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.
I was listening to an interesting piece on NPR the last night entitled “Does Age Quash Our Spirit of Adventure?” The piece featured a neuroscientist who had been studying why it is that humans (indeed, all mammals) have an innate tendency to lose their willingness to try new things after a certain point in their lives. He called this our “adventure window.” The neuroscientist came to study this phenomenon after growing increasingly annoyed with his young male research assistant, who would come to work every day of the week listening to something new and quite different than the day before. Meanwhile, the much older neuroscience professor lamented the fact that he had been listening to the same Bob Marley tape seemingly forever.
Why is it, the neuroscientist wondered, that our willingness to try new things (our “adventure window”) fades rapidly after a certain point in life? Unfortunately, science can’t provide us with all the answers here, but his research and that of others suggests that there exists something deep within our psyche that relishes novelty and experimentation when we are young, but firmly rejects it as we grow older. To use a more common phrase: We grow set in our ways. And what’s most interesting, this neuroscientist unearthed research on other mammals (like baboons) which suggests that this is a common phenomenon throughout nature. A group of older baboons transported to new surroundings, for example, will typically refuse to try new foods they find, whereas their young will be willing to sample everything in sight.
OK, this is all quite interesting but what does all of this have to do with radio formats?
Continue reading →
… the videos were this damn cool. This video by OK Go for their snappy new tune “Here It Goes Again” is probably the most creative thing I’ve seen since Spike Jonze created those brilliant videos for Fatboy Slim, Weezer and the Beastie Boys back in the 90s. And what makes OK Go’s new video so creative is that is so decidedly low-tech. Who ever thought 4 guys dancing on 6 running machines could be so entertaining?
Seriously, I love technology, but in terms of the art of music videos, I have always subscribed to the theory that less is more. I basically had it with high-tech videos way back in the mid-80s after Dire Straits did “Money For Nothing” and A-Ha made “Take on Me.” Yes, I know that dates me in a terrible way, but those really were cutting edge videos in terms of high-tech wizardry–both then and now. After that, artists were destined to do all sorts of stupid things with technology in music videos. Remember that horrible Paula Abdul video with a dancing cartoon cat. Of course, everything Paula’s ever done is horrible (remember her “Rebel Without A Cause” video ripoff featuring a young Keanu Reeves?), so maybe that isn’t the best example.
Perhaps TLF readers will have some examples of their least favorite music videos of all-time. Beyond anything by Paula Abdul, I’d have to say that the worst videos I’ve ever seen are:
1 – “We Built This City” by Starship (pure, unadulterated music video evil… When Abe Lincoln’s statue gets up and dances, that’s when I usually reach for a beer bottle to throw at the TV.)
2 – “Mr. Roboto” by Styx (I’m always rooting for the machines to rip Dennis DeYoung apart in this video… and IBM should have sued these guys for having their good name used in this piece of crap song.)
3 – (tie)
“She Likes to Party All the Time” by Eddie Murphy
“Return of Bruno” – Bruce Willis
… and last but most certainly not least…
Don Johnson’s “Heartbeat” (oh, the horror, the horror… and yes that is Dweezil Zappa and Paul Schaefer in the video.)
… oh, man, just too many choices here. Let me know your favorites.
It never ceases to amaze me what some people think they have a “right” to in this country. The latest example comes from the field of cable television where “rights inflation” has been spiraling out of control for years. Consider some of the things that people have claimed that they have “a right” to in the context of cable and satellite television over the past 20 years:
-
In the 1980s and 90s, a great number of people claimed they had a right to cheap cable TV programming. As a result, the Cable Act of 1992 was passed imposing price controls on basic cable.
-
During that same period, it was also argued that certain broadcast channels should have a right to reserve capacity on cable networks to distribute their programming. Consequently, “must carry” mandates were formally enshrined into law requiring it.
-
More recently, a number of people are saying they have a right to cable television on any terms they wish including on a channel-by-channel, or “a la carte” basis, instead of as part of pre-packaged bundle of programming. Despite the fact that it could destroy the wonderful diversity of programming we see on TV today, Big Government liberals promote a la carte regulation under the guise of “consumer choice” while Big Government conservatives hail it as a worthy effort to “clean up cable.” The end result is an unholy alliance that seeks to create a new “right” to unbundled couch-potato fare.
-
Not satisfied that the push for a la carte regulation will go far enough (or perhaps fearing that it will not be passed into law), the “let’s-have-government-sanitize-cable TV” crowd has also pushed for a right to “family-friendly tiers” of programming. Cable operators started “voluntarily” adopting such tiers late last year.
-
Importantly, the reason the industry “voluntarily” adopted those family-friendly tiers was because they were threatened by far more serious censorship proposals from those who feel that have the right not to be offended by anything they see on pay TV. Proposals to extend broadcast indecency speech standards to cable and satellite systems have been seriously debated in the halls of Congress this session.
Could rights inflation get any more absurd? You better believe it. This summer, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has gotten all worked up over consumers’ “right” to sports programming!
Continue reading →
The electronic gaming sector chalked up another impressive First Amendment victory on Monday in the case of Electronic Software Association v. Hatch. [Here’s the full decision]. James M. Rosenbaum, Chief District Judge of the District Court of Minnesota, struck down as unconstitutional a Minnesota law that passed in May of this year. The Minnesota law was unique in that it sought to impose fines on the buyers rather than the sellers of games rated either “M” for Mature or “AO” for Adults Only under the industry’s voluntary ratings system. Other state and local laws that have been struck down in recent years imposed penalties mostly on game retailers who sold games rated M or AO to minors.
But the unique Minnesota approach met the same legal fate as those other laws. Echoing the previous video game industry decisions, Judge Rosenbaum declared that “video games are a protected form of speech under the First Amendment.” In response to the State of Minnesota’s plea that, when balancing the interests in this matter, the Court should consider “the lesser societal value” of “worthless, disgusting” video games, Judge Rosenbaum cut loose with this wonderful rejoinder: “The First Amendment… was certainly established to keep the government from becoming the arbiter of what constitutes ‘worthless’ or ‘disgusting’ speech. The Court declines the State’s invitation to enter into an evaluation of this kind.”
That’s pretty powerful stuff. But wait… it gets even better.
Continue reading →
Today, PFF released a short new paper in which I propose a voluntary “online code of conduct” for Internet operators to help us head-off further regulation of online speech and expression. With online speech under intense attack in Washington today, I believe it is essential that industry take a bold step to preemptively address the concerns that Congress wants to handle through new legislation and regulation.
The paper can be found online here and I have attached the text of the entire essay down below.
I look forward to comments and criticisms.
Continue reading →
I heard the rumors over the weekend and hoped that they were not true. But they were. “E3” the video game industry’s amazing annual trade show, is going to be scaled back starting next year. The big, beautiful, booming spectacle of hundreds of gaming companies coming together to show off their amazing new games, platforms and other inventions… is no more. It will be replaced by a smaller show at a smaller location with a smaller crowd.
As a gaming fanatic, it is sad news to be sure. I may be a 37-year-old father of two, but when I was walking the aisles of the “E3” show this May, it was a non-stop, “kid-in-the-world’s-greatest-(eye & ear)-candy-store” moment for me. (My complete review of this year’s show can be found here.
But, after the news set in–and after I had time to kill the pain by getting on XBOX Live and kicking a good friend’s butt in a heated match of “NCAA Football 2007”!–I started thinking more rationally about the economics of trade shows. Specifically, why do industries host trade shows at all? Is it really worth it for them?
Continue reading →
I suppose you could argue that a 37-year-old father of two shouldn’t still be playing video games, but I love ’em and just can’t give them up. I’ll probably still be playing when I’m 80 inside a virtual holodeck down in some lame Florida retirement community. (God I hope my Golden Years are that exciting).
These days, I just don’t have the time to play the more sophisticated action & adventure games that I used to love the most, so I now spend most of my time with “single-session” games, especially sports games that allow me to play a quick game and then put it aside for awhile. Last night, while I was sitting in my basement with my kids playing an intense Michigan vs. Ohio State matchup on EA’s marvelous new “NCAA Football 2007,” my mind started drifting back to all the other football games I’ve played through the years on multiple platforms. In particular, I remembered the very first sports game I ever bought was “Atari Football” back in the late 1970s. At the time, I thought it was about the most cutting-edge thing ever invented. Today, of course, it looks absolutely primitive. Just look at this! …
… And then look at this beautiful screen shot from the new NCAA Football game…
We’ve come a long way in a very short time!
Continue reading →
Well, here we go again. Not satisfied with the prospect of merely regulating the broadcast television and radio airwaves, Congress is poised to again introduce legislation that would extend indecency regulations to cable and satellite television. Broadcasting & Cable magazine reports today that Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-Ill.) and Tom Osborne (R-Neb.) are introducing a bill, “The Family Choice Act of 2006,” that would try to control cable content by giving the industry a choice among three regulatory approaches.
The bill would require multichannel video providers to choose one of three options:
1) apply FCC broadcast indecency standards to their own programming;
2) offer channels a la carte so subscribers could choose not to take certain channels; or
3) offer a family-friendly tier that meets the definition supplied in the bill.
Wow, now how’s that for a devil’s choice! But cable or satellite providers shouldn’t be forced to pick among these poisons because government has absolutely no rational legal or philosophical basis for imposing censorship on pay-TV providers. As I noted last June in a
Washington Post editorial:
Continue reading →
In my college days, I majored in both journalism and political science, but I briefly flirted with the idea of a major in psychology as well. (Actually, I was just trying to extend my college partying days as long as possible but I ran out of money!) While I was briefly flirting with the idea of a psychology major, I took a psyc class that featured a brief discussion of a subject that would forever change the way I look at the world and media issues in particular: “third-person-effect hypothesis.” Simply stated, the hypothesis predicts that people tend to overestimate the influence of communications / media on the attitudes and behavior of others relative to themselves. For example, many people will see media “bias” where there is none (or very little) and they will often advocate a “re-tilting” of the news in their preferred direction. (Incidentally, in case you’re wondering, there’s plenty of research to back up the thesis.)
When I first read about this hypothesis, I experienced a profound personal epiphany; a real “ah-hah!” moment that helped me finally unlock the secret to why so many people alleged media bias where I personally saw none. Specifically, it helped me understand why good friends of mine on both the political Left and Right saw
different forms of bias in the exact same news. As someone who was, and remains, rabidly independent (I’ve never voted for either major party in my life and I doubt I ever will), I was always fascinated by this. When I sat down with classmates, friends, roommates or others to watch the news, I’d witnessed endless bickering among them about supposed slant one way or the other. But, with a few exceptions, I never quite saw or heard that bias myself. I’m not saying that all news is perfectly unbiased, it’s just that a large percentage of the time it is not biased and yet people argue that it is, but in decidedly different ways and directions.
What explains this? The answer is “third-person-effect hypothesis” and “hostile media effect” theory. To explain, let me step back and begin by telling you what got me thinking about this again.
Continue reading →
Many years ago, I largely quit following developments on the “universal service” front. It was just too damn demoralizing. After studying the system for many years, I came to the conclusion that the Universal Service Fund (USF) – – and the entire universal service regulatory process – – was one of the most unfair, illogical, counter-productive, regressive, anti-technology programs EVER created in American history, And yet, no one in government seemed to be willing to do anything to fix it. Matter of fact, they actually decided to expand it in recent years with the creation of the E-Rate (or “Gore Tax”) program. And they brought cellular and VoIP into the system as well. Absolutely insane.
I was reminded of that again today when I received a new report from communications guru Thomas Hazlett, Professor of Law & Economics and Director of the Information Economy Project at George Mason University. Hazlett has just penned a devastating critique of the universal service system in which he asks: “What Does $7 Billion Buy?” Answer: not much. Let me just quote from his executive summary here and then encourage you to go read the entire study for more miserable details about this horrendously inefficient government program:
“The ‘universal service’ regime ostensibly extends local phone service to consumers who could not otherwise afford it. To achieve this goal, some $7 billion annually is raised – – up from less than $4 billion in 1998 – – by taxing telecommunications users. Yet, benefits are largely distributed to shareholders of rural telephone companies, not consumers, and fail–on net–to extend network access. Rather, the incentives created by these subsidies encourage widespread inefficiency and block adoption of advanced technologies – – such as wireless, satellite, and Internet-based services – – that could provide superior voice and data links at a fraction of the cost of traditional fixed-line networks. Ironically, subsidy payments are rising even as fixed-line phone subscribership falls, and as the emergence of competitive wireless and broadband networks make traditional universal service concepts obsolete. Unless policies are reformed to reflect current market realities, tax increases will continue to undermine the very goals ‘universal service’ is said to advance.”
And, if you’re a real glutton for punishment and want even more grim details about the system, check out this recent report by PFF’s “DACA” working group on universal service reform. File all this under: “The Unintended Consequences of Misguided Government Regulation.”
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.