I posted a rant here over the weekend about those who were engaging in what I believed was excessive whining about Apple’s moves to restrict pornographic content in the Apple Apps Store. (see: “Apple’s App Store, Porn & ‘Censorship‘”) It received a surprising number of comments and featured a back and forth between me and our old TLF blogging colleague Tim Lee. Tim has continued the discussion over on his personal blog and argued that:
[T]he key thing to focus on isn’t the abstract question of whether porn on iPhones is good or bad. The key thing to recognize is how fundamentally broken the process itself is. “Overtly sexual content” is a concept that seems clear in the abstract but gets leaky once you have to actually classify tens of thousands of applications. Apple is going to make mistakes, and when they do hapless developers are going to find their apps blocked, often with little explanation or recourse. Also, Apple is going to change its mind periodically, and when they do the affected developers are going to find their hard-earned apps rendered worthless overnight. This is no way to run a technology platform. It’s unfair to developers and it doesn’t scale. And this is precisely why it would be better for everyone if Apple could come up with an application distribution scheme that didn’t require so much central planning.
I followed up with a comment over there, but just thought I would repost it here, in which I argue that Tim is underestimating how difficult this task of defining acceptable content is and that he is also downplaying Apple’s legitimate editorial discretion to establish standards for the community platform they provide. I’m also uncomfortable with Tim’s constant use of “central planning” rhetoric to describe almost any private, proprietary model of institutional governance or platform development he doesn’t seem to agree with, but I have not elaborated on that point here. Anyway, here’s how I responded over on his blog: Continue reading →
A few weeks ago, I posted my thoughts on the outstanding new PBS Frontline program called “Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier.” Produced by Rachel Dretzin and Douglas Rushkoff, the 90-minute special touched on several themes we have debated here through the years including: (1) concerns about information overload and multitasking; (2) the role of computers and digital technology in education & learning; and (3) the nature and impact of virtual reality and virtual worlds on real-world life and culture.
If you missed the program, you’re in luck. The Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI), in conjunction with the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), is holding a screening of the documentary this Thursday, Feb. 25th beginning at 10:00am. The screening will take place at the NCTA Theater, located at 25 Massachusetts Avenue, NW (near Union Station).
After the viewing ends, Rachel Dretzin will be answering some questions about the program. And the folks at FOSI were kind enough to ask me to be there to provide some commentary on the program along with Kathy Brown, Senior Vice President, Public Policy Development and Corporate Responsibility at Verizon.
They’re almost out of seats, so if you are interested you should RSVP right away to: events@fosi.org [All details here.]
Oh my, here we go again with bogus accusations of “censorship” flying about a private company’s efforts to self-regulate its own media platform. Yesterday over at Silicon Alley Insider, Nick Saint penned a piece on how, “Apple’s War On Porn Is Just Getting Started.” And then over at TechCrunch, Jason Kincaid wrote about “Why Apple’s New Ban Against Sexy Apps Is Scary.” That yielded a flurry of similarly-titled rants about Apple’s supposedly totalitarian ways for taking away our new-found inalienable human right to unfettered porn and adult entertainment applications via our iPhones. To Mr. Saint, Mr. Kincaid, and the many others who apparently believe Apple is the reincarnation of Big Brother for self-regulating their own Apps Store, all I can say is: Grow up!
Here are a few things they need to consider:
- What Apple decides to do with its application store, and what it chooses to provide in it, is Apple’s own business—quite literally. Like a traditional bricks-and-mortar retailer, they can make policies about what types of content might be deemed too sensitive for the broad community of customers they serve. WalMart, for example, doesn’t carry certain types of music in their stores. If customers don’t like what those retailers are doing, there’s always another place for them to take their business and find what they are looking for.
- When it comes to the Apple controversy, we are generally talking about porn. Note to Mr. Saint and Mr. Kincaid and other whiners… there are plenty of other places to find porn on the Net! Seriously, have you looked?
- A private company’s decision to self-censor by not carrying something in their store is not even in the same universe as the sort of censorship we see government officials engage in, which blocks all content from all platforms. There is no escape from that sort of all-encompassing censorship. Continue reading →
This morning I spoke at a Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy event on, “The Crisis in Journalism: What Should the Government Do?” The panel also included Steven Waldman, senior advisor to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who is heading up the FCC’s new effort on “The Future of Media and the Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age; Susan DeSanti, Director of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission. (The FTC has also been investigating whether journalism will survive the Internet age and what government should do about it); and Andy Schwartzman, President of the Media Access Project. Mark MacCarthy of Georgetown Univ. moderated the discussion. Here’s the outline of my remarks. I didn’t bother penning a speech. [Update: Video is now online, but not embeddable and sound is bad.]
____________
What Funds Media? Can Government Subsidies Fill the Void?
1) Public media & subsidies can play a role, but that role should be tightly limited
- Should be focused on filling niches
- bottom-up (community-based) efforts are probably better than top-down proposals, which will probably end up resembling Soviet-style 5 year plans
- regardless, public subsidies should not be viewed as a replacement for traditional private media sources
- And I certainly hope we are not talking about a full-blown “public option” for the press along the lines of what Free Press, the leading advocate of some sort of government bailout for media, wants.
2) Indeed, public financing would not begin to make up the shortfall from traditional private funding sources
Continue reading →
Just a reminder about tomorrow’s Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy event on, “The Crisis in Journalism: What Should the Government Do?” It will be held at 9:30am tomorrow at the Newseum (Knight Conference Center) located at 555 Pennsylvania Ave here in Washington, DC. Breakfast will be served. (You can RSVP please by emailing: cbpp@msb.edu). Here’s the event description:
This roundtable discussion will bring together academics, government officials and industry leaders to consider the future of the journalism industry. Specifically, what does a future economic model for the journalism industry look like? What is the role of new media in modern journalism? How can news papers integrate web-based news into their business models? How can government entities, particularly the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Communications Commission, help to form a sustainable 21st century model for journalism in the United States?
Mark MacCarthy of Georgetown Univ. will moderate the panel, which includes: Continue reading →
Glen Robinson, my favorite professor back at Virginia Law, will be giving a lecture about “Regulating Communications: Stories from the First Hundred Years” at George Mason Law School this Thursday (2/18) at 4 pm. You simply couldn’t find a better person to give that talk. Robinson isn’t quite old enough to first-hand stories all the way back to the birth of the Federal Radio Commission in 1926 and the FCC in 1934, but he started practicing communications law back in 1961, was an FCC Commissioner 1974-76, and has taught at UVA since 1976 (until finally retiring in 2008).
Reading about his long career is a bit like watching the British comedy series Black Adder: Somehow, like Rowan Atkinson’s character Black Adder, Robinson keeps popping up again and again at pivotal moments in communications law history—most notably, he worked to draft early anti-cable rules in the 1960s and voted for the FCC’s indecency prosecution against George Carlin’s “Filthy Words” monologue. But unlike Black Adder, who always happens to be at the right place at the right time, make the wrong decisions and foolishly learns nothing, Robinson sometimes made the wrong decision, but demonstrated that rare ability to rethink his approach and admit he was wrong—an intellectual honesty most famously exemplified by FA Hayek. Robinson grew to become among the most trenchant, and certainly the most sage, critic of the FCC’s constant evolution towards censorship and curtailing competition in the communications industry. His general skepticism about administrative regulation is perhaps the most thoughtful and refined you’ll find in academe—and not just in communications law. Continue reading →
By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer
We learned from The Wall Street Journal yesterday that “Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski gets a little peeved when people suggests that he wants to regulate the Internet.” He told a group of Journal reporters and editors today that: “I don’t see any circumstances where we’d take steps to regulate the Internet itself,” and “I’ve been clear repeatedly that we’re not going to regulate the Internet.”
We’re thankful to hear Chairman Julius Genachowski to make that promise. We’ll certainly hold him to it. But you will pardon us if we remain skeptical (and, in advance, if you hear a constant stream of “I told you so” from us in the months and years to come). If the Chairman is “peeved” at the suggestion that the FCC might be angling to extend its reach to include the Internet and new media platforms and content, perhaps he should start taking a closer look at what his own agency is doing—and think about the precedents he’s setting for future Chairmen who might not share his professed commitment not to regulate the ‘net. Allow us to cite just a few examples:
Net Neutrality Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
We’re certainly aware of the argument that the FCC’s proposed net neutrality regime is not tantamount to Internet regulation—but we just don’t buy it. Not for one minute.
First, Chairman Genachowski seems to believe that “the Internet” is entirely distinct from the physical infrastructure that brings “cyberspace” to our homes, offices and mobile devices. The WSJ notes, “when pressed, [Genachowski] admitted he was referring to regulating Internet content rather than regulating Internet lines.” OK, so let’s just make sure we have this straight: The FCC is going to enshrine in law the principle that “gatekeepers” that control the “bottleneck” of broadband service can only be checked by having the government enforce “neutrality” principles in the same basic model of “common carrier” regulation that once applied to canals, railroads, the telegraph and telephone. But when it comes to accusations of “gatekeeper” power at the content/services/applications “layers” of the Internet, the FCC is just going to step back and let markets sort things out? Sorry, we’re just not buying it. Continue reading →
In all my work on online child safety issues, I always try to stress how important education and media literacy efforts are. Indeed, technical parental control tools and methods, while important, should be viewed as just one part of a more holistic approach to encouraging digital literacy and digital citizenship. In recent years, many scholars and child development experts such as Nancy Willard of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, Anne Collier and Larry Magid of ConnectSafely.org, Marsali Hancock of iKeepSafe, Common Sense Media, the Family Online Safety Institute, and many others have worked to expand traditional education and media literacy strategies to place the notion of digital citizenship at the core of their lessons and recommendations.
What does it mean? Anne Collier defines digital citizenship as “Critical thinking and ethical choices about the content and impact on oneself, others, and one’s community of what one sees, says, and produces with media, devices, and technologies.” And Common Sense Media defines digital literacy and digital citizenship as follows:
Digital Literacy programs are an essential element of media education and involve basic learning tools and a curriculum in critical thinking and creativity.
Digital Citizenship means that kids appreciate their responsibility for their content as well as their actions when using the Internet, cell phones, and other digital media. All of us need to develop and practice safe, legal, and ethical behaviors in the digital media age. Digital Citizenship programs involve educational tools and a basic curriculum for kids, parents, and teachers.
Stephen Balkam, CEO of the Family Online Safety Institute, had an excellent essay in The Huffington Post yesterday on “21st Century Citizenship,” that did a fine job of explaining these concepts in practical terms:
Continue reading →
In case you missed it, the world stopped moving today to witness the birth of another Google product: the much-ballyhooed “Twitter-Killer,” Buzz, which offers much of the functionality of Twitter in a more Facebook-like setting (plus location data) built directly into Gmail. CNET’s Larry Magid started the #GoogSoc (“Google Social”) hashtag for the event, kicking off a discussion about Twitter’s newest competitor on Twitter itself—and he was the first one up to the mic with a question for Google Founder Sergey Brin and his team after their presentation. Larry asked about privacy concerns raised by Buzz and Brin responded, as Larry puts it:
that there are privacy controls built-into both the web and mobile Buzz applications but, by default, much of your information is public. For example, if you don’t specify that a Buzz should only be seen by your friends, it’s made available to everyone and indexed by the Google search engine. Like Facebook, Buzz gives you the ability to create lists so you can have a separate Buzz group for your drinking buddies and another one for people at work. However,as with all privacy tools, the key is how you use them. My concern is that some people might forget to use the privacy tools and send the wrong information to the wrong people.
There are also controls on whether your geo-location is disclosed but, again, it’s up to the user to be careful on how they use them. Imagine sending a post out to your significant other that you’re stuck at work only to accidentally reveal that you’re actually located in a romantic restaurant down the street from the office?
I’m glad that Larry is raising these concern as someone who has done yeoman’s work in educating Internet users, especially kids, about how to “Connect Safely” online (the name of his advocacy group). The fact that companies like Google know they’ll get questions like Larry’s is hugely important in keeping them on their toes to continually plan for “privacy by design.”
But I do worry that those with a political axe to grind will take these same questions and twist them into arguments for regulation based on the idea that if some people forget to use a tool or just don’t get care as much about protecting their privacy as some self-appointed “privacy advocates” think they should, the government—led by Platonic philosopher kings who know what’s best for us all—should step in to protect us all from our own forgetfulness, carefulness or plain ol’ apathy. After all, consumers are basically mindless sheep and if the government doesn’t look after them, the digital wolves will devour them whole! 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.