

The second major objective of the book, as is made clear by the title, is to make a forceful case in favor of the latter disposition of “permissionless innovation.” I argue that policymakers should unapologetically embrace and defend the permissionless innovation ethos — not just for the Internet but also for all new classes of networked technologies and platforms. Some of the specific case studies discussed in the book include: the “Internet of Things” and wearable technologies, smart cars and autonomous vehicles, commercial drones, 3D printing, and various other new technologies that are just now emerging.

I explain how precautionary principle thinking is increasingly creeping into policy discussions about these technologies. The urge to regulate preemptively in these sectors is driven by a variety of safety, security, and privacy concerns, which are discussed throughout the book. Many of these concerns are valid and deserve serious consideration. However, I argue that if precautionary-minded regulatory solutions are adopted in a preemptive attempt to head-off these concerns, the consequences will be profoundly deleterious.

Mye central thesis is this: Living in constant fear of hypothetical worst-case scenarios — and premising public policy upon them — means that best-case scenarios will never come about. When public policy is shaped by precautionary principle reasoning, it poses a serious threat to technological progress, economic entrepreneurialism, social adaptation, and long-run prosperity.

Again, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the various problems created by these highly disruptive technologies. But how we address these concerns matters greatly. If and when problems develop, there are many less burdensome ways to address them than through preemptive technological controls. The best solutions to complex social problems are almost always organic and “bottom-up” in nature. Luckily, there exists a wide variety of constructive approaches that can be tapped to address or alleviate concerns associated with new innovations. These include:

• education and empowerment efforts (including media literacy, digital citizenship efforts);
• social pressure from activists, academics, and the press and the public more generally.
• voluntary self-regulation and adoption of best practices (including privacy and security “by design” efforts); and,
• increased transparency and awareness-building efforts to enhance consumer knowledge about how new technologies work.

Such solutions are almost always superior to top-down, command-and-control regulatory edits and bureaucratic schemes of a “Mother, May I?” (i.e., permissioned) nature. The problem with “top-down” traditional regulatory systems is that they often tend to be overly-rigid, bureaucratic, inflexible, and slow to adapt to new realities. They focus on preemptive remedies that aim to predict the future, and future hypothetical problems that may not ever come about. Worse yet, administrative regulation generally preempts or prohibits the beneficial experiments that yield new and better ways of doing things. It raises the cost of starting or running a business or non-business venture, and generally discourages activities that benefit society.

To the extent that other public policies are needed to guide technological developments, simple legal principles are greatly preferable to technology-specific, micro-managed regulatory regimes. Again, ex ante (preemptive and precautionary) regulation is often highly inefficient, even dangerous. To the extent that any corrective legal action is needed to address harms, ex post measures, especially via the common law (torts, class actions, etc.), are typically superior. And the Federal Trade Commission will, of course, continue to play a backstop here by utilizing the broad consumer protection powers it possesses under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” In recent years, the FTC has already brought and settled many cases involving its Section 5 authority to address identity theft and data security matters. If still more is needed, enhanced disclosure and transparency requirements would certainly be superior to outright bans on new forms of experimentation or other forms of heavy-handed technological controls.

In the end, however, I argue that, to the maximum extent possible, our default position toward new forms of technological innovation must remain: “innovation allowed.” That is especially the case because, more often than not, citizens find ways to adapt to technological change by employing a variety of coping mechanisms, new norms, or other creative fixes. We should have a little more faith in the ability of humanity to adapt to the challenges new innovations create for our culture and economy. We have done it countless times before. We are creative, resilient creatures. That’s why I remain so optimistic about our collective ability to confront the challenges posed by these new technologies and prosper in the process.

If you’re interested in taking a look, you can find a free PDF of the book at the Mercatus Center website or you can find out how to order it from there as an eBook. Hardcopies are also available.

The Mercatus Center also recently hosted a book launch party for the release of the 2nd edition. The event was very well-attended and many of those present asked me to forward along specific slides or the entire deck. So, for those who asked, or others who may be interested in seeing the slides, here ya go!

And here’s the video from the event, which also incorporates these slides:

Also, back in September 2015, Sonal Chokshi was kind enough to invite me on the a16z podcast and we discussed, “Making the Case for Permissionless Innovation.” You can listen to that conversation here:

Finally, I put together a paper summarizing the major policy recommendations contained in the book. It’s entitled, “Permissionless Innovation and Public Policy: A 10-Point Blueprint.”  And then, along with Michael Wilt, I published condensed version of the paper as an essay over at  Medium. 

Materials mentioned in this post related to Permissionless Innovation project:

• BOOK: Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom 
• SLIDES: ‘Permissionless Innovation’ & the Clash of Visions over Emerging Technologies
• VIDEO: Permissionless Innovation & the Clash of Visions over Emerging Technologies
• PAPER: “Permissionless Innovation and Public Policy: A 10-Point Blueprint.”
• SUMMARY ESSAY: “Permissionless Innovation: A 10-Part Policy Checklist“
• WEBSITE: PermissionlessInnovation.org

Related Essays:

• Embracing a Culture of Permissionless Innovation
• How Attitudes about Risk & Failure Affect Innovation on Either Side of the Atlantic
• Tech Policy Threat Matrix  [see image down below]
• The Innovator’s Defense Fund: What it is and why it’s needed
• Thinking about Innovation Policy Debates: 4 Related Paradigms
• Muddling Through: How We Learn to Cope with Technological Change
• A Section 230 for the “Makers” Movement
• FTC’s Ohlhausen on Innovation, Prosperity, “Rational Optimism” & Wise Tech Policy
• A Nonpartisan Policy Vision for the Internet of Things
• What Cory Booker Gets about Innovation Policy
• CFTC’s Giancarlo on Permissionless Innovation for the Blockchain
• Problems with Precautionary Principle-Minded Tech Regulation & a Federal Robotics Commission
• Global Innovation Arbitrage: Genetic Testing Edition
• UK Competition & Markets Authority on Online Platform Regulation
• What Should the FTC Do about State & Local Barriers to Sharing Economy Innovation?
• Making Sure the “Trolley Problem” Doesn’t Derail Life-Saving Innovation
• On the Line between Technology Ethics vs. Technology Policy
• What Does It Mean to “Have a Conversation” about a New Technology?
• Defining “Technology”
• Don Boudreaux on What Fueled the “Orgy of Innovation”

Journal articles and book chapters:

• “US Medical Devices: Choices and Consequences,” (with Richard Williams and Robert Graboyes), October 21, 2015.
• “How the Internet, the Sharing Economy, and Reputational Feedback Mechanisms Solve the ‘Lemons Problem,’” (with Christopher Koopman, Anne Hobson, and Chris Kuiper), May 26, 2015.
• “The Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection Regulation: The Case for Policy Change,” (with Christopher Koopman and Matthew Mitchell), The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law 8, no. 2 (2015).
• “The Internet of Things and Wearable Technology: Addressing Privacy and Security Concerns without Derailing Innovation,” Richmond Journal of Law and Technology 21, no. 6 (2015).
• “Removing Roadblocks to Intelligent Vehicles and Driverless Cars,” (with Ryan Hagemann), Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy 5, no. 2 (2015): 339–91.
• “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 14 (2013): 309–86.
• “Privacy Law’s Precautionary Principle Problem,” Maine Law Review 66, no. 2 (2014).
• “The Pursuit of Privacy in a World Where Information Control Is Failing,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 36 (2013): 409–55.
• “A Framework for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Digital Privacy Debates,” George Mason University Law Review 20, no. 4 (Summer 2013): 1055–105.
• “The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 1: Saving the Net from Its Detractors,” in The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet, ed. Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus (Washington, DC: Tech Freedom, 2010), 57–87.

On June 9th, the Federal Trade Commission hosted an excellent workshop on “The ‘Sharing’ Economy: Issues Facing Platforms, Participants, and Regulators,” which included 4 major panels and dozens of experts speaking about these important issues. It was my great pleasure to be part of the 4th panel of the day on the policy implications of the sharing economy. Along with my Mercatus colleagues Christopher Koopman and Matt Mitchell, I submitted a 20-page filing  to the Commission summarizing our research findings in this area. (We also released a major new working paper that same day on, “How the Internet, the Sharing Economy, and Reputational Feedback Mechanisms Solve the ‘Lemons Problem.’” (All Mercatus Center research on sharing economy issues can be found on this page and we plan on releasing additional papers in coming months.)

The FTC has now posted the videos from their workshop and down below I have embedded my particular panel. My remarks begin around the 5-minute mark of the video.

Congress is considering reforming television laws and solicited comment from the public last month. On Friday, I submitted a letter encouraging the reform effort. I attached the paper Adam and I wrote last year about the current state of video regulations and the need for eliminating the complex rules for television providers.

As I say in the letter, excerpted below, pay TV (cable, satellite, and telco-provided) is quite competitive, as this chart of pay TV market share illustrates. In addition to pay TV there is broadcast, Netflix, Sling, and other providers. Consumers have many choices and the old industrial policy for mass media encourages rent-seeking and prevents markets from evolving.

Dear Chairman Upton and Chairman Walden:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s December 2014 questions on video regulation.

…The labyrinthine communications and copyright laws governing video distribution are now distorting the market and therefore should be made rational. Congress should avoid favoring some distributors at the expense of free competition. Instead, policy should encourage new entrants and consumer choice.

The focus of the committee’s white paper on how to “foster” various television distributors, while understandable, was nonetheless misguided. Such an inquiry will likely lead to harmful rules that favor some companies and programmers over others, based on political whims. Congress and the FCC should get out of “fostering” the video distribution markets completely. A light-touch regulatory approach will prevent the damaging effects of lobbying for privilege and will ensure the primacy of consumer choice.

Some of the white paper’s questions may actually lead policy astray. Question 4, for instance, asks how we should “balance consumer welfare and the rights of content creators” in video markets. Congress should not pursue this line of inquiry too far. Just consider an analogous question: how do we balance consumer welfare and the interests of content creators in literature and written content? The answer is plain: we don’t. It’s bizarre to even contemplate.

Congress does not currently regulate the distribution markets of literature and written news and entertainment. Congress simply gives content producers copyright protection, which is generally applicable. The content gets aggregated and distributed on various platforms through private ordering via contract. Congress does not, as in video, attempt to keep competitive parity between competing distributors of written material: the Internet, paperback publishers, magazine publishers, books on tape, newsstands, and the like. Likewise, Congress should forego any attempt at “balancing” in video content markets. Instead, eliminate top-down communications laws in favor of generally applicable copyright laws, antitrust laws, and consumer protection laws.

As our paper shows, the video distribution marketplace has changed drastically. From the 1950s to the 1990s, cable was essentially consumers’ only option for pay TV. Those days are long gone, and consumers now have several television distributors and substitutes to choose from. From close to 100 percent market share of the pay TV market in the early 1990s, cable now has about 50 percent of the market. Consumers can choose popular alternatives like satellite- and telco-provided television as well as smaller players like wireless carriers, online video distributors (such as Netflix and Sling), wireless Internet service providers (WISPs), and multichannel video and data distribution service (MVDDS or “wireless cable”). As many consumers find Internet over-the-top television adequate, and pay TV an unnecessary expense, “free” broadcast television is also finding new life as a distributor.

The New York Times reported this month that “[t]elevision executives said they could not remember a time when the competition for breakthrough concepts and creative talent was fiercer” (“Aiming to Break Out in a Crowded TV Landscape,” January 11, 2015). As media critics will attest, we are living in the golden age of television. Content is abundant and Congress should quietly exit the “fostering competition” game. Whether this competition in television markets came about because of FCC policy or in spite of it (likely both), the future of television looks bright, and the old classifications no longer apply. In fact, the old “silo” classifications stand in the way of new business models and consumer choice.

Therefore, Congress should (1) merge the FCC’s responsibilities with the Federal Trade Commission or (2) abolish the FCC’s authority over video markets entirely and rely on antitrust agencies and consumer protection laws in television markets. New Zealand, the Netherlands, Denmark, and other countries have merged competition and telecommunications regulators. Agency merger streamlines competition analyses and prevents duplicative oversight.

Finally, instead of fostering favored distribution channels, Congress’ efforts are better spent on reforms that make it easier for new entrants to build distribution infrastructure. Such reforms increase jobs, increase competition, expand consumer choice, and lower consumer prices.

Thank you for initiating the discussion about updating the Communications Act. Reform can give America’s innovative telecommunications and mass-media sectors a predictable and technology neutral legal framework. When Congress replaces industrial planning in video with market forces, consumers will be the primary beneficiaries.

Sincerely,

Brent Skorup Research Fellow, Technology Policy Program Mercatus Center at George Mason University

I recently did a presentation for Capitol Hill staffers about emerging technology policy issues (driverless cars, the “Internet of Things,” wearable tech, private drones, “biohacking,” etc) and the various policy issues they would give rise to (privacy, safety, security, economic disruptions, etc.). The talk is derived from my new little book on “Permissionless Innovation,” but in coming months I will be releasing big papers on each of the topics discussed here.

Additional Reading:

• Technology Policy: A Look Ahead by Jerry Brito, Eli Dourado, and Adam Thierer
• Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom by Adam Thierer
• Why Permissionless Innovation Matters: Why does economic growth occur in some societies & not in others? by Adam Thierer
• Where is the innovation in health care? by Veronique De Rugy

Last December, it was my pleasure to take part in a great event, “The Disruptive Competition Policy Forum,” sponsored by Project DisCo (or The Disruptive Competition Project). It featured several excellent panels and keynotes and they’ve just posted the video of the panel I was on here and I have embedded it below. In my remarks, I discussed:

• benefit-cost analysis in digital privacy debates (building on this law review article);
• the contrast between Europe and America’s approach to data & privacy issues (referencing this testimony of mine);
• the problem of “technopanics” in information policy debates (building on this law review article);
• the difficulty of information control efforts in various tech policy debates (which I wrote about in this law review article and these two blog posts: 1, 2);
• the possibility of less-restrictive approaches to privacy & security concerns (which I have written about here as well in those other law review articles);
• the rise of the Internet of Things and the unique challenges it creates (see this and this as well as my new book); and,
• the possibility of a splintering of the Internet or the rise of “federated Internets.”

The panel was expertly moderated by Ross Schulman, Public Policy & Regulatory Counsel for CCIA, and also included remarks from John Boswell, SVP & Chief Legal Officer at SAS, and Josh Galper, Chief Policy Officer and General Counsel of Personal, Inc. (By the way, you should check out some of the cool things Personal is doing in this space to help consumers. Very innovative stuff.) The video lasts one hour. Here it is:

Last night, I appeared on a short segment on the PBS News Hour discussing, “What’s the future of privacy in a big data world?” I was also joined by Jules Polonetsky, executive director of the Future of Privacy Forum. If you’re interested, here’s the video. Transcript is here. Finally, down below the fold, I’ve listed a few law review articles and other essays of mine on this same subject.

Additional reading:

Journal articles:

• “ The Pursuit of Privacy in a World Where Information Control Is Failing ,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy , 36 (2013): 409–55. 
• “A Framework for Benefit-Cost Analysis in Digital Privacy Debates,” George Mason University Law Review, 20, no. 4 (Summer 2013): 1055–105.
• “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 14 (2013): 309–86.

Testimony / Filings :

• Senate Testimony on Privacy, Data Collection & Do Not Track, April 24, 2013.
• Comments of the Mercatus Center to the FTC in Privacy & Security Implications of the Internet of Things, May 31, 2013.

Blog posts & opeds:

• “ Edith Ramirez’s ‘Big Data’ Speech: Privacy Concerns Prompt Precautionary Principle Thinking ,”  Technology Liberation Front , August 29, 2013.
• “Relax and Learn to Love Big Data,” US News & World Report, September 13, 2013.

• “Who Really Believes in ‘Permissionless Innovation’?” Technology Liberation Front, March 4, 2013.
• “ What Does It Mean to ‘Have a Conversation’ about a New Technology ?” Technology Liberation Front , May 23, 2013.
• “Planning for Hypothetical Horribles in Tech Policy Debates,” Technology Liberation Front, August 6, 2013.
• “On the Line between Technology Ethics vs. Technology Policy,” Technology Liberation Front, August 1, 2013.
• “ Can We Adapt to the Internet of Things? ” IAPP  Privacy Perspectives , June 19, 2013.

Oh man, I could not stop laughing at this old “Kids Guide to the Internet” video from the 90s. My thanks to my former colleague Amy Smorodin for tweeting it out today. I just had to post it here so that everyone could enjoy.

(Note: You can turn this video into a great drinking game. Just make everyone in the room raise their glass each time the lines “Does your computer have a modem?” and “Not all that cybernet stuff, OK?” are uttered.) And yes, as the opening line of the video notes, “the first thing you need to know about the Internet is that it is amazing.”

There are few things more likely to get constituents to call their representative than TV programming blackouts, and the increase in broadcasting disruptions arising from licensing disputes in recent years means Congress may be forced to once again fix television and copyright laws. As Jerry Brito explains at Reason, the current standoff between CBS and Time Warner Cable is the result of bad regulations, which contribute to more frequent broadcaster blackouts. While each type of TV distributor (cable, satellite, broadcasters, telcos) is both disadvantaged and advantaged through regulation, broadcasters are particularly favored. As the US Copyright Office has said, the rule at issue in CBS-TWC is “part of a thicket of communications law requirements aimed at protecting and supporting the broadcast industry.”

But as we approach a damaging tipping point of rising programming costs and blackouts, Congress’ potential rescuer–Aereo–appears on the horizon, possibly buying more time before a major regulatory rewrite. Aereo, for the uninitiated, is a small online company that sets up tiny antennas in certain cities to capture broadcast television station signals–like CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, the CW, and Univision–and streams those signals online to paying customers, who can watch live or record the local signals captured by their own “rented” Aereo antenna. Broadcasters hate this because the service deprives them of lucrative retransmission fees and unsuccessfully sued to get Aereo to cease operations.

Let’s back up. Broadcast television is–as my colleague Tom Hazlett says–the “killer app of 1952.” It’s an old technology featuring a few dozen channels that hasn’t fared well with the rise of subscription television offering hundreds of channels–Comcast, Dish, U-Verse, and others. Only about 10% to 15% of households rely on rabbit ears antennas to receive free broadcast TV, while the rest have a subscription.

I’m doubtful Congress will step in and make online distributors like Aereo pay for retransmission. While the laws tilt in broadcasters’ favor, Aereo gives cable and satellite companies additional leverage since–if they have a protracted fight with a broadcaster–they can direct their customers to Aereo. TWC is, in fact, doing this in its current dispute with CBS. Since customers have an online option, no one needs to miss NFL preseason football or the latest How I Met Your Mother. Aereo is not an ideal solution, but it gives a cable or satellite provider another bargaining weapon.

For several reasons, I think Congress may allow Aereo to proceed. First, with the variety of print, online, and television options consumers face today, broadcast programming is no longer a sacred cow. Congress, the FCC, and the tech and telecom industries are anxious to get more broadcasters off the air to make room for spectrum-hungry mobile technologies. That is the precise purpose of the pending incentive auctions. Broadcasters are a powerful group with compelling arguments for the status quo–they provide high-demand local news, sports, and weather, for instance–but many people are beginning to realistically imagine life without them.

Second, the primary political justification for protecting local broadcasters–local ownership and diversity–has “virtually vanished” because of industry consolidation in the 1990s and 2000s, as Harold Feld from Public Knowledge notes. It was easier in the past to defend these regulatory carve-outs for broadcasters when locally-owned operations were the beneficiaries, but today many broadcasters are owned by large media companies.

Finally, in the dynamic video marketplace, Congress may be hesitant to impose more regulations on new video technologies. Protecting a 1950s technology by enforcing 1990s laws on today’s Internet services makes little sense. Already, television laws passed in the 1990s look terribly dated and give Congress and the FCC headaches. Rewriting television and copyright laws is a huge task involving many powerful industries seeking protection from disruptive law changes. With the House and Senate controlled by different parties, this makes a grand compromise even less likely.

So Aereo and other antenna rental services represent some relief for regulators since it gives cable and satellite providers a little more leverage. The service is only in a few cities but is quickly expanding. If consumers adopt the service during future disputes, a semblance of equilibrium may return when subscription services bargain with broadcasters. For that reason, Congress may want to sit back and see how it plays out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Internet’s greatest blessing — its general openness to all speech and speakers — is also sometimes its biggest curse. That is, you cannot expect to have the most widely accessible, unrestricted communications platform the world has ever known and not also have some imbeciles who use it to spew insulting, vile, and hateful comments.

It is important to put things in perspective, however. Hate speech is not the norm online. The louts who spew hatred represent a small minority of all online speakers. The vast majority of online speech is of a socially acceptable — even beneficial — nature.

Still, the problem of hate speech remains very real and a diverse array of strategies are needed to deal with it. The sensible path forward in this regard is charted by Abraham H. Foxman and Christopher Wolf in their new book, Viral Hate: Containing Its Spread on the Internet. Their book explains why the best approach to online hate is a combination of education, digital literacy, user empowerment, industry best practices and self-regulation, increased watchdog / press oversight, social pressure and, most importantly, counter-speech. Foxman and Wolf also explain why — no matter how well-intentioned — legal solutions aimed at eradicating online hate will not work and would raise serious unintended consequences if imposed.

In striking this sensible balance, Foxman and Wolf have penned the definitive book on how to constructively combat viral hate in an age of ubiquitous information flows.

Definitional Challenges & Free Speech Concerns

Defining “hate speech” is a classic eye-of-the-beholder problem: At what point does heated speech become hate speech and who should be in charge of drawing the line between the two? “The notion of a single definition of hate speech that everyone can agree on is probably illusory,” Foxman and Wolf note, especially because of “the continually evolving and morphing nature of online hate.” (p. 52, 103)  “Like every other form of human communication, bigoted or hateful speech is always evolving, changing its vocabulary and style, adjusting to social and demographic trends, and reaching out in new ways to potentially receptive new audiences.” (p. 92)

Many free speech advocates (including me) argue that the government should not be in the business of ensuring that people never have their feelings hurt. Censorial solutions are particularly problematic here in the United States since they would likely run afoul of the protections secured by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The clear trajectory of the Supreme Court’s free speech jurisprudence over the past half-century has been in the direction of constantly expanding protection for freedom of expression, even of the most repugnant, hateful varieties. Most recently, in Snyder v. Phelps, for example, the Court ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church could engage in hateful protests near the funerals of soldiers. “[T]his Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled,” ruled Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court’s 8-1 majority. The Court has also recently held that the First Amendment protects lying about military honors (United States v. Alvarez, 2012), animal cruelty videos (United States v. Stevens, 2010), computer-generated depictions of child pornography (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 2002), and the sale of violent video games to minors (Brown v. EMA, 2011). This comes on top of over 15 years of Internet-related jurisprudence in which courts have struck down every effort to regulate online expression.

Some will celebrate this jurisprudential revolution; others with lament it. Regardless, it is likely to remain the constitutional standard here in the U.S. As a result, there is almost no chance that courts here would allow restrictions on hate speech to stand. That means alternative approaches will continue to be relied upon to address it.

Foxman and Wolf acknowledge these constitutional hurdles but also point out that there are other reasons why “laws attempting to prohibit hate speech are probably one of the weakest tools we can use against bigotry.” (p. 171) Most notably, there is the scope and volume problem: “the sheer vastness of the challenge” (p. 103) which means “it’s simply impossible to monitor and police the vast proliferation of bigoted content being distributed through Web 2.0 technologies.” (p. 81) “The borderless nature of the Internet means that, like chasing cockroaches, squashing on offending website, page, or service provider does not solve the problem; there are many more waiting behind the walls — or across the border.” (p. 82) That’s exactly right and it also explains why solutions of a more technical nature aren’t likely to work very well either.

Foxman and Wolf also point out how hate speech laws could backfire and have profound unintended consequences. Beyond targeted laws that address true threats, harassment, and direct incitements to violence, Foxman and Wolf argue that “broader regulation of hate speech may send an ‘educational message’ that actually weakens rather than strengthens our system of democratic values.” (p. 171) That’s because such censorial laws and regulations undermine the very essence of deliberative democracy — robust exchange of potential controversial views — and leads to potential untrammeled majoritarianism. Worse yet, legalistic attempts to shut down hate speech can end up creating martyrs for fringe movements and, paradoxically, end up fueling conspiracy theories. (p. 80)

The Essential Role of Counter-speech & Education

Yet, “the challenge of defining hate speech shouldn’t lead us to give up on solving the problem,” argue Foxman and Woff. (p. 53) We must, they argue, refocus our efforts around “education as a bulwark of freedom.” (p. 170)  Digital literacy — teaching citizens respectful online behavior — is the key to those education efforts.

A vital part of digital literacy efforts is the encouragement of counter-speech solutions to online hate. “[T]he best anecdote to hate speech is counter-speech – exposing hate speech for its deceitful and false content, setting the record straight, and promoting the values of respect and diversity,” note Foxman and Wolf. (p. 129)  Or, as the old saying goes, the best response to bad speech is better speech. This principle has infused countless Supreme Court free speech decisions over the past century and it continues to make good sense. But we could do more through education and digital literacy efforts to encourage more and better forms of counter-speech going forward.

“Counter-speech isn’t only or even primarily about debating hate-mongers,” they note. “It’s about helping to create a climate of tolerance and openness for people of all kinds, not just on the Internet but in every aspect of local, community, and national life.” (p. 146) This is how digital literacy becomes digital citizenship. It’s about forming smart norms and personal best practices regarding beneficial online interactions.

Intermediary Policing

What more can be done beyond education and counter-speech efforts? Foxman and Wolf envision a broad and growing role for intermediaries to help to police viral hate. “We are convinced that if much of the time and energy spent advocating legal action against hate speech was used in collaborating and uniting with the online industry to fight the scourge of online hate, we would be making more gains in this fight,” they say. (p. 121) Among the steps they would like to see online operators take:

• Establishing clear hate speech policies in their Terms of Service and mechanisms for enforcing them;
• Making it easier for users to flag hate speech and to speak out against it;
• Facilitating industry-wide education and best practices via multi-stakeholder approaches; and
• Limiting anonymity and moving to “real-name” policies to identify speakers.

De-anonymization / Real-name policies

Most of these are imminently sensible solutions that should serve as best practices for online service providers and social media platform operators. But their last suggestion for sites to consider limiting anonymous speech will be controversial, especially at a time when many feel that privacy is already at serious risk online and when some critics argue that intermediaries already “censor” too much content as it is. (See, for example, this Jeff Rosen essay on “The Delete Squad: Google, Twitter, Facebook and the New Global Battle over the Future of Free Speech” and this Evgeny Morozov editorial, “You Can’t Say That on the Internet”).

Anonymous online speech certainly facilitates plenty of nasty online comments. There’s plenty of evidence — both scholarly and anecdotal — that “deindividuation” occurs when people can post anonymously.  As Foxman and Wolf explain it: “People who are able to post anonymously (or pseudonymously) are far more likely to say awful things, sometimes with awful effects. Speaking from behind a blank wall that shields a person from responsibility encourages recklessness – it’s far easier to hit the ‘send’ button without a second thought under those circumstances.” (p. 114)

On the other hand, there needs to be a sense of balance here. We protect anonymous speech for the same reason we protect all other forms of speech, no matter how odious: With the bad comes a lot of good. Forcing all users to identify themselves to get at handful of troublemakers is overkill and it would result in the chilling of a huge amount of legitimate speech.

Nonetheless, many governments across the globe are pushing for restrictions on anonymous speech. As Cole Stryker noted in his recent book, Hacking the Future: Privacy, Identity, and Anonymity on the Web, “we are seeing is an all-out war on anonymity, and thus free speech, waged by a variety of armies with widely diverse motivations, often for compelling reasons.” (p. 229). Stryker is right. In fact, less than two weeks ago, a French court ordered Twitter to produce the names of the people behind anti-Semitic tweets that appeared on the site last year.  Meanwhile, plenty of academics, including many here in the U.S., have stepped up their efforts to ban or limit online anonymity. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you read a few of the chapters of The Offensive Internet: Speech, Privacy, and Reputation (Saul Levmore & Martha C. Nussbaum, eds.). It’s a veritable fusillade against anonymity as well as Section 230, the U.S. law that limits liability for intermediaries who post materials by others.

In Viral Hate, Foxman and Wolf stop short of suggesting legal restrictions on anonymity, preferring to stick with experimentation among private intermediaries. One of the book’s authors (Wolf) penned an essay in The New York Times last November (“Anonymity and Incivility on the Internet”) suggesting that while “this is not a matter for government… it is time for Internet intermediaries voluntarily to consider requiring either the use of real names (or registration with the online service) in circumstances, such as the comments section for news articles, where the benefits of anonymous posting are outweighed by the need for greater online civility.” Specifically, Wolf wants the rest of the Net to follow Facebook’s lead: “It is time to consider Facebook’s real-name policy as an Internet norm because online identification demonstrably leads to accountability and promotes civility.”

These proposals prompted strong responses from some academics and average readers who decried the implications of such a move for both privacy and free speech. But, again, it is worth reiterating that Foxman and Wolf do not call for government mandates to achieve this. “[T]his notion of promulgating a new standard of accountability online is not a matter for government intervention, given the strictures of the First Amendment,” they argue. (p. 117)

However, Foxman and Wolf do suggest one innovative alternative that merits attention: premium placement for registered commenters. The New York Times and some other major content providers have experimented with premium placement, whereby those registered on the site have their comments pushed up in the queue while other comments appear down below them. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of having to register for every news or content site I visit, so I would hope such approaches are used selectively. Another useful approach involves letting users of various social media sites and content services to determine whether they wish to allow comments on their user-generated content at all. Of course, many sites and services (such as YouTube, Facebook, and most blogging services) already allow that.

Conclusion

There are times in the book when Foxman and Wolf push their cause with a bit too much rhetorical flair, as when they claim that “Hitler and the Nazis could never have dreamed of such an engine of hate (as the Internet”). (p. 10)  Perhaps there is something to that, but it is also true that Hitler and the Nazis could have never of dreamed of a platform for individual empowerment, transparency, and counter-speech such as the Internet. It was precisely because they were able to control the very limited media and communications platforms of their age that the Nazis were about to exert total control over the information systems and create a propaganda hate machine that had no serious challenge from the public or other nations. Just ask Arab dictators which age they’d prefer to rule in! It is certainly much harder for today’s totalitarian thugs to keep secrets bottled up and it is equally hard for them to spread lies and hateful propaganda without being met with a forceful response from the general citizenry as well as those in other nations. So the “Hitler-would-have-loved-the-Net” talk is unwarranted.

I’m also a bit skeptical of some of the metrics used to measure this problem. While there is clearly plenty of online hate to be found across the Net today, efforts to quantify it inevitably run right back into the same subjective definition problems that Foxman and Wolf do such a nice job explaining throughout the text. So, if we have such a profound ‘eye-of-the-beholder’ problem at work here, how is it that we can be sure that quantitative counts are accurate?  That doesn’t mean I’m opposed to efforts to quantify online hate, rather, we just need to take such measures with a grain of salt.

Finally, I wish the authors would have developed more detailed case studies of how companies outside the mainstream are dealing with these issues today. Foxman and Wolf focus on big players like Google, Facebook, and Twitter for obvious reasons, but plenty of other online providers and social media operators have policies and procedures in place today to deal with online hate speech. A more thorough survey of those differing approaches might have helped us gain a better understanding of which policies make the most sense going forward.

Despite those small nitpicks, Foxman and Wolf have done a great service here by offering us a penetrating examination of the problem of online hate speech while simultaneously explaining the practical solutions necessary to combat it. Some will be dissatisfied with their pragmatic approach to the issue, feeling on one hand that the authors have not gone far enough in bringing in the law to solve these problems, while others will desire a more forceful call for freedom of speech and just growing a thicker skin in response to viral hate.  But I believe Foxman and Wolf have struck exactly the right balance here and given us a constructive blueprint for addressing these vexing issues going forward.

As noted here last week, as part of their Marginal Revolution University online courses, Tyler Cowen and Alex Tabarrok have been rolling out several classes on “Economics of the Media.” I think TLF readers will be interested in checking out their lessons on “Bundling” and “Cable TV Regulation” since these are topics we have frequently discussed here over the years. I’ve embedded those two presentations below, but please go the MRU site and watch all the videos in their media economics course when you get a chance. They are excellent.

Is competition really a problem in the tech industry? That was the question the folks over at WebProNews asked me to come on their show and discuss this week. I offer my thoughts in the following 15-minute clip. Also, down below I have embedded a few of my recent relevant essays on this topic, a few of which I mentioned during the show.

• “On Fast Firms, Slow Regulators, Antitrust & the Digital Economy,” Technology Liberation Front, July 6, 2012
• “The Rule Of Three: The Nature of Competition In The Digital Economy,” Forbes, June 29, 2012.
• “Sunsetting Technology Regulation: Applying Moore’s Law to Washington,” Forbes, May 25, 2012.
• “Of “Tech Titans” and Schumpeter’s Vision,” Forbes, August 22, 2011.
• “Bye Bye BlackBerry. How Long Will Apple Last?” Forbes, April 1, 2012.
• “Gary Reback’s Antitrust Love Letter,” Technology Liberation Front, September 20, 2009.
• “What is “Optimal Interoperability”? A Review of Palfrey & Gasser’s’“Interop,’” Technology Liberation Front, June 11, 2012.

I’m pleased to report that the Mercatus Center at George Mason University has just released a new white paper on video marketplace regulation and the ongoing  “retrans” wars by one of America’s leading media economists, Bruce M. Owen.  Owen’s new paper, “Consumer Welfare and TV Program Regulation,” examines the lamentable history of misguided federal interventions into America’s video marketplace. Owen also explores to possibility of deregulating this marketplace via the important new Scalise-DeMint bill, “The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act.” If you’re following these issues, Owen’s paper is must-reading. Here’s the abstract:

Getting rid of obsolete regulation of the broadcast and distribution of video programming is essential to the efficient operation of a market that has the potential to greatly increase the benefits to consumers. Services that increase video program distribution capacity have been delayed and suppressed for many years, and consumer benefits were lost as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) pursued ill-defined and ephemeral “public interest” and “localism” objectives. It is past time to stop extending interventions originally intended for old technology to a range of new competitive media. No longer is there any rational public policy basis for a government agency to dictate how much or what content the viewing public can see, any more than there ever has been for printed media. There is no market failure to which the current regulatory framework is responding and no longer any reason for FCC bureaucrats to decide how much of the spectrum should be used for each of many existing and future commercial services. Spectrum reform, along with the repeal of other broadcast programming restrictions contained in the proposed Scalise-DeMint Next Generation Television Marketplace Act, provide a roadmap for the necessary reform. With an adequate supply of tradable rights in spectrum, we will find out how much additional competition is possible among traditional wired and wireless, analog and digital, and fixed and mobile delivery services.

Read the entire thing here [PDF], and you might also be interested in this Forbes column (“Toward a True Free Market in Television Programming“) and these two blog posts of mine (1, 2) on the retrans wars.

Writing over at the conservative Big Government blog (part of the Breitbart.com network of blogs), someone who goes by the pseudonym “Capitol Connection” has posted an editorial about the debate over retransmission consent reform that is full of misinformation and misguided policy prescriptions, at least if you believe is truly limited government. The piece is entitled, “Big Cable Would Prefer if You Paid Their Bills,” and the problems are almost immediately evident from that headline alone.  First, what is a supposedly small government-oriented blog doing using a silly label like “Big Cable” to describe a vigorously competitive sector of our capitalist economy? Using terms like “Big Cable” is a silly lefty tactic. Second, no one in the cable industry is proposing anyone “pay their bills” except for the customers who enjoy their services. Isn’t a fee for service part of capitalism?

Anyway, that’s just the problem with the title of the essay. Sadly, the rest of the piece is filled with even more erroneous information and arguments about the retransmission consent regulatory process as well as the bill that aims to reform that process, “The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act” (H.R. 3675 and S. 2008). That bill, which is sponsored by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), represents a comprehensive attempt to deregulate America’s heavily regulated video marketplace. In a recent Forbes oped, I argued that the DeMint-Scalise effort would take us “Toward a True Free Market in Television Programming” by eliminating a litany of archaic media regulations that should have never been on the books to begin with. The measure would:

• eliminate: “retransmission consent” regulations (rules governing contractual negotiations for content);
• end “must carry” mandates (the requirement that video distributors carry broadcast signals even if they don’t want to);
• repeal “network non-duplication” and “syndicated exclusivity” regulations (rules that prohibit distributors from striking deals with broadcasters outside their local communities);
• end various media ownership regulations; and
• end the compulsory licensing requirements of the Copyright Act of 1976, which essentially forced a “duty to deal” upon content owners to the benefit of video distributors.

This represents genuine and much-needed deregulation of a market that has been encumbered with far too much top-down control and micro-management by the FCC over the past several decades. To be clear, none of these rules apply to any other segment of our modern information economy. Every day of the week, deals are cut between content creators and distributors in many other segments of the media industry without these rules encumbering the process. The DeMint-Scalise bill is an attempt to get big government out of the way and let these deals be cut in a truly free market without regulators putting their thumb on the scale in one direction or the other.

Thus, it came as a bit of a shock to me to see a blog that rails against and is self-titled Big Government suggesting that we should retain a form of big government regulation! Indeed, the author gets the intent of the DeMint-Scalise bill exactly backward. The author says the The Next Generation Television Marketplace Act:

would strip broadcasters of their ability to negotiate in the free marketplace. Some cable operators, it turns out, would love to provide Americans with the quality content American broadcast companies churn out. They just don’t happen to want to pay for it.

The author of the piece also says that cable industry representatives:

are lobbying in Washington for key provisions in legislation that would that would allow the Federal government to intervene in what is otherwise a sound, private sector marketplace that benefits consumers each and every day. And they’re doing so under the guise of “deregulation.”

This is all utter poppycock. While I am sure that the cable industry would love to get all that content free of charge, that’s not what the DeMint-Scalise bill would do. It doesn’t end free-market contracting; it bolsters it. Again, the bill would get the government out of the business of setting rules for how these deals get cut and instead allow these big boys to come to the bargaining table and hammer out these deals on their own.  That is called deregulation and true capitalism!

The author of the misguided Big Government editorial seems to be resting their case on a letter that the American Conservative Union (ACU) sent to members of Congress in late March. I addressed the claims found in that letter in this essay and pointed out that ACU had almost everything exactly backward. Both the ACU letter and the Big Government essay just keep erroneously assuming that the end of the regulatory retrans process means that “broadcasters [will] be forced to simply give away their signals and content.” Again, nothing could be further from the truth. As I noted in my response to the ACU letter:

nothing in this bill forces content creators or broadcasters to deal their content to other distributors. And nothing in the bill gives those other video distributors the right to freely distribute content without the permission of its owners. In sum, the bill does not repeal copyright law — it only repeals the compulsory licensing rules that force content owners to deal their programming against their consent on government regulated terms.  That means copyright is actually strengthened under this bill and that content owners have more bargaining power than they do today. Thus, the ACU is horribly mistaken in asserting that the DeMint-Scalise bill would “allow an uncompensated use of broadcast signals and content.” The exact opposite is the case.

Finally, if nothing else convinces the folks at the Big Government blog and the ACU of the error in their thinking, consider this: The preservation of the current retransmission consent regime and all its corresponding regulations means the preservation and growth of the Federal Communications Commission as a federal regulatory agency overseeing the information economy. Is that a truly free market-oriented position? Do we need federal bureaucrats overseeing free market contractual negotiations in this or any other sector? Because that’s what the law allows today. By contrast, the DeMint-Scalise bill offers us the chance to finally get real deregulation rolling and get FCC downsizing back on track. You will never get a smaller FCC by advocating the retention of regulation.

Thus, I think it’s pretty clear which approach is the most liberty-enhancing. I hope, therefore, that the ACU and the folks at the Big Government blog will reconsider their position.

This seems like a logical follow-up to Berin Szoka’s previous post about technology, social activism, and government power. ReasonTV has produced this important short clip on “Cops Vs. Cameras: The Killing of Kelly Thomas & The Power of New Media.” It documents how the combined power of citizen journalism, social media, and surveillance video can ensure that our police authorities are held accountable for their actions. In this particular case, it can hopefully win some justice for Kelly Thomas, the homeless Fullerton, California man who was brutally beaten to death by police officers on the night of July 5, 2011.

There is live video from the horrific beating here, but I caution you it is not for the faint of heart. Watching the last moments of man’s life slip away from repeated blows to the head while he begs for his life and calls out for his father is, well, stomach-turning. But imagine if this video and the other citizen videos that were taking that night had not existed. As the ReasonTV clip notes, the Fullerton police department basically ignored requests for more information about the case until Kelly’s father (who was former police officer himself) took cell photos of his son’s beaten face in the hospital and released them to the public. Then the citizen videos of the beating were posted on YouTube and went viral. And then, finally, mainstream media started paying attention. And now the surveillance video from a nearby street camera has been released after citizens and activists demanded it.

While we spend a lot of time today worrying about the privacy implications of new technologies, especially surveillance technologies, episodes like these make it clear that there are also powerful benefits from these new surveillance tools. David Brin first pointed this out in his provocative 1997 book, The Transparent Society, in which he noted:

While new surveillance and data technologies pose vexing challenges, we may be wise to pause and recall what worked for us so far. Reciprocal accountability — a widely shared power to shine light, even on the mighty — is the unsung marvel of our age, empowering even eccentrics and minorities to enforce their own freedom. Shall we scrap civilization’s best tool – light — in favor of a fad of secrecy?

Of course, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take steps to limit the surveillance powers of our government over the citizenry. We absolutely must. But we must draw a distinction between the tools and their uses and make sure we do not go overboard with what Brin called the “fad of secrecy” such that new privacy rules limit the use and spread of these technologies.

For far too long governments have avoided accountability for their actions because of a lack of transparency. Nowhere has this been more dismaying that in matters of policing. While our law enforcement officers deserve respect for the hard jobs they have to keep the public safe, they also must account for their actions when they go too far precisely because we grant them coercive powers held by no other group in society. Luckily, new technologies can help us keep their power in check and hold them accountable. While some authorities are fighting back and trying to limit citizen efforts to record them and hold them accountable, the genie is already well out of the bottle. These surveillance tools are not going away and law enforcement authorities will now be forced to live under the gaze of an empowered citizenry. Hopefully that increases transparency and accountability in all policing activities going forward. Read Brin’s short 2011 essay “Sousveillance: A New Era for Police Accountability” for greater elaboration.

On May 26th, it was my great pleasure to participate in a panel discussion on “Growing Up with the Mobile Net,” which was co-sponsored by the Congressional Internet Caucus and Common Sense Media. It was a conversation about kids’ privacy, online safety, teen free speech rights, anonymity, and the possibility of expanding the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) and implementing the so-called “Internet Eraser Button.”

I was joined on the panel by Jules Polonetsky, Co-chair and Director of the Future of Privacy Forum, and Alan Simpson, Vice President of Policy at Common Sense Media. And the session was very ably moderated, as always, by the supremely objective Tim Lordan.*  We really unpacked the “Eraser Button” and “right to be forgotten” notion and thought through the ramifications. And the discussion about the extent of First Amendment rights for teenagers was also interesting.

The video for this 48-minute session can be found on the Congressional Internet Caucus YouTube page here and is embedded below.

Note: During the session, Tim Lordan claimed that he takes no position and that if anyone says he take positions on issues that he will slap a super-injunction on them. Well, I say Tim Lordan is brimming with positions and he’s letting them fly at every juncture. In fact, I’ve never met someone so full of controversial positions in my life as Tim Lordan! OK, so sue me Tim!

My good friend and mentor Robert Corn-Revere, a First Amendment attorney with the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, gave a terrific talk on “The High Value of Low Speech” at a recent Reason Foundation event.  Bob is one of the greatest living defenders of freedom of speech and expression and his talks are always inspiring, informative, and entertaining. I recommend you check it out. The video is embedded below or can be found on the ReasonTV website here.

“All First Amendment cases are about the power,” Corn-Revere argues. “Who should have the power to tell individuals what to read, think, believe or feel?” He continues on to explain the recent history of controversial First Amendment jurisprudence — much of which he has been personally responsible for litigating — and explains why even “low speech” is worth defending if we cherish our speech rights.

Melissa Yu is the winner of first prize in the middle school category of C-SPAN’s StudentCam 2011 competition. Her video, “Net Neutrality: The Federal Government’s Role in Our Online Community,” is an eight-minute look at the push for regulation of Internet service with an emphasis appropriate for students on how the three branches of government have each been involved in the story up to now.

Many TLF readers already know the story and the key players, but if you haven’t been following along, or if you want a refresher, here’s a better video than I could have produced in eighth grade. Or now. Congratulations, Melissa Yu!

In my latest Forbes column, “Keeping The Video Revolution Going Strong,” I argue that we’ve been blessed to live through a veritable information revolution but that “many scarcity-era regulations remain on the books and threaten this ongoing revolution — especially in the video marketplace. So long as Washington continues to enforce regulations dating to the days of I Love Lucy, the old regulatory norms and edicts threaten to roll over onto emerging video technologies, stifling innovation and consumer choice.”

I go on to briefly discuss a few flashpoints in the ongoing video wars, including: the fights over “retransmission consent,” so-called “AllVid” tech mandates, and the broader battle to liberalize spectrum. “While the video revolution will hopefully continue apace, a light-touch from Washington will be essential to keep it going strong,” I conclude. “To the extent policymakers are looking to ‘level the (regulatory) playing field’ between the old and new video worlds, they should do so in the direction of freer markets, not more tech mandates.”

Anyway, read the whole thing over at the Forbes site.

Last week, it was my great honor to speak at the 2011 State of the Net 2011 event, where I participated in a panel discussion about the future of the online video marketplace.  In an earlier essay, I mentioned how some of the discussion that day revolved around the Comcast-NBCU merger, which had just been approved by the FCC, but with unprecedented strings being attached.  The heart of the panel discussion, however, was a debate about the future of online video and regulation of the video marketplace more generally. Also joining me on the panel were Susan Crawford of Cardozo Law School, William Lehr of MIT, Marvin Ammori of Nebraska Law School, and Richard Bennett of ITIF.

During my response time on the panel, which begins around 28:45 of the video, I made a couple of key points:

• We’re living in the golden age of video. In considering the state of the video marketplace, we need to put things in some historical context. We should appreciate just how far we’ve come from the “age of scarcity,” in which we only had access to a handful of VHF and UHF broadcast channels in most communities, compared to present day. Indeed, we are today blessed today to live in a world of information abundance. By the FCC’s last count, 565 cable or satellite channels exist today and those channels and programs are available over more platforms (cable, satellite, telco, online, mail, etc) than ever before.
• Deregulation (or light-touch) rules helped. Video distribution and program diversity thrived as the FCC gradually loosened the regulatory chains or forebore from regulating emerging video platforms or programs.  By contrast, in the highly-regulated past, innovation, competition, and diversity were stagnant.
• “Gatekeeper” control fears are bunk. Content continues to flow over multiple platforms in an unprecedented manner. That only makes sense since content creators and distributors have every incentive to get as much content pushed out on as many platforms as possible in order to make money! No one ever got rich in this space by locking up all their content. Moreover,  vertical integration of programming by MVPDs is at its lowest point in the past 20 years. The percentage of channels owned by video distributors has fallen from 50% in 1990 to around 15% today.
• Youngsters today don’t “watch TV” anymore. They watch YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, Apple TV, Google TV, Amazon, XBox Live, PlayStation, Roku, etc.  The video market is highly dynamic and subject to seemingly constant disruptive technological change.
• Level the playing field in favor of more freedom. To the extent there is a regulatory asymmetry at work between the old media marketplace and the online or Internet video world, and to the extent policymakers are looking to “level the regulatory playing field” between them, I argued we should level the playing field in favor of freedom.
• Clean up the old mess now. Therefore, the old rules need to go. Those rules would include must carry mandates and other carriage requirements / compulsory licensing rules, retransmission consent rules, “localism” and other program content mandates, set-tob box regs, advertising limitations, etc.
• Or, at least don’t extend old mess to new world. If lawmakers refuse to get rid of the old rules, however, we should erect a high and tight firewall between the old and new worlds and not muck up the new online video ecosystem with rules and regulations that would stifle the wonderful developments and diversity we are witnessing today.

See the entire State of the Net 2011 panel on YouTube here.