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.
Of course, that doesn’t mean I agree with everything in it. In fact, I disagree vehemently with Wu’s general worldview and recommendations, and even much of his retelling of the history of information sectors and policy. Nonetheless, for reasons I will discuss in this first of many critiques, the book’s impact will be significant because Wu is a rock star in this academic arena as well as a committed activist in his role as chair of the radical regulatory activist group, Free Press. Through his work at Free Press as well as the New America Foundation, Professor Wu is attempting to craft a plan of action to reshape the Internet and cyberspace.
I stand in opposition to almost everything that Wu and those groups stand for, thus, I will be spending quite a bit of time addressing his perspectives and proposals here in coming months, just as I did when Jonathan Zittrain’s hugely important The Future of the Internet & How to Stop It was released two years ago (my first review is here and my latest critique is here). In today’s essay, I’ll provide a general overview and foreshadow my critiques to come. (Note: Tim was kind enough to have his publisher send me an advance uncorrected proof of the book a few months ago, so I’ll be using that version to construct these critiques. Please consult the final version for cited material and page numbers.) Continue reading →
Next week marks another “National Freedom of Speech Week” and each year I use this occasion as an opportunity to recall how lucky we are to live in a country that respects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. I wrote up a longer essay on this back in 2006 explaining why I am so passionate about freedom of speech and why I am so thankful to live in this country. For me, it comes down to is this: In a free society different people will always have different values and tolerance levels when it comes to speech and media content. It would be a grave mistake, therefore, for government to impose the will of some on all. To protect the First Amendment and our heritage of freedom of speech and expression from government encroachment, editorial discretion over content should always remain housed in private, not public, hands.
However, there will always be those who respond by arguing that speech regulation is important because “it’s for the children.” But raising children, and determining what they watch or listen to, is a quintessential parental responsibility. Personally, I think the most important thing I can do for my children is to preserve our nation’s free speech heritage and fight for their rights to enjoy the full benefits of the First Amendment when they become adults. Until then, I will focus on raising my children as best I can. And if because of the existence of the First Amendment they see or hear things I find troubling, offensive or rude, then I will sit down with them and talk to them in the most open, understanding and loving fashion I can about the realities of the world around them. But I don’t want anyone else doing that job for me. And in America, generally speaking, they can’t. That’s worth celebrating.
And then there’s George. He alone makes freedom of speech worth celebrating:
One of the old saws we hear from those who wish to impose more stringent regulations on advertising or product placement is that “it’s for the children.” That is, critics such at the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and other organzations fear that, because children’s brains are less developed or they have not yet learned to differentiate commercial appeals from other types of information flows, kids may be more susceptible to persuasive commercial messaging. I think there’s some truth to that, but I also believe that (a) kids aren’t quite the sheep we make them out to be, (b) the potential “harm” here is not as great as the critics make it out to be and (c) parental supervision should be the primary the solution to the problem.
But let’s ask a different question entirely: Are we willing to forgo additional, and potentially more diverse, forms of children’s programming simply because we want to keep commercial messaging or product placement away from kids? Consider the case study of The Hub, recently featured in The New York Times:
With imports of European cartoons, a smattering of Hasbro ads and a rerun of the movie “Garfield,” Hasbro and Discovery Communications unveiled a new television brand for children on Sunday, called The Hub. Over time, the two companies hope to prove that there is room for a fourth player alongside Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel and the Cartoon Network, the three heavyweights of children’s TV, said David M. Zaslav, the chief executive of Discovery Communications. […]
If you want another prime example of how self-serving Washington interests often seek to wield the stick of Big Government to their advantage, look no further than the effort the FCC is currently undertaking to extend its “CableCARD” set-top box industrial policy. The regulatory shenanigans here got started 14 years ago with Section 629 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which included authority for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to meddle in the video equipment marketplace. The FCC used that authority to impose a variety rules on the cable TV industry, such as CableCARD mandates, in the name of expanding device competition and consumer choice. Those regulations haven’t done much other than impose added costs on consumers for very little corresponding benefit. And whatever growth we’ve seen in the market for video devices and services has been more organic and unplanned, and it has come from unexpected quarters (think of Apple and Google’s TV efforts, and television distribution via video game platforms). Nonetheless, the FCC plowed forward today with additional layers of red tape in the hope of extending the CableCARD regulatory regime.
The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has long served as the prime cheerleader for this high-tech industrial policy since it would hobble video providers and benefit some of CEA’s members in the process. Indeed, to read through the CEA’s filings on this matter through the years, one is led to believe that CEA views cable systems as a sort of essential facility to which access must be granted in the name of preserving innovation by consumer electronics companies. With the CableCARD mandates, therefore, CEA is asking the FCC to impose a light form of common carrier regulation on the cable industry becuase that would help their interests in the end, regardless of what it meant for innovation at the core of networks.
Now, don’t get me wrong. There are plenty of self-serving people and organizations around Washington. Let’s face it, screwing over your competitors with regulation is what makes the “parasite economy” inside the Beltway tick! But what I find so interesting about this case study is how CEA has vociferously opposed (quite rightly, in my opinion) so many other high-tech industrial policies — the V-Chip, the so-called “broadcast flag,” HDTV tuner mandates, proposals to embed FM tuners in cell phones, and so on — and yet they wholeheartedly endorse the CableCARD industrial policy because the consumer electronics industry would benefit from this particular industrial policy. Sadly, it’s just another example of what Milton Friedman once called the “Business Community’s Suicidal Impulse”: the persistent propensity to persecute one’s competitors using regulation or the threat thereof.
Nobody said capitalists were consistent, folks. It’s capitalism for me, but not for thee.
Although I won’t be able to get around to penning a formal review of it for a couple more weeks, I was excited to get a copy of Milton Mueller‘s new book, Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance, in the mail today. I looks like a terrific treatment of some important cyberlaw issues. Here’s the summary:
Mueller identifies four areas of conflict and coordination that are generating a global politics of Internet governance: intellectual property, cyber-security, content regulation, and the control of critical Internet resources (domain names and IP addresses). He investigates how recent theories about networked governance and peer production can be applied to the Internet, offers case studies that illustrate the Internet’s unique governance problems, and charts the historical evolution of global Internet governance institutions, including the formation of a transnational policy network around the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society).
As a fan of Net-related political taxonomies and philosophical paradigms, I couldn’t help but quickly jump ahead to the very interesting concluding chapter on “Ideologies and Visions,” in which Mueller examines “the political spectrum of Internet governance.” There, on page 268, I was very excited to see this statement in his section on “Elements of Denationalized Liberalism”: Continue reading →
I’m preparing what will become another one of my absurdly long and boring book reviews and this time it’s Tim Wu’s new book — The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires — that will be under the microscope. As with many of the books I review, I’m going to go pretty hard on it, especially since I disagree with Tim on so many fronts. But I appreciate his willingness to engage a kooky libertarian like me and the fact that he shared an early proof of the book with me so I could prepare a review.
Nonetheless, I figured I would pre-empt the pain to come by posting a short comment here about one portion of the book with which I find myself in violent agreement. Chapter 16 of Wu’s book is a short history of cable television and it includes a brief discussion of a favorite theory of many Internet pessimists: the notion that the increased personalization or customization that Internet brings us will lead to a variety of potential ills, including: homogenization, close-mindedness, an online echo-chamber, information overload, or corporate brainwashing. Their greatest fear seems to be that hyper-customization of websites and online technologies will cause extreme social “fragmentation,” “polarization,” “balkanization,” “extremism” and even the supposed decline of deliberative democracy. Continue reading →
Last Friday, Common Sense Media (CSM) held an event (video) at the National Press Club featuring the chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The regulatory activist group released a new poll on children and privacy (Exec Summary & Full Survey). Unfortunately, like almost every other privacy-related poll, theirs is more geared towards fueling a privacy panic than on exploring the real-world trade-offs between legislating “greater privacy” (a hopelessly abstract concept in most conversations) and losing the consumer benefits of data sharing: innovation in online services and the quality and quantity of services and content supported by data-driven advertising.
What better way to drum up Congressional support for paternalistic privacy legislation (restrictions on online data use) than by asserting that this is what the electorate already wants? The poll asks whether “Congress should update laws that relate to online privacy and security for children and teens.” Three-fifths (61% of parents, 62% of adults) said yes. But earlier in the survey, only 16% knew that the Children Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 already prohibits “online companies… from collecting or using personal information from children under the age of thirteen without a parent’s permission.” (53% weren’t sure.) If parents don’t know what Congress has already done, how meaningful is it for them to say they think Congress needs to do more? (There’s a reason we don’t have direct democracy.)
Indeed, how useful are such polls, anyway? Ultimately, what such polls really tell us is that, if you ask parents—or adults in general—whether they’re concerned about protecting kids, of course most will say yes, because nobody wants to think of themselves as the kind of person who doesn’t care about kids.
This bias becomes even more problematic when the choice at issue involves such stark trade-offs—especially when we’re talking about throwing a wrench (restrictions on data use and collection) in the economic engine that has again and again provided funding for media and services that users just won’t pay for. As we’ve noted here before, privacy polls and surveys reveal only what the public will tell pollsters in response to the particular questions asked. On privacy, those questions are almost invariably designed to solicit responses suggesting an urgent need for more laws and government action. Even the fairest of these surveys is no substitute for real-world experiments in which people make real choices, in real time, often with real money, and face many real trade-offs. Continue reading →
In a post here last month on “Two Paradoxes of Privacy Regulation,” I discussed some of the interesting — and to me, troubling — similarities between rising calls for online privacy regulation and ongoing attempts to enact various types of controls on online speech or expression. In that essay, I argued that while most privacy advocates are First Amendment supporters as it pertains to content regulation, they abandon their free speech values and corresponding constitutional tests when it comes to privacy regulation. When the topic of debate shifts from concerns about potentially objectionable content to the free movement of personal information, personal responsibility and self-regulation become the last option, not the first. Privacy advocates typically ignore, downplay, or denigrate user-empowerment tools, even though many of those same advocates endorse “self-help” efforts as the superior method of dealing with objectionable speech or media content. In essence, therefore, they are claiming self-help is the right answer in one context, but not the other. Ironically, therefore, privacy advocates and moral conservatives actually share much in common in that they are using the same playbook to advance their goals: They are rejecting personal responsibility and user-empowerment tools and techniques in favor or government control for their respective issues.
Keeping that insight in mind, I want to take this comparison a step further and suggest that what really unites these two movements is a general conservatism about how our online lives and online business should be governed. For the moral conservatives, that instinct is well-understood. They want hold the line against what they believe is a decaying moral order by restricting access to potentially objectionable speech or content — dirty words, violent video games, online porn, or whatever else. The conservatism of the modern privacy movement is less obvious at first blush. I suspect that many privacy conservatives would not consider themselves “conservative” at all, and they might even be highly offended at being grouped in with moral conservatives who seek to wield government power to control online speech and expression. Nonetheless, the two groups share a common trait — an innate hostility to the impact of technological / social change within the realm of “rights” or values they care about. In their respective arenas, they both rejected the evolutionary dynamism of the free marketplace and they long for a return to a simpler and supposedly better time. Continue reading →
Distracted driving is a serious problem. When you’re flying down the road at speed maneuvering a 2-ton piece of machinery, you need to be paying attention to the road to keep yourself, and others around you, safe. Distractions of any sort can be dangerous and undercut the driver’s ability to stay focused. And it’s certainly true that digital devices can be among the biggest distractions. But I think we have to ask some practical questions about just how far law can and should go to minimize that distraction.
I raise this issue because, according to this Bloomberg article yesterday, “U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he believes motorists are distracted by any use of mobile phones while driving, including hands-free calls, as his department begins research that may lead him to push for a ban.” Sec. LaHood believes that even hands-free phone conversations are a “cognitive distraction” and should be prohibited. Also, “his concerns extend to vehicle information and entertainment systems such as Ford Motor Co.’s Sync and General Motors Co.’s OnStar,” which means that almost every conceivable in-vehicle technology could be regulated under LaHood’s scheme.
To be clear, I’m not necessarily opposed to laws addressing talking on phones or texting while driving since those actions can have dangerous consequences. But I’ve always preferred a more generic enforcement strategy when it comes to distracted driving laws. As I noted in my old 2007 essay, “Banning In-Car Technologies Won’t Work,” to the extent law enforcement needs to be brought into the picture it should be done in a technology-agnostic or activity-agnostic fashion. I went on to argue: Continue reading →
As I continue to do research for what will become a chapter-length version of my old essay, “Are You An Internet Optimist or Pessimist? The Great Debate over Technology’s Impact on Society,” I am reading or re-reading some old books that have touched upon these debates through the years. Earlier this week, after an event over at ITIF, my friend Rob Atkinson reminded me that he had discussed some of these issues in his 2004 book, The Past and Future of America’s Economy. Specifically, in Chapter 6, “The New Economy and Its Discontents,” Rob showed how “American history is rife with resistance to change,” as he recounts some of the heated battles over previous industrial / technological revolutions. I really loved this bit on page 201:
This conflict between stability and progress, security and prosperity, dynamism and stasis, has led to the creation of a major political fault line in American politics. On one side are those who welcome the future and look at the New Economy as largely positive. On the other are those who resist change and see only the risks of new technologies and the New Economy. As a result, a political divide is emerging between preservationists who want to hold onto the past and modernizers who recognize that new times require new means.
I like those “Preservationists” vs. “Modernizers” descriptors, and I like the fact that Rob also uses the “dynamism and stasis” paradigm, which he borrowed from Virginia Postrel, who contrasted those conflicting worldviews in her 1998 book, The Future and Its Enemies. As I noted in my essay about “Two Schools of Internet Pessimism,” I think that “dynamist vs. stasis” model — more than anything else I’ve read before or since — best explains the chasm that separates competing schools of thinking about the Internet’s impact on culture, economy, and society. Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology. Learn more about TLF →
Tim Wu’s new book, The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, will be released next week and it promises to make quite a splash in cyberlaw circles. It will almost certainly go down as one of the most important info-tech policy books of 2010 and will probably win the top slot in my next end-of-year list.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.