Articles by Adam Thierer

Avatar photoSenior 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.


Upcoming July 27th Event on Online Safety, Privacy & Free Speech

by on July 13, 2009 · 5 comments

Just a heads up for those of you in the DC-area… On Monday, July 27th, PFF will be hosting a Hill event on “Online Child Safety, Privacy, and Free Speech: An Overview of Challenges in Congress & the States.” I will be moderating the discussion and we will be joined by Parry Aftab, Executive Director of WiredSafety.org, Jim Halpert a Partner with the law firm of DLA Piper, Todd Haiken, Senior Manager of Policy for Common Sense Media, and my colleague Berin Szoka also of PFF.

The event will focus on the intersection of online child safety, privacy, and free speech issues at both the federal and state level. Bills introduced in Congress to address cyberbullying concerns propose either educational initiatives or a criminalization approach. Access to objectionable content also remains a concern and a new, government-mandated task force is looking into those issues. Meanwhile, state officials, including many state attorneys general, continue to explore age verification mandates for social networking sites and some have considered building on the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) to expand “parental notification” mandates. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently announced an expedited review of COPPA to see if it is keeping up with new developments. The FTC is also exploring child safety in virtual worlds. New concerns about “sexting,” or the sending of sexual explicit images over mobile devices, has also raised new concerns led some lawmakers to ponder penalties.

How serious are these concerns? Is legislation or regulation needed to address them? What free speech issues are at stake? Should Congress take the lead or leave it to the States to experiment with different models? These and other issues will be discussed by the panelists at our July 27th event.

The logistical details are below and you RSVP here.

“Online Child Safety, Privacy, and Free Speech: An Overview of Challenges in Congress & the States” July 27, 2009 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. Room SVC-208 Capitol Visitor Center 1st Street and East Capitol Street, NE (entrance across from Supreme Court)

SHARE: 5 comments

Cringely’s Contradictory Thinking on Microsoft-Google Wars

by on July 13, 2009 · 9 comments

Goog MS logosI don’t get it. Technology journalist Robert X. Cringely, whose work I typically greatly admire, had a confusing editorial in the New York Times yesterday entitled “Chrome vs. Bing vs. You and Me” in which he makes what appear to me to be contradictory statements about the impact of the Google-Microsoft wars. Commenting on Google’s recent move into the OS world and Microsoft’s launch of Bing, its new and improved search platform, Cringely argues:

This is all heady stuff and good for lots of press, but in the end none of this is likely to make a real difference for either company or, indeed, for consumers. It’s just noise — a form of mutually assured destruction intended to keep each company in check.

That statement itself is hopelessly contradictory. If two companies are engaged in such a heated war “to keep each [other] in check,” isn’t that by definition something that could make a difference for consumers? Indeed, what Cringely goes on to say seems to confirm that in my mind:

So why does Google even bother? To keep Microsoft on its toes. […] So Google Chrome and Chrome OS and Android are all intended to keep Microsoft on the defensive and less likely to push its own Big Red Button. This makes even more sense given the recent advent of Microsoft’s Bing search technology, which performs precisely the same competitive control function against Google. Bing hasn’t a hope of toppling Google as the premier search engine and Microsoft knows it. To date, Bing’s success has actually been at the expense of Google’s competitors, not Google itself. But thanks to Microsoft’s deep pockets and fierce screwball reputation, Bing has already accomplished its main purpose: reminding Google executives who they’re messing with.

Hey, what’s wrong with all of this?!  Of course, it may be true, as Cringely argues, that, “Some company with a new idea and no legacy products to defend will eventually arise to clean Microsoft’s clock. Or maybe Microsoft’s market will simply disappear as PC’s are subsumed into cars and mobile phones, possibly leaving Windows behind in the process.” But what’s wrong with Google putting the pressure on in the meantime? And why shouldn’t we love the sound of Microsoft putting more pressure on Google with Bing? I’ve been using Bing a lot lately (I’ve made it my new Firefox search default, in fact) and have been very impressed. Even if it doesn’t win back market share lost to Google in recent years, it really does keep Google on its toes and innovating.  And that’s a great thing.

Moreover, what would Cringely prefer? For both companies to just cede traditional territory to the other and roll over and play dead? I’m not sure how that would benefit anyone.

His confusing editorial ends with still more contradiction, arguing that, until some other independent innovators arise to truly topple Microsoft and Google, “these [two] companies will posture, spend a little money on research and development, and keep each other in check, while reporters and publications pretend that it matters.”  Again, Robert, it does matter. The money spent on R&D (which is not “a little” amount, I might add) and the pressure they place on each other by encroaching on each other’s core competencies, is important to the market, consumers, and future innovation. Cringely should be praising these developments, not complaining about them.

SHARE: 9 comments

Mill’s On Liberty at 150: Its Legacy for Freedom of Speech & Expression

by on July 10, 2009 · 16 comments

Mill On Liberty John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty turns 150 this year. Published in 1859, this slender manifesto for human liberty went on to become a classic of modern philosophy and political science.  It remains a beautiful articulation of the core principles of human liberty and a just society.

Anyone familiar with the book recognizes the importance of the opening chapter and Mill’s “one very simple principle” for “the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion”:

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Mill went on to outline “the appropriate region of human liberty,” and divided it into:

  1. “liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological. The liberty of expressing and publishing opinions may seem to fall under a different principle, since it belongs to that part of the conduct of an individual which concerns other people; but, being almost of as much importance as the liberty of thought itself, and resting in great part on the same reasons, is practically inseparable from it.”
  2. “liberty of tastes and pursuits; of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character; of doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow: without impediment from our fellow-creatures, so long as what we do does not harm them, even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse, or wrong”
  3. “freedom to unite, for any purpose not involving harm to others”

Bringing it altogether, he argued:

The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.

To this day, I do not believe there has been a more eloquent or concise summation of the central principles of libertarianism than those passages from Chapter 1 of the book. But what many fail to remember or appreciate is the equally powerful second chapter of Mill’s treatise, “On the Liberty of Thought and Discussion.” It was a bold defense of freedom of speech and expression that was many decades ahead of its time. And it still has lessons and warnings worth heeding in our modern Information Age.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 16 comments

YouTube, Power Laws & the Persistence of Media Inequality

by on July 9, 2009 · 31 comments

“Liberty upsets patterns.” That was one of the many lessons that the late Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick taught us in his 1974 masterpiece “Anarchy, State, and Utopia.” What Nozick meant was that there is a fundamental tension between liberty and egalitarianism such that when people are left to their own devices, some forms of inequality would be inevitable and persistent throughout society. (Correspondingly, any attempt to force patterns, or outcomes, upon society requires a surrender of liberty.)

No duh, right? Most people understand this today–even if some of them are all too happy to hand their rights over to the government in exchange for momentary security or some other promise.  In the world of media policy, however, many people still labor under the illusion that liberty and patterned equality are somehow reconcilable. That is, some media policy utopians and Internet pollyannas would like us to believe that if you give every man, woman, and child a platform on which to speak, everyone will be equally heard.  Moreover, in pursuit of that goal, some of them argue government should act to “upset patterns” and push to achieve more “balanced” media outcomes. That is the philosophy that has guided the “media access” movement for decades and it what fuels the “media reformista” movement that is led by groups like the (inappropriately named) Free Press, which was founded by neo-Marxist media theorist Robert McChesney.

Alas, perfect media equality remains an illusive pipe dream. As I have pointed out here before, there has never been anything close to “equal outcomes” when it comes to the distribution or relative success of books, magazines, music, movies, book sales, theater tickets, etc.  A small handful of titles have always dominated, usually according to a classic “power law” or “80-20” distribution, with roughly 20% of the titles getting 80% of the traffic / revenue.  And this trend is increasing, not decreasing, for newer and more “democratic” online media.

For example, recent research has revealed that “the top 10% of prolific Twitter users accounted for over 90% of tweets” and  “the top 15% of the most prolific [Wkipedia] editors account for 90% of Wikipedia’s edits.” As Clay Shirky taught us back in 2003 in this classic essay, the same has long held true for blogging, where outcomes are radically inegalitarian, with a tiny number of blogs getting the overwhelming volume of blogosphere attention.  The reason, Shirky pointed out, is that:

Continue reading →

SHARE: 31 comments

Five Online Safety Task Forces Have Generally Agreed

by on July 9, 2009 · 4 comments

In an earlier post, I mentioned an important new online child safety task force report that has just been released from the “Point Smart. Click Safe.” Blue Ribbon Working Group. It’s a great report and I encourage you to read the whole thing. It was my great pleasure to serve on this task force, and as we started finalizing our conclusions and recommendations, I started thinking about how much of what we were finding and recommending was consistent with what past online safety task forces had also concluded.

By way of background, over the past decade, five major online safety task forces or blue ribbon commissions have been convened to study online safety issues. Two of these task forces were convened in the United States and issued reports in 2000 (“COPA Commission”) and 2002 (“Thornburgh Commission“). Another was commissioned by the British government in 2007 and issued in a major report in March 2008 (“Byron Review“). Finally, two additional online safety task forces were formed in the U.S. in 2008 and concluded their work, respectively, in January (“Internet Safety Technical Task Force“) and July (“Point Smart. Click Safe.“) of 2009. [And yet another task force — the Online Safety Technology Working Group — was recently formed and has now gotten underway.]

In a new PFF white paper, ” Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree: Education, Empowerment & Self-Regulation Are the Answer,” I walk through a chronological summary of each of these past task forces [click on covers of each report below to read them in their entirety] and highlight some of the similar themes and recommendations from them.

COPA Commission cover Thornburgh Commission cover Byron Commission report cover

ISTTF cover Point Smart Click Safe report cover Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

“PointSmart. ClickSafe.” Online Safety Task Force Report Released

by on July 8, 2009 · 13 comments

Point Smart Click Safe report coverA major new online child safety task report by the “Point Smart. Click Safe.” Blue Ribbon Working Group has just been released. First, some background. In June 2007, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), the principal trade association of the cable industry in the United States, announced “Cable Puts You in Control: PointSmart. ClickSafe.” a new campaign by its members to offer parents assistance in keeping their children safe online.   As part of the initiative, the NCTA hosted a major online child safety summit and also announced the formation of the “Point Smart. Click Safe. Blue Ribbon Working Group” in partnership with the Internet KeepSafe Coalition (iKeepSafe) and Common Sense Media. These three organizations, along with the cable industry’s “Cable in the Classroom” program, agreed to bring together a collection of online safety experts from many disciplines to study these issues and develop a set of “best practice” recommendations that could be implemented across the Internet industry. [Disclosure: It was my pleasure to serve as a member of this blue ribbon working group.]

Today, the “Point Smart. Click Safe.” working group produced its final report and concluded that:

Ensuring children’s online safety is a difficult and complex task that calls for input from and action by a wide variety of stakeholders. There is no “silver bullet”—no single technology or approach that has proved effective. Rather, what is required is:
  • A combination of different technologies,
  • Continuing digital literacy education for parents, educators, and children, and
  • Active participation by all concerned companies, groups and individuals.
Similarly, a singular focus on safety is insufficient. Children must learn to minimize risks but also learn appropriate and ethical behaviors in this digital world. In addition, they need an understanding of media literacy, in order to be able to think critically about the content they consume and increasingly create. Therefore, best practices must be part of a larger effort to provide an entertaining, educational, and safe experience for children.

Compared to previous online child safety task forces, which I will discuss in a subsequent post, the major contribution of this task force was its focus on detailed industry best practices that various online providers could adopt to help parents, policymakers, and law enforcement better keep kids safe online. As the working group’s final report noted:

Continue reading →

SHARE: 13 comments

Like the Terminator, Video Game Censorship Efforts Just Won’t Die

by on July 7, 2009 · 3 comments

Terminator

He Wants to Terminate Your First Amendment Rights

Robert Corn-Revere, a partner with the law firm of Davis Wright Tremaine and one of America’s greatest living defenders of the First Amendment, has a new essay up on the Media Institute website entitled “The Terminator Cometh.” Corn-Revere takes on the former Terminator himself, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who along with other Calif. lawmakers, has asked the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that a California video game statute was unconstitutional. (More background in my previous post here). California’s decision to appeal the law up to the Supreme Court [petition is here] sets up a potential historic First Amendment decision (if they Court agrees to take the case, that is). Corn-Revere points out why this case is so important:

In seeking review, California is asking the Supreme Court to reverse 60 years of First Amendment jurisprudence and to hold that “excessively violent” material — whatever that may be –“deserves no constitutional protection.” It is also asking the Court to relieve government from actually having to demonstrate the purported harmfulness of speech it seeks to regulate, but instead to defer to “reasonable inferences” and “legislative judgments.”

BCR

The John Connor of Your First Amendment Freedoms

In other words, Corn-Revere notes, “the state is asking the Court simply to lower the bar so that protected speech may be regulated based on legislative whim.” He continues:

Thus, like the Terminator, no matter how many times you kill it, the government drive that motivates these laws keeps on going and going until it achieves its programmed goal. If California is successful, it will open the door to regulate not just video games, but a wide range of speech that is currently protected under the First Amendment.

Corn-Revere is right. The ramifications of this case could be profound. As I pointed out in my previous essay on this case:

Continue reading →

SHARE: 3 comments

Thank God the Euro-crats are Saving Us from a Browser “Monopoly”

by on July 5, 2009 · 9 comments

Really, what would we do without European antitrust regulators protecting us from the evils of browser innovation? If Microsoft was allowed to actually bundle its Internet Explorer browser alongside its operating system we might actually do something really crazy… like perhaps try it! After all, the latest browser stats make it pretty clear most of us have a choice and that fewer and fewer of us rely on IE. As Erick Schonfeld noted on Tech Crunch today:

The new browser wars on on. More than a decade after Microsoft killed off Netscape with Internet Explorer, competition in the browser market has never been stronger. Just last week, Mozilla released Firefox 3.5, which has now been downloaded nearly 14 million times. Earlier in June, Apple released Safari 4. In March, Microsoft introduced Internet Explorer 8, and Google came out with a speedier beta of its Chrome browser. Some early data is coming in showing relative market share and how fast people are upgrading. If you look at the chart above from Statcounter, it indicates that since March Internet Explorer has lost 11.4 percent market share to other browsers. [..] Where did that go? It went to Firefox, Safari, and Chrome. Nearly 5 percent of that, or about half, went to Firefox 3.0, which currently has 27.6 percent market share. That doesn’t count last week’s upgrade.

08-09 browser stats

Alas, as I pointed out in my essay a few weeks ago (“European Regulators Think Consumers Too Stupid to Know How to Download a Different Browser“), some Euro-crats still seem to believe that changing browsers requires great detective skills to unearth alternatives.  It’s just pure poppycock and yet another sad example of how antitrust law is usually hopelessly behind the times and has absolutely nothing to do with protecting consumers or fostering innovation.

Now, please excuse me while I get back to surfing the Net via Firefox and Chrome (and Opera on my mobile phone). My God, how did I ever find these browser alternatives!

SHARE: 9 comments

Cyberbullying Legislation Debate: Video from FOSI Capitol Hill Event (6/12)

by on July 1, 2009 · 21 comments

As I noted recently, Berin Szoka and I just released a big PFF white paper (PDF) entitled, “Cyberbullying Legislation: Why Education is Preferable to Regulation,” which examines two very different federal approaches to the issue. One approach is focused on the creation of a new federal crime to punish cyberbullying, which would include fines and jail time for violators. One approach, set forth by Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) in H.R. 1966 (originally H.R. 6123), the “Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act,” would create a new federal felony: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

The other legislative approach is education-based and would create an Internet safety education grant program to address the issue in schools and communities. In mid-May, the “School and Family Education about the Internet (SAFE Internet) Act” (S. 1047) was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and in the House by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL). The measure proposes an Internet safety education grant program that will be administered by the Department of Justice, in concurrence with the Department of Education, and the Department of Health & Human Services.

On June 12, the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) hosted a discussion about these bill on Cap Hill, which was moderated by FOSI CEO Stephen Balkam. Representatives from both Rep. Sanchez’s and Sen. Menendez’s offices were on hand to discuss their bills, and I provided some feedback based upon what Berin and I concluded in our paper.  It was a good discussion and I encourage you to watch the whole thing because there were some good questions from the audience later in the show.

http://www.youtube.com/v/FsCpOgwTqQM&hl=en&fs=1&

SHARE: 21 comments

Some Random Thoughts on “Sponsored Blogging”

by on June 24, 2009 · 15 comments

Over at SiliconAngle, my friend Andrew Feinberg has posted an interesting column defending federal oversight of “sponsored blogging,” or blogging that might be in some way be tied to a financial interest.  The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is now looking into that matter and threatening to bring the blogosphere under the thumb of federal regulators. In his essay, “Why the FTC is Absolutely, 100 Percent Right on Sponsored Blogging,” Andrew argues that:

The Federal Trade Commission wants to keep an eye out for unscrupulous behavior by corporations and media. This is their job. They could leave well enough alone for fear of being accused of meddling with the internet, but they recognize that as technology changes, the rules that govern the relationship between marketers and consumers must be made to fit those changes. This is not always easy. The Federal Communications Commission has had a rulemaking open on embedded advertising (product placement) in children’s programming for some time now. It is well know that it’s unlawful to market directly to children during certain times, and on certain programs. But FCC efforts to adapt the rules have been stymied by a cumbersome process and a lack of authority (the FCC may only regulate content on broadcast television). On the other hand, the Federal Trade Commission has much broader authority. And their job is to keep things fair.

I responded in the comments to his piece as follows:

Continue reading →

SHARE: 15 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →