Articles by Adam Thierer 
Senior Fellow in Technology & Innovation at the R Street Institute in Washington, DC. Formerly a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, President of the Progress & Freedom Foundation, Director of Telecommunications Studies at the Cato Institute, and a Fellow in Economic Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
As a parent of two kids under the age of 6, I can very much relate to the questions going through Clive Thompson’s head. The Wired columnist’s latest essay is entitled “You Grew Up Playing Shoot’em-Up Games. Why Can’t Your Kids?” Like Thompson, I’m a first generation (Atari & Intellivision-era) gaming fanatic who is now raising third generation (PS & XBOX-era) gamer kids. (In case you are wondering, I define second generation gamers as the Nintendo NES & Sega-era.)
But also like Thompson, even though I’ve played just about every type of video game imaginable, I now find myself wondering how and when to introduce my kids to the world of gaming, including games with violent themes or action. Thompson begins his own introspection with the following funny story:
I was playing a round of Gears of War, trying to redo a level on “insane” mode, and the walls were painted with guts. I slaughtered my way to the boss, revved up my chainsaw, and sliced into his chest — releasing a fractal fountain of gore. Woo! At that instant, I heard the front door to my apartment open, and in walked my nanny… with my 15-month-old son, his eyes agog. Daddy, I could see him thinking, what are you doing?
Oh, nothing, son. Just kicking back with a mass-murder simulator. That’s all! So I hastily clicked off my Xbox 360, and avoided the nanny’s eyes. But it got me thinking: Eventually he’s going to want to play video games. And then I’ll have to face the traditional child-rearing quandaries that games present. When will I hand him his first controller? Will I let him play the gory combat games I love so much — and, if so, when?
Continue reading →
Over at TCS Daily today, Derek Hunter points out why a la carte regulation is going to backfire for those who support it in the name of “cleaning up” cable and satellite television:
Smaller religious and family cable stations do not subsidize MTV, VH1, and other channels some people may find objectionable. Rather, the opposite is true, MTV, VH1, et. al, subsidize the small religious and family stations. By bundling them all together, it exposes the smaller channels to people who otherwise wouldn’t choose them, netting them more potential customers. If providers were forced to offer channels individually, the small networks with few subscribers would fizzle out due to lack of exposure. Given the choice between channels, the majority of people would not pick those small channels, their potential audience would shrink dramatically, and less audience means smaller revenues. So that “solution” would actually make the problem worse.
That’s exactly right and I discussed why a la carte regulation would have such unintended consequences in my December 2005 PFF paper, “Moral and Philosophical Aspects of the Debate over A La Carte Regulation.” As I pointed out then:
Continue reading →
I was on vacation last week when ICANN handed down its latest rejection of the “.xxx” top-level domain (TLD). I just wanted to make two quick points about why I find this decision quite troubling.
First, it’s obvious that some critics of the .xxx TLD oppose the proposal because they think it somehow legitimizes online pornography or will lead to the proliferation of even more cyber-porn. I find this argument bizarre and naive. As John Dvorak makes abundantly clear in his recent PC Magazine column, Internet pornography is not going away and it is almost impossible to imagine how the .xxx TLD could have done anything to make it more accessible. Dvorak rightly asks: “How hard is it to find porn on the Net? Go to any search engine and type porn. Open your e-mail box. Who are these people kidding with this argument?”
Continue reading →
Lisa Lerer of Forbes was nice enough to do a feature story this week about my views on the panic over social networking and the push for age verification of such sites. Her piece is entitled “Why MySpace is a Safe Space,” and begins as follows: “Adam Thierer doesn’t look like much of a revolutionary. But last month he challenged both Washington and conventional wisdom with a fairly radical proposition: Perhaps MySpace and the Internet aren’t so scary for kids, after all.”
I don’t really regard what I’ve been saying in my recent essays or big new PFF study as “revolutionary.” Rather, if you spend any time studying this issue and these sites in a dispassionate, educated way, I think the conclusions I draw seem quite reasonable. Unfortunately, I don’t think many policy makers or critics have spent any serious time on these sites or seriously explored the relative danger of online social networking sites relative to offline social networking places. A classic “moral panic” has developed because of this: An older generation fears a new medium that it does not use or understand.
Anyway, read my discussion with Lisa for more details.
During our TLF happy hour last week (you can listen to the “live-from-the-bar” podcast here!), I got into a debate with some of my TLF colleagues about the future of physical versus non-physical media. I was making the argument that the impending death of physical media at the hands of intangible, digital storage has been greatly exaggerated. One of the points I made was that some people just love to “kick the tires” of their media and have something to look at and store on a shelf, whether it be a CD, a DVD, photo albums, a book or anything else. Even though I’m increasingly an all-digital storage guy like most of my TLF colleagues, there are still a lot of people out there who think different than us and prefer the old way of doing things. (I wrote about all this at greater length here).
But there’s another reason that physical media has a future: A lot of people just don’t give a damn about digital technology and the Internet at all. Really, it’s true! Just check out the results from this recent survey by Park Associates:
A little under one-third of U.S. households have no Internet access and do not plan to get it, with most of the holdouts seeing little use for it in their lives, according to a survey released on Friday. Park Associates, a Dallas-based technology market research firm, said 29 percent of U.S. households, or 31 million homes, do not have Internet access and do not intend to subscribe to an Internet service over the next 12 months.
The second annual National Technology Scan conducted by Park found
the main reason potential customers say they do not subscribe to the Internet is because of the low value to their daily lives they perceive rather than concerns over cost. Forty-four percent of these households say they are not interested in anything on the Internet, versus just 22 percent who say they cannot afford a computer or the cost of Internet service, the survey showed. [emphasis added]
Continue reading →
The Parents Television Council (PTC), a media activist group that routinely petitions Congress and the FCC for greater content regulation, recently released a new poll which they say proves that the V-Chip and parental control technologies have been a failure.
Their poll finds that only 11% of those surveyed said they used the V-chip or their cable box parental controls to block unwanted content from their television during the past week. And that result is virtually unchanged from a poll they took last September asking the same question. Therefore, the PTC concludes that recent efforts by broadcasters and cable companies to spend hundreds of millions of dollars educating families about these parental control tools have been a failure. And, unsurprisingly, the PTC feels that this again shows the need for government regulators need to step in and do more national nannying for us.
As I’ll make clear in a moment, the V-Chip and current television ratings are certainly not perfect. And I have no doubt that household usage of these tools is quite low for reasons I’ll get into. But let me first address what appears to be a rather glaring methodological deficiency of this PTC poll which makes it difficult to take seriously.
Continue reading →
Today’s decision in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania again striking down the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 has important implications for the ongoing debate over age verification for social networking websites.
As I mentioned in an essay earlier this week, several state attorneys general (AGs) are currently pushing legislation to mandate age verification of minors before they would be allowed access to social networking sites. Already, age verification proposals have been introduced in Connecticut, Georgia and North Carolina. More proposals are likely on the way. AGs and other policy makers argue that age verification is necessary to protect kids from cyber-predators and other online dangers.
In my new paper,
“Social Networking and Age Verification: Many Hard Questions; No Easy Solutions“ I find that proposals to impose age verification mandates on social networking websites raise many sensitive questions with potentially profound implications for individual privacy and online freedom of speech and expression. That’s especially the case in light of the definitional ambiguities associated with “social networking.”
Today’s COPA decision bolsters many of the findings in my paper. “Requiring users to go through an age verification process would lead to a distinct loss of personal privacy,” Judge Lowell Reed Jr. says on page 55 of the decision. And his other conclusions are also relevant to the debate over social networking regulation.
Continue reading →
As I noted in the first part of this essay, The Child Online Protection Act of 1998, which was passed by Congress in 1998 in an effort to restrict minors’ access to adult-oriented websites, has again been struck down in the courts. The decision is fairly devastating for the government, which had been hoping to prove to the court that private Internet filtering technologies are ineffective in blocking objectionable material. The government had also hoped to prove that age verification technologies were available that might be used to block access by minors to various websites. The court rejected both of these arguments.
Here’s a quick summary of the court’s major findings on these two important issues:
Continue reading →
The Child Online Protection Act of 1998, which was passed by Congress in 1998 in an effort to restrict minors’ access to adult-oriented websites, has again been struck down in the courts. (Decision here) Judge Lowell Reed Jr., senior judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ruled that:
COPA facially violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights of the plaintiffs because: (1) at least some of the plaintiffs have standing; (2) COPA is not narrowly tailored to Congress’ compelling interest; (3) defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that COPA is the least restrictive, most effective alternative in achieving the compelling interest; and (3) COPA is impermissibly vague and overbroad. As a result, I will issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of COPA.
This decision perpetuates the unbroken chain of Internet censorship cases that the government has lost since the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was overturned over ten years ago. After the CDA was rejected by a lower court and the Supreme Court, Congress passed COPA in 1998. COPA provided an affirmative defense to prosecution if a website operator could show that it had made a good faith effort to restrict site access by requiring a credit card, adult personal identification number, or some other type of age-verifying certificate or technology. But COPA was immediately challenged and has gone to the Supreme Court for review
twice and, most recently, it has been stuck in the U.S. District Court where the government was again defending its constitutionality in a 4-week trial last Fall.
Thus, almost 10 years after its initial passage, the legislation remains stuck in jurisprudential limbo after endless legal wrangling about its constitutionality. Untold millions have been spent by the government litigating this decision, and they may not be done yet. If the Department of Justice appeals this latest ruling, the law might again be considered by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then make another return trip to the Supreme Court for an unprecedented third review by the highest court in the land.
If all the money that has been spent litigating this case had instead been spent on media literacy and online safety campaigns, it could have produced concrete, lasting results. But our government appears obsessed with pursuing regulatory mandates and legal appeals instead.
Bob Pepper, the senior managing director of global advanced technology policy at Cisco Systems, has penned an outstanding editorial on Net neutrality regulation in TechNewsWorld.com. When Bob served as the FCC’s chief of policy development he was, in my opinion, the most brilliant and thoughtful regulator I ever had the chance to work with in my life. He had an appreciation of the benefits of markets that is still on display in this excellent editorial:
Looking ahead, Internet users and content/applications providers will continue to require more choice and flexibility in terms of service selection, service quality and price points. In contrast, new net neutrality regulation could have the perverse effect of degrading all levels of service or freezing in place the current state of providers and services. Companies would find it more difficult to differentiate themselves, offer new services, and enter new markets, a situation that would be anti-competitive and counterproductive for consumers.
Perhaps even worse, greater regulation would almost certainly squelch risk-taking, investment and inventiveness over the long term, as companies would lose incentives to form new ventures, alliances and services and explore new ways to create value consumers would want. Indeed, net neutrality regulation takes us down the wrong path of reduced competition, less consumer choice and greater government involvement and oversight.
To a large extent, the Internet has become so popular, successful and useful because it enriches and empowers people at the individual level. That spirit must not be jeopardized by ill-advised, untimely government regulations. Instead, it must be preserved as we go ever deeper into a new era of high-bandwidth applications and exciting new broadband services.
I hope Bob’s old colleagues over at the FCC are listening!
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.