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’m always amused when I read stories quoting high-tech company leaders bemoaning the fact that they supposedly don’t get enough respect from Washington legislators or regulators. The latest example comes from a story in today’s Politico (“D.C. Crowd’s Path to Silicon Valley” by Tony Romm) which begins by noting that, “A trek to Silicon Valley has become a must-do for D.C. lawmakers seeking to stress their business and tech bona fides while developing relationships that could lead to big campaign donations down the road.” And yet it ends with this ironic bit:
Silicon Valley types typically don’t mind hosting lawmakers, as the trips give businesses out West the chance to put issues and needs on the minds of their regulators. But tech bellwethers sometimes don’t take kindly to lawmakers who treat the valley as an endless ATM. “All too often, people see Silicon Valley as the wallet and set aside the words or wisdom that [it] can provide,” said Carl Guardino, president and CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
Well, boo-hoo. If Mr. Guardino and his fellow Silicon Valley travelers don’t like being treated like an ATM, then they should stop behaving like one! No one makes them give a dime to any politician. And once you start playing this game, you shouldn’t be surprised by how quickly you’ll become entrenched in the cesspool that is Beltway politics and become less and less focused on actually innovating and serving consumers.
I wish people like this would go back and read “Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations with Washington, D.C.” by Cypress Semiconductor President and CEO T.J. Rodgers. Everything he said 10 years ago has come true. Continue reading →
Many of the installments of our ongoing ”Problems in Public Utility Paradise” series here at the TLF have discussed the multiple municipal wi-fi failures of the past few years. Six or so years ago, there was quixotic euphoria out there regarding the prospects for muni wi-fi in numerous cities across America — which was egged on by a cabal of utopian public policy advocates and wireless networking firms eager for a bite of a government service contract. A veritable ‘if-you-build-it-they-will-come’ mentality motivated the movement as any suggestion that the model didn’t have legs was treated as heresy. Indeed, as I noted here before, when I wrote a white paper back in 2005 entitled “Risky Business: Philadelphia’s Plan for Providing Wi-Fi Service,” and kicked it off with the following question: “Should taxpayers finance government entry into an increasingly competitive, but technologically volatile, business market?,” I received a shocking amount of vitriolic hate mail for such a nerdy subject. But facts are pesky things and the experiment with muni wi-fi has proven to be even worse than many of us predicted back then.
A new piece by Christopher Mims over at MIT’s Technology Review (“Where’s All the Free Wi-Fi We Were Promised?“) notes that “no technology happens in a vacuum, and where the laws of the land abut the laws of nature, physics will carve your best-laid plans into a heap of sundered limbs every time.” He continues, “the failure of municipal WiFi is an object lesson in the dangers of techno-utopianism. It’s a failure of intuition — the sort of mistake we make when we want something to be right.” Too true. Mims was inspired to pen his essay after reading a new paper, “A Postmortem Look at Citywide WiFi“, by Eric M. Fraser, the Executive Director for Research at the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation. “Almost everyone was fooled by the promise of citywide WiFi,” Fraser notes, because of the promise of a “wireless fantasy land” that would almost magically spread cheap broadband to the masses. But, for a variety of reasons — most of which are technical in nature — muni wifi failed. Fraser summarizes as follows: Continue reading →
Today it was my pleasure to take part in an Information Technology and Innovation Foundation discussion about Rob Atkinson’s interesting new white paper, “Who’s Who in Internet Politics: A Taxonomy of Information Technology Policy Perspectives .” [You can find the video of the event here or embeded down below.] Rob divides the information technology landscape into 8 tribes: cyber-libertarians, social engineers, free marketers, moderates, moral conservatives, old economy regulators, tech companies and trade associations, and bricks-and-mortars. Most of those are fairly self-explanatory, but during my response time, I pushed back on a few of these groupings.
First, I pointed out that there really didn’t seem to much of a difference between “cyber-libertarians” and “free marketers.” Of course, part of the reason I feel this way is because I believe Rob is improperly equating cyber-libertarianism with Internet exceptionalism. I’ve pointed out the distinction between the two in this essay with Berin Szoka. We note that Internet exceptionalists are essentially first cousins to cyber-libertarians in that both groups believe that the Internet has changed culture and history profoundly and is deserving of special care before governments intervene. But cyber-libertarianism, properly understood, is something more than just special treatment for the Net. It refers to the belief that individuals—acting in whatever capacity they choose (as citizens, consumers, companies, or collectives)—should be at liberty to pursue their own tastes and interests online. Again, please see “Cyber-Libertarianism: The Case for Real Internet Freedom” by Berin and me for more details. Continue reading →
Since joining the ranks of the unemployed, a number of folks have sent kind notes wishing me well and asking what’s next for me. Well, now that I finally have the time to pursue my lifelong dream, I’m pleased to announce my new venture: The Sin Think Tank. The mission of the Sin Think Tank will be to promote prurient interests, gun play, gambling, unhealthy eating, and alcohol and tobacco appreciation. Some of our positions or programs will include:
- The Bob Guccione Fellow in Cultural Studies
- The Joe Camel Chair in Environmental Analysis
- The Smith & Wesson Institute for Peace
- The Jack Daniels Center for Spirited Discussion
- The Center for Gambling Promotion
- The Dunkin Donuts Nutrition & Nourishment Initiative (aka, the “Feed the World” initiative)
- The Hunter S. Thompson Foundation for Free Living & High Times
Our official headquarters — a unique edifice constructed entirely from stacks of Benjamins stuck together with trans fats and extra-sugary kids’ gum — will eventually be located in Las Vegas, Nevada, of course. Job benefits are excellent, especially our Mixed Martial Arts day care center for the kiddies.
Resumes are welcome but personal interviews are preferred and will take place at Gilbert’s Indoor Gun Range or at The Brickskeller while applicants are expected to sample 2% of every beer in stock during one sitting.
I welcome ideas for other positions and centers. [The Sin Think Tank is an Equal Opportunity Offender Employer.]
I’m sorry to report that the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) announced today that it was concluding its 17-year run and ceasing all operations immediately. The organization had been through some tumultuous times recently with 5 presidents in 5 years and steadily declining support during that period. Thus, the decision was made to close the doors.
Founded in 1993, PFF’s mission was to study the digital revolution and its implications for public policy while advocating a philosophy of limited government, free markets, property rights, and individual sovereignty. The organization’s scholars and researchers penned tens of thousands of editorials, papers, special reports, books, filings, amicus briefs, and blog posts during that stretch. PFF also convened numerous policy fora, including its nationally recognized annual Aspen Summit, which brought together leading thinkers and policymakers in the field.
It’s been a great honor to be with PFF for the past five years and I’m extremely proud of everything the organization has accomplished. When PFF was formed, it was quite literally the only market-oriented institution focused on the digital revolution. Today, there are dozens of such institutions, many which PFF helped to inspire. Thus, in a sense, PFF has served its purpose by focusing both intellectuals and policymakers on the need to keep cyberspace free from excessive government control and interference and it’s my hope that the impact of PFF’s work will live on for many years to come.
As for me, well, as the old country song goes… “it’s time to stop thinkin’ and start drinkin’.” I’ll still be blogging here on occasion, but for now, I think I will enjoy a few weeks of unemployment and fill my time with bourbon, cigars, and marathon video game sessions. Or maybe I’ll get back to writing that book I just can’t seem to finish.
I encourage tech policy wonks in Washington to attend next week’s (Oct. 5th) Information Technology and Innovation Foundation event on “A Guide to the Internet Political Landscape,” which will feature the release of Rob Atkinson’s new report, “Who’s Who in Internet Politics: A Taxonomy of Information Technology Policy Perspectives .” The report identifies nine distinct groupings shaping Internet policy and how these groups view key Internet policy issues, including net neutrality, copyright, and privacy.
Rob is one of my very favorite people in Washington and I always look forward to everything he does–even when I disagree with him! I remember a great debate we had a decade ago when he invited me to critique his paper on “The Failure of Cyber-Libertarianism: The Case for a National E-Commerce Strategy.” And at the end of the debate he conceded that I was correct and he immediately converted to the libertarian movement. No, not really! But it was a hell of a fun time.
I hope for a repeat for some of that fun as Rob was kind enough to ask me to comment on his new “Who’s Who in Internet Politics” paper as next week’s event along with Morgan Reed of the Association for Competitive Technology. Rob asked me to peer review an early draft of the study and I can assure you it will make a splash. Come on over to ITIF next Tuesday, October 5th at 9:30am to hear us discuss it. You can RSVP here. Location is 1101 K Street NW, Suite 610.
By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer
Yesterday, the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed a joint amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to protect the free speech rights of videogame creators and users and asking the justices to uphold a ruling throwing out unconstitutional restrictions on violent videogames. At issue is a California law that bans the sale or rental of “violent” videogames to anyone under the age of 18, among other regulations. While the law was passed in 2005, it has never taken effect, as courts have repeatedly ruled it unconstitutional. California appealed its loss at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. The case is Schwarzenegger vs. EMA.
This case has profound ramifications for the future of not just videogames, but all media, and the Internet as well. Although we’ve had 15 years of fairly solid Supreme Court case law on new media issues, a loss in the Schwarzenegger case could reverse that tide. In the amicus brief, we explain how the current videogame content rating system empowers parents to make their own decisions without unconstitutionally restricting this new and evolving form of free speech. Our brief is focused on three major arguments:
- Parental Control Tools, Household Media Control Methods, Self-Regulation and Enforcement of Existing Laws Constitute Less Restrictive Means of Limiting Access to Objectionable Content than Government Regulation of Constitutionally Protected Speech
- Videogame Content is Constitutionally Protected Speech Deserving Strict Scrutiny
- The State Has Not Established a Compelling Government Interest in Restricting the Sale of Videogames to Minors
The filing can be found online here and it is embedded down below. As always, the Media Coalition has done an outstanding job summarizing the case and listing all the major briefs filed with the Court in this matter, so check out their Schwarzenegger v. EMA page for everything you need to know about this case. GamePolitics.com also offers excellent ongoing coverage of the case. Continue reading →
[Over at the Concurring Opinions blog, I’ve posted my latest installment in the excellent online symposium they’ve been running on the themes set forth in Jonathan Zittrain’s Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. My previous post is here. My latest is “On Defining Generativity, Openness, and Code Failure,” I’ve pasted the entire essay down below.]
_______
I’ve really enjoyed the back-and-forth in this symposium about the many issues raised in Jonathan Zittrain’s Future of the Net, and I appreciate that several of the contributors have been willing to address some of my concerns and criticisms in a serious way. I recognize I’m a bit of a skunk at the garden party here, so I really do appreciate being invited by the folks at Concurring Opinions to play a part in this. I don’t have much more to add beyond my previous essay, but I wanted to stress a few points and offer a challenge to those scholars and students who are currently researching these interesting issues.
As I noted in my earlier contribution, I’m very much hung up on this whole “open vs. closed” and “generative vs. sterile/tethered” definitional question. Much of the discussion about these concepts takes place at such a high level of abstraction that I get very frustrated and want to instead shift the discussion to real-world applications of these concepts. Because when we do, I believe we find that things are not so clear-cut. Again, “open” devices and platforms rarely are perfectly so; and “closed” systems aren’t usually completely clamped down. Same goes for the “generative vs. sterile/tethered” dichotomy. Continue reading →
TLF readers will definitely want to check out the online symposium underway over at the Concurring Opinions blog debating the thesis set forth in Jonathan Zittrain’s important 2008 book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. The symposium will feature a terrific cast of thinkers, including: Steven Bellovin, Ryan Calo, Laura DeNardis, James Grimmelmann, Orin Kerr, Lawrence Lessig, Harry Lewis,Daithí Mac Síthigh, Betsy Masiello, Salil Mehra, Quinn Norton, Alejandro Pisanty, Joel Reidenberg, Barbara van Schewick and me! Regular contributors to the Concurring Opinions blog, such as Frank Pasquale, are also taking part.
Faithful readers will recall that I named Zittrain’s book the most important Internet policy book of 2008 and one of the most important books of the past decade. It’s impact has already been enormous. But I’ve also been unrelenting in my criticism of the book and Zittrain’s dour forecast for the future of Internet “openness” and digital “generativity.” Down below I have reproduced my contribution to the Concurring Opinions symposium, but I encourage you to hop over there to check out all the essays that are pouring in on this topic.
____________
In his opening essay in this symposium, Jonathan Zittrain ensures us that he is “not exactly a pessimist.” “I recognize, and celebrate,” he says, “the fact that the digital environment of 2010 is the coolest, most interesting, most option-filled it’s ever been.” Terrific! I am glad to hear that because the crux of my repeated critiques of his book, The Future of the Internet, over the past two years has been focused on its unrelenting – and largely unwarranted – pessimism about our possible cyber-futures. Alas, his essay on these pages still displays much of that underlying techno-pessimism and begs me to ask: Will the real Jonathan Zittrain please stand up? Continue reading →
Information overload is a hot topic these days. I’ve really enjoyed recent essays by Aaron Saenz (“Are We Too Plugged In? Distracted vs. Enhanced Minds”), Michael Sacasas (“Technology Sabbaths and Other Strategies for the Digitized World“), and Peggy Noonan (“Information Overload is Nothing New“) discussing this concern in a thoughtful way. Thoughtful discussion about this issue is sometimes hard to find because, as I’ve noted here before, information overload is a subject that bitterly divides Internet optimists and pessimists. The pessimists tend to overplay the issue and discuss it in apocalyptic terms. The optimists, by contrast, often dismiss the concern out of hand. Certainly there must be some reasonable middle ground on this issue, no?
There is, and some of it can be found in a fine new book, Hamlet’s BlackBerry: A Practical Philosophy for Building a Good Life in the Digital Age, by William Powers. Powers, a former staff writer for the Washington Post, is a gifted storyteller and his walk though the history of philosophy and technology makes this slender volume an enjoyable, quick read. He begins by reminding us that:
whenever new devices have emerged, they’ve presented the kinds of challenges we face today — busyness, information overload, that sense of life being out of control. These challenges were as real two millennia ago as they are today, and throughout history, people have been grappling with them and looking for creative ways to manage life in the crowd. (p. 5)
His key insight is that humans can adapt to new technology, but it takes time, patience, humility, and a little effort. “The key is to strike a balance,” he says, between “the call of the crowd” and the “need for time and space apart” from it. (p. 4) The problem we face today is that all the pressure is on us to be what he calls “Digital Maximalists.” That is, many of us are increasingly out to maximize the time spent in front of various digital “screens” whether we have made the determination that is really in our best interest or not. It has just gradually happened, Powers argues, because “The goal is no longer to be ‘in touch’ but to erase the possibility of ever being out of touch.” (p. 15)
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.