Search Results for “Internet of things” – Technology Liberation Front https://techliberation.com Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:51:44 +0000 en-US hourly 1 6772528 We Need Federal Preemption of State & Local AI Regulation https://techliberation.com/2024/01/22/we-need-federal-preemption-of-state-local-ai-regulation/ https://techliberation.com/2024/01/22/we-need-federal-preemption-of-state-local-ai-regulation/#comments Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:51:44 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77175

In my latest column for The Hill, I explore how “State and Local Meddling Threatens to Undermine the AI Revolution” in America as mountains of parochial tech mandates accumulate. We need a federal response, but we’re not likely to get the right one, I argue.

I specifically highlight the danger of new measures from big states like NY and California, but it’s the patchwork of all the state and local regs that will result in a sort of ‘death-by-a-thousand-cuts’ for AI innovation as the red tape grows and hinders innovation and capital formation.

What we need is the same sort of principled, pro-innovation federal framework or AI that we adopted for the Internet a generation ago. Specifically, we need some sort of preemption of most of the state and local constraints on what is inherently national (and even global) commerce and speech.

Alas, Congress appears incapable of getting even basic things done on tech policy these days. As far as I can tell, not a single AI bill in front of Congress today would preempt most of this state and local AI regulatory activity.

Worse yet, if Congress did somehow pass anything on AI right now, it’d probably just include even more anti-innovation mandates and agencies without preempting any of the state and local ones. Thus, America would just be piling bad mandates on top of bad mandates until we basically become like Europe, where innovation goes to die under piles of bureaucratic red tape.

It’s a miserable state of affairs with horrible consequences for the U.S. as global competition from China heats up on the AI front. America is sacrificing its competitive advantage on digital technology because fear-based thinking and partisan politics continue to prevent the adoption of a principled, bipartisan vision for artificial intelligence policy.

See my new Hill column for more discussion, and also make sure to check out my earlier Hill essay on “A balanced AI governance vision for America,” as well as these two big R Street Institute reports from last year about how Congress can craft sensible, pro-innovation AI policy for America:

And here is some additional reading on the dangerous regulatory situation we are facing today in terms of over-regulating artificial intelligence by treating innovators as guilty until proven innocent. America is about to shoot itself in the foot as the global race begins for the more important technological revolution of our lifetime:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2024/01/22/we-need-federal-preemption-of-state-local-ai-regulation/feed/ 68 77175 Tech Regulation Will Increasingly Be Driven Through the Prism of “Algorithmic Fairness” https://techliberation.com/2022/11/06/tech-regulation-will-increasingly-be-driven-through-the-prism-of-algorithmic-fairness/ https://techliberation.com/2022/11/06/tech-regulation-will-increasingly-be-driven-through-the-prism-of-algorithmic-fairness/#respond Sun, 06 Nov 2022 18:51:21 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77056

We are entering a new era for technology policy in which many pundits and policymakers will use “algorithmic fairness” as a universal Get Out of Jail Free card when they push for new regulations on digital speech and innovation. Proposals to regulate things like “online safety,” “hate speech,” “disinformation,” and “bias” among other things often raise thorny definitional questions because of their highly subjective nature. In the United States, efforts by government to control these things will often trigger judicial scrutiny, too, because restraints on speech violate the First Amendment. Proponents of prior restraint or even ex post punishments understand this reality and want to get around it. Thus, in an effort to avoid constitutional scrutiny and lengthy court battles, they are engaged in a rebranding effort and seeking to push their regulatory agendas through a techno-panicky prism of “algorithmic fairness” or “algorithmic justice.”

Hey, who could possibly be against FAIRNESS and JUSTICE? Of course, the devil is always in the details as Neil Chilson and I discuss in our new paper for the The Federalist Society and Regulatory Transparency Project on, “The Coming Onslaught of ‘Algorithmic Fairness’ Regulations.” We document how federal and state policymakers from both parties are currently considering a variety of new mandates for artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and automated systems that, if imposed, “would thunder through our economy with one of the most significant expansions of economic and social regulation – and the power of the administrative state – in recent history.”

We note how, at the federal level, bills are being floated with titles like the “Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act” and the “Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act,” which would introduce far-reaching regulations requiring AI innovators to reveal more about how their algorithms work or even hold them liable if their algorithms are thought to be amplifying hateful or extremist content. Other proposed measures like the “Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act” and the “Online Consumer Protection Act” would demand greater algorithmic transparency as it relates to social media content moderation policies and procedures. Finally, measures like the “Kids Online Safety Act” would require audits of algorithmic recommendation systems that supposed targeted or harmed children. Algorithmic regulation is also creeping into proposed privacy regulations, such as the “American Data Protection and Privacy Act of 2022.”

And then there are all the state laws–many of which have been pushed by conservatives–that would mandate “algorithmic transparency” for social media content moderation in the name of countering supposed viewpoint bias. Bills in Florida and Texas take this approach. Meanwhile, conservatives in Congress Senator Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) push for bills like the “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” that requires large tech companies undergo external audits proving that their algorithms and content-moderation techniques are politically unbiased. It’s an open invitation to regulators and trial lawyers to massively regulate technology and speech under the guise of “algorithmic fairness.” Countless left-leaning law professors and European officials have already proposed a comprehensive algorithmic audit apparatus to regulate innovators in every sector.

It’s the rise of the Code Cops. If we continue down this path, it ends with a complete rejection of the permissionless innovation ethos that made America’s information technology sector a global powerhouse. Instead, we’ll be stuck with the very worst type of “Mother, May I” precautionary principle-based regulatory regime that will be imposing the equivalent of occupational licensing requirements for coders.

If code is speech, algorithms are as well. Defenders of innovation freedom need to step up and prepare for the fight to come. [See my earlier essay, “AI Eats the World: Preparing for the Computational Revolution and the Policy Debates Ahead.”] Chilson and I outline the broad contours of the battle for freedom of speech and the freedom to innovation that is brewing. It will be the most important technology policy issue of the next ten years. I hope you take the time to read our new essay and understand why. And below you will find a few dozen more essay on the same topic if you’d like to dig even deeper.

Additional Reading :

 

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/11/06/tech-regulation-will-increasingly-be-driven-through-the-prism-of-algorithmic-fairness/feed/ 0 77056 6 Ways Conservatives Betray Their First Principles with Online Child Safety Regulations https://techliberation.com/2022/09/20/6-ways-conservatives-betray-their-first-principles-with-online-child-safety-regulations/ https://techliberation.com/2022/09/20/6-ways-conservatives-betray-their-first-principles-with-online-child-safety-regulations/#respond Tue, 20 Sep 2022 19:42:00 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77048

I’ve been floating around in conservative policy circles for 30 years and I have spent much of that time covering media policy and child safety issues. My time in conservative circles began in 1992 with a 9-year stint at the Heritage Foundation, where I launched the organization’s policy efforts on media regulation, the Internet, and digital technology. Meanwhile, my work on child safety has spanned 4 think tanks, multiple blue ribbon child safety commissions, countless essays, dozens of filings and testimonies, and even a multi-edition book.

During this three-decade run, I’ve tried my hardest to find balanced ways of addressing some of the legitimate concerns that many conservatives have about kids, media content, and online safety issues. Raising kids is the hardest job in the world. My daughter and son are now off at college, but the last twenty years of helping them figure out how to navigate the world and all the challenges it poses was filled with difficulties. This was especially true because my daughter and son faced completely different challenges when it came to media content and online interactions. Simply put, there is no one-size-fits-all playbook when it comes to raising kids or addressing concerns about healthy media interactions.

Something Must Be Done!

My personal approach, as I summarized in my book on these issues, was to first and foremost do everything in my power to (a) keep an open mind about new media content and platforms, and (b) ensure an open line of ongoing communication with my kids about the issues they might be facing. Shutting down conversation or calling for others to come in and save the day were the worst two options, in my opinion. As I summarized in my book, “At the end of the day, there is simply no substitute for talking to our children in an open, loving, and understanding fashion about the realities of-this world, including the more distasteful bits.” This was my Parental Prime Directive, if you will. I just always wanted to make sure that my kids felt like they could talk to me about their issues, no matter how varied, horrible, or heart-breaking those problems might be.

When talking with other parents through the years, I’ve heard about their own unique concerns and struggles. Every family faces different challenges because no two kids or situations are alike. Moreover, the challenges can feel overwhelming in our modern world of information abundance, which is flush with ubiquitous communications and media options. Sometimes these parental frustrations can fester and grow into a sort of rage until you finally hear folks utter that famous phrase: Something must be done! And that “something” is often some sort of government regulation “for the children.”

Again, I get it. When all your best efforts to help or protect your kids don’t seem to work according to plan, it’s only natural to call for help. But there are very serious problems associated with calling on government for that help. When legislators and regulators are asked to play the role of National Nanny, it comes with all the same baggage that accompanies many other efforts by the government to intervene in our lives or control what people or organizations can say or do.

Conservative Contradictions

These are particularly sensitive issues for many conservatives, both because conservatives tend to have more heightened concerns about media content and online safety issues, and also because the steps they often recommend to address these issues can quickly come into conflict with their own first principles.

Let me run through six ways that support for media content controls and child safety regulations can sometimes run afoul of conservative principles.

1) It’s a rejection of personal responsibility

Again, I understand all too well how hard parenting can be. But that does not mean we should abdicate our parental responsibilities to the State. Conservatives have spent decades fighting government when it comes to broken schools and the supposed brainwashing many kids get in them. The rallying cry of conservatives has long been: Let us have a greater say in how we raise and educate our children because the State is failing us or betraying our values.

Thus, when conservatives suggest that the State should be making decisions for us as it pertains to anything the government says is a “child safety” issue, there is some serious cognitive dissonance going on there. In his humorous Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce jokingly defined responsibility as, “A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one’s neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star.” For parental responsibility to actually mean something, it has to be more than a “detachable burden” that we unload upon government.

2) It’s an embrace of the administrative state & arbitrary rule by unelected bureaucrats

Beyond the classroom, conservatives have long been concerned about the specter of massive administrative agencies and armies of unelected bureaucrats controlling our lives from the shadows. I’ve spent decades working with conservative organizations and scholars trying to get the administrative state under some control to scale back its enormous power, arbitrary edicts, and costly burdens. Over-criminalization has become such a problem that, according to the Heritage Foundation, “regulatory offenses… have proliferated to the point that, literally, nobody knows how many federal criminal regulations exist today.” We’re all criminals of some sort in the eyes of the modern regulatory state.

Yet, when conservatives advocate the expansion of the administrative state through new “online safety” regulations, they are just making the over-criminalization problem worse, including by treating our own children as guilty parties for simply trying to access the primary media platforms of their generation and interact with their friends there. For example, calls to ban all teens from social media until they’re 18 would result in the most massive “forbidden fruit” nightmare in American history, with every teen suddenly becoming a criminal actor and working together to tunnel around bans using the same sort of VPNs and evasion technologies people in China and other repressive nations use to get around over-bearing speech policies. [See: “Again, We Should Not Ban All Teens from Social Media”]

Needless to say, all this regulation and bureaucratic empowerment would have massive negative externalities for online freedom more generally as the era of “permissionless innovation” is replaced by a new age of permission-slip regulation.

3) It’s a rejection of the First Amendment & free speech rights

Conservatives have spent many decades pushing for greater First Amendment-based freedoms as it pertains to religious liberty and or organizational/corporate speech issues. Thus, when conservatives seek to undermine free speech principles and jurisprudence in the name of child safety, it could undo everything conservatives have been fighting to accomplish in those other contexts.

Conservatives are understandably upset with some social media platforms for being too over-zealous with certain types of speech takedowns or de-platformings. But two wrongs don’t make a right, and they should not be calling on Big Government to be imposing its own editorial judgments in place of private actors. [See: “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“ and “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer.“]

4) It’s a rejection of property rights and freedom more generally

Related to the previous two points, conservatives have long upheld the sanctity of property rights in many different contexts. This includes the property rights that private establishments enjoy under the Constitution to generally decide how to structure their operations, who they will do business with, and how they will do so. Private organizations and religious institutions possess not only free speech rights in this regard, but property and contractual rights, too.

But when it comes to “child safety” mandates, some conservatives would toss all this out the window and undermine those rights, replacing them with burdensome regulatory mandates that tell private parties how to conduct their affairs. Again, there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance going on here and it could have serious blowback for conservatives when the property / contractual rights of other people or organizations are undermined on similar grounds.

5) It’s an embrace of frivolous lawsuits & the trial lawyers that bring them

The last time I checked, trial lawyers were not exactly the most conservative-friendly constituency. For many decades, conservatives have looked to advance tort reform, limit junk science and frivolous lawsuits, and make sure that the courts don’t engage in excessive judicial activism.

Unfortunately, many of the child safety regulations being proposed today would empower the regulatory state and trial lawyers at the same time. Many of the bills being floated open the door to open-ended litigation and potentially punishing liability for private platforms — and not just against deep-pocketed “Big Tech” companies. The fact is, once conservatives open the litigation floodgates based on amorphous accusations of potential online safety harms, they will be empowering the tort bar (one of the biggest supporters of the Democratic Party, no less) to launch a legal jihad against any and every media platform out there. Good luck putting that genie back in the bottle once you unleash it.

6) It’s an embrace of the same moral panic arguments your parents leveled against you

How quickly we forget the accusations our own parents and others leveled against us as children. Remember when video games were going to make us a lost generation of murderous youth? Or when rap and rock-and-roll music were going to send us straight to hell? Today, those kids are all grown up and trying to tell us that they are fine but it’s this latest generation that is doomed. It’s just an endless generational cycle of moral panics. [See: “Why Do We Always Sell the Next Generation Short?” and “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics”] Today’s conservatives need to remember that they, too, were once kids and somehow muddled through to adulthood.

The “3-E” Approach Is the Better Answer

At this point, some of the people who’ve read this far are screaming at the screen: “So, are you saying we should just do nothing!?”

Absolutely not. But it is important that we consider less onerous and more practical ways to address these challenging issues without falling prey to Big Government gimmicks that would undermine other important principles. We should start by acknowledging that there are no easy fixes or silver-bullet solutions. The plain truth of the matter is that the best solutions here can seem messy and unsatisfying to many because they require enormous ongoing efforts to mentor and assist our kids at a far deeper level than some folks are comfortable with.

For example, it is just insanely uncomfortable to have to speak with your kids about online bullying or harassment, pornography, violence in movies and games, hate speech, and so on. And I haven’t even mentioned the hardest things to talk to kids about: The daily news of the real world: wars, violence, tragic accidents, famines, etc. Honestly, the hardest conversations I’ve had to have with my kids were those about school shootings. By comparison, many other discussions about online content and interactions were much easier. To the extent that we’re attempting to measure and address negative media affects, I firmly believe that there a few things in this world more horrifying to kids — or harder to talk with them about — than the first 10 minutes of what’s on cable news each hour of the day.

Regardless, whether we’re talking about the potential “harms” or mass media or online content, we cannot pretend there exists a simple solution to any of it. Here’s the better approach.

I recently authored a study for the American Enterprise Institute on, “Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium.” It was my attempt to sketch out a flexible, pragmatic, bottom-up set of governance principles for modern technology platforms and issues. In that report, I noted how “[t]he First Amendment constitutes a particularly high barrier to the use of hard law in the United States,” and that court challenges were likely to continue to block many of the regulatory efforts being floated today, just as been the case countless times before in recent decades. Thus, we need to have backup approaches to online safety beyond one-size-fits-all regulatory Hail Mary passes.

I have described that backup plan as the “3-E” approach or “layered approach” to online safety:

  • Empowerment of parents: Parental controls cannot solve all the world’s problems. It’s better to view them as helpful speed bumps or emergency alerts for when things are going badly for your child. In the old days, we placed a lot of faith in filtering, and that still has a role along with other tools that help place some reasonable limits not only on content but also overall consumption. But the best types of parental empowerment are those that force conversations between parents and kids by allowing reasonable monitoring to happen that is scaled by age (as in more limits for younger kids until they are gradually relaxed over time). And other carrot-and-stick tools and approaches are incredibly useful in helping parents place smart limits on youth activity and overall consumption.
  • Education of youth: Education is the strategy with the most lasting impact for online safety. Education and digital literacy provide skills and wisdom that can last a lifetime. Specifically, education can help teach both kids (and adults!) how to behave in — or respond to — a wide variety of situations. Building resiliency and encouraging healthy interactions is the goal.
  • Enforcement of existing laws: There are many sensible and straightforward laws already in place that address more concrete types of harm and harassment. And we have lots of laws pertaining to fraud and unfair and deceptive practices. Sometimes these rules can be challenging (and time-consuming) to enforce, but they constitute an existing backstop that can handle most worst-case scenarios when other less-restrictive steps fall short. And we should certainly tap these existing remedies before advancing unworkable new regulatory regimes.

I noted in my AEI study that, between 2000 and 2010, six major online-safety task forces or blue-ribbon commissions were formed to study online-safety issues and consider what should be done to address them. Each of them recommended some variant of the “3-E” approach as they encouraged a variety of best practices, educational approaches, and technological-empowerment solutions to address various safety concerns. Self-regulatory codes, private content-rating systems, and a wide variety of different parental-control technologies all proliferated during this period. Many multi-stakeholder initiatives and other organizations were also formed to address governance issues collaboratively. There are countless groups doing important work on this front today, including my old friends at the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) among many others.

These organizations push for a layered approach to online safety and work closely with educators, child development experts, and other academics and activists to find workable solutions to new online safety challenges as they arise. Their work is never done, and at times it can feel overwhelming. But, again, it’s the nature of the task at hand. We all must work together to continuously devise new and better approaches to addressing these challenges, because they will be endless. But let’s please not expect that we can unload these responsibilities on government and expect regulators to somehow handle it for us.

Do the Ends Justify the Means When it Comes to Media & Content Control?

I could be wasting my breath here because I’ve been attempting to appeal to conservative principles that may be rapidly disappearing from the modern conservative movement. Donald Trump radically disrupted everything in American politics, but especially the Republican Party. Many so-called national conservatives now live by Trump’s central operating principle: The ends justify the means. The ends are “owning the libs” in any way possible. And “the libs” include not only anyone on the Left of the political spectrum, but even those individuals and institutions that Trumpian conservatives believe are “the enemy” and controlled by “liberal interests.” By their definition, this now includes virtually all large media and technology companies and platforms. Thus, when we turn to the means, it’s increasingly the case that just about anything goes — including many traditional conservative principles.

To see how far we’ve come, recall what President Ronald Reagan said 35 years ago when vetoing an effort to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. “History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and compe­tition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee,” he said. At the time, President Reagan was confronted with some of the same arguments we hear today about media being too biased or conservatives not getting a fair shake. But he called upon his fellow conservatives to reject the idea that Big Government was the solution to such problems.

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump and some of his most loyal followers and even some major conservative groups today have largely given up on this logic and instead embraced regulation. While Trumpian conservatives love to decry everyone they oppose as “communists,” ironically it is this same group that is embracing a sort of communications collectivism as it pertains to modern media control. In the Trumpian worldview, media and tech platforms are useful only to the extent they carry out the will of the party — or at least the man on top of it.

These national conservatives have made a horrible miscalculation. Feeling aggrieved by Big Tech “bias,” or just feeling overwhelmed by things they don’t like about online platforms, they’ve decided that two wrongs make a right. In reality, two political wrongs never make a right, but they almost always combine to make government a lot bigger and more powerful.

It’s an incredibly naïve gamble almost certainly destined to fail, but they should ask themselves what it means if it works. This endless ratcheting effect will result in comprehensive state control of most channels of communications and information dissemination. Is this a game that you really think you can play better than the Lefties?

I’ll close by returning to one of Reagan’s favorite jokes. He always used to say that, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” I would suggest that an even scarier version of that line would be, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you parent your kids.”

Don’t let it be you uttering that line.

______________

Additional Reading

· Adam Thierer, “Again, We Should Not Ban All Teens from Social Media”

· Adam Thierer, “Why Do We Always Sell the Next Generation Short?”

· Adam Thierer, “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues”

· Adam Thierer, “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics”

· Adam Thierer, “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment“

· Adam Thierer, “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer“

· Adam Thierer, “Ongoing Series: Moral Panics / Techno-Panics”

· Adam Thierer, “No Goldilocks Formula for Content Moderation in Social Media or the Metaverse, But Algorithms Still Help”

· Adam Thierer, “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“

· Adam Thierer, “Conservatives & Common Carriage: Contradictions & Challenges“

· Adam Thierer, “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“

· Adam Thierer, “A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto“

· Adam Thierer, “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“

· Adam Thierer, “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“

· Adam Thierer, “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“

· Adam Thierer, “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“

· Adam Thierer, “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

· Adam Thierer, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods (2009).

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/09/20/6-ways-conservatives-betray-their-first-principles-with-online-child-safety-regulations/feed/ 0 77048 No Goldilocks Formula for Content Moderation in Social Media or the Metaverse, But Algorithms Still Help https://techliberation.com/2022/09/13/no-goldilocks-formula-for-content-moderation-in-social-media-or-the-metaverse-but-algorithms-still-help/ https://techliberation.com/2022/09/13/no-goldilocks-formula-for-content-moderation-in-social-media-or-the-metaverse-but-algorithms-still-help/#respond Tue, 13 Sep 2022 17:48:00 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77041

[Cross-posted from Medium.]

In an age of hyper-partisanship, one issue unites the warring tribes of American politics like no other: hatred of “Big Tech.” You know, those evil bastards who gave us instantaneous access to a universe of information at little to no cost. Those treacherous villains! People are quick to forget the benefits of moving from a world of Information Poverty to one of Information Abundance, preferring to take for granted all they’ve been given and then find new things to complain about.

But what mostly unites people against large technology platforms is the feeling that they are just too big or too influential relative to other institutions, including government. I get some of that concern, even if I strongly disagree with many of their proposed solutions, such as the highly dangerous sledgehammer of antitrust breakups or sweeping speech controls. Breaking up large tech companies would not only compromise the many benefits they provide us with, but it would undermine America’s global standing as a leader in information and computational technology. We don’t want that. And speech codes or meddlesome algorithmic regulations are on a collision course with the First Amendment and will just result in endless litigation in the courts.

There’s a better path forward. As President Ronald Reagan rightly said in 1987 when vetoing a bill to reestablish the Fairness Doctrine, “History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.” In other words, as I wrote in a previous essay about “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues,” more innovation and competition are always superior to more regulation when it comes to encouraging speech and speech opportunities.

Can Government Get Things Just Right?

But what about the accusations we hear on both the left and right about tech companies failing to properly manage or moderate online content in some fashion? This is not only a concern for today’s most popular social media platforms, but it is a growing concern for the so-called Metaverse, where questions about content policies already surround activities and interactions on AR and VR systems.

The problem here is that different people want different things from digital platforms when it comes to content moderation. As I noted in a column for The Hill late last year:

there is considerable confusion in the complaints both parties make about “Big Tech.” Democrats want tech companies doing more to limit content they claim is hate speech, misinformation, or that incites violence. Republicans want online operators to do less, because many conservatives believe tech platforms already take down too much of their content.

Thus, large digital intermediaries are expected to make all the problems of the world go away through a Goldilocks formula whereby digital platforms will get content moderation “just right.” It’s an impossible task with billions of voices speaking. Bureaucrats won’t do a better job refereeing these disputes, and letting them do so will turn every content spat into an endless regulatory proceeding.

What Algorithms Can and Cannot Do to Help

But we should be clear on one thing: These disputes will always be with us because every media platform in history has had some sort of content moderation policies, even if we didn’t call them that until recently. Creating what used to just be called guidelines or standards for information production and dissemination has always been a tricky business. But the big difference between the old and new days comes down to three big problems:

#1- the volume problem: There’s just a ton of content online to moderate today compared to the past.

#2- the subjectivity problem: Content moderation always involves “eye of the beholder” questions, but now there’s even more of those problems because of Problem #1.

#3- the crafty adversaries problem: There are a lot of people bound and determined to get around any rules or restrictions platforms impose, and they’ll find creative ways to do so.

These problems are nicely summarized in an excellent new AEI report by Alex Feerst on, “The Use of AI in Online Content Moderation.” This is the fifth in a series of new reports from the AEI’s Digital Platforms and American Life project. The goal of the project is to highlight how the “democratization of knowledge and influence comes with incredible opportunities but also immense challenges. How should policymakers think about the digital platforms that have become embedded in our social and civic life?” Various experts have been asked to sound off on that question and address different challenges. The series kicked off in April with an essay I wrote on “Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium.” More studies are coming.

In Feerst’s new report, the focus is squarely on the issue of algorithmic content moderation policies and procedures. Feerst provides a brilliant summary of how digital media platforms currently utilize AI to assist their content moderation efforts. He notes:

The short answer to the question “why AI” is scale — the sheer never-ending vastness of online speech. Scale is the prime mover of online platforms, at least in their current, mainly ad-based form and maybe in all incarnations. It’s impossible to internalize the dynamics of running a digital platform without first spending some serious time just sitting and meditating on the dizzying, sublime amounts of speech we are talking about: 500 million tweets a day comes out to 200 billion tweets each year. More than 50 billion photos have been uploaded to Instagram. Over 700,000 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every day. I could go on. Expression that would previously have been ephemeral or limited in reach under the existing laws of nature and pre-digital publishing economics can now proliferate and move around the world. It turns out that, given the chance, we really like to hear ourselves talk.

So that’s the scale/volume problem in a nutshell. Algorithmic systems are absolutely going to be needed to help do some sifting and sorting, therefore.

What Do You Want to Do about Man-Boobs?

But then we immediately run into the subjectivity problem that pervades so many content moderation issues. When it comes to topics like hate speech, “There will be as many opinions as there are people. Three well-meaning civic groups will agree on four different definitions of hate speech,” Feerst notes.

Indeed, these eye-of-the-beholder judgment calls are ubiquitous and endlessly frustrating for content moderators. Let me tell you a quick story I told a Wall Street Journal reporter who asked me in 2019 why I gave up helping tech companies figure out how to handle these content moderation controversies. I had spent many years trying to help companies and trade associations figure this stuff out because I had been writing about these challenges since the late 1990s. But then finally I gave up. Why? Because of man boobs. Yes, man boobs. Here’s the summary of my story from that WSJ article:

Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow at the right-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University, says he used to consult with Facebook and other tech companies. The futility of trying to please all sides hit home after he heard complaints about a debate at YouTube over how much skin could be seen in breast-feeding videos.

While some argued the videos had medical purposes, other advisers wondered whether videos of shirtless men with large mammaries should be permitted as well. “I decided I don’t want to be the person who decides on whether man boobs are allowed,” says Mr. Thierer.

No, seriously. This has been one of the many crazy problems that content moderators have had to deal with. There are scumbag dudes with large mammaries who not only salaciously jiggle them around on camera for the world to see, but then even put whipped cream on their own boobs and lick it off. Now, if a woman does that and posts it on almost any mainstream platform, it’ll get quickly flagged (probably by an algorithmic filter) and probably immediately blocked. But if a dude with man boobs does the same thing, shouldn’t the policy be the same? Well, in our still very sexist world of double standards, policies can vary on that question. And I didn’t want any part of trying to figure out an answer to that question (and others like it), so I largely got out of the business of helping companies do so. Not even King Solomon could figure out a fair resolution to some of this stuff.

Algorithms can only help us so much here because, at some point, humans must tell the machines what to flag or block using some sort of subjective standard that will lead to all sorts of problems later. This is one reason why Feerst reminds us of another important rule here: “Don’t confuse a subjectivity problem for an accuracy problem, especially when you’re using automation technology.” As he notes:

If the things we’re doing are controversial among humans and it’s not even clear that humans judge them consistently, then using AI is not going to help. It’s just going to allow you to achieve the same controversial outcomes more quickly and in greater volume. In other words, if you can’t get 50 humans to agree on whether a particular post violates content rules, whether that content rule is well formulated, or whether that rule should exist, then why would automating this process help?

So Many Troublemakers (Sometimes Accidental)

The man boobs moderation story also reminds us that the crafty adversary problem will always haunt us, too. There are just so many bastards out there looking to cause trouble for whatever reason. “There will never be ‘set it and forget it’ technologies for these issues,” Feerst argues. “At best, it’s possible to imagine a state of dynamic equilibrium — eternal cops and robbers.”

That is exactly right. It’s a never-ending learning/coping process, as I noted in my earlier paper in the AEI series: “There is no Goldilocks formula that can get things just right” when it comes to many tech governance issues, especially content moderation issues. Muddling through is the new normal. And the exact same process is now unfolding for Metaverse content moderation. Algorithmic moderation helps us weed out the worst stuff and gives us a better chance of letting humans — with their limited time and resources — deal with the hardest problems (and problem-makers) out there.

Sometimes the content infractions may even be accidental. Here’s another embarrassing story involving me. I was asked last year to sit in on a VR meeting about content moderation in the Metaverse. I was wearing my headset and sitting at a virtual table with about 8 other people in the room. Back in my real-world office, I had my coffee mug sitting far to the right of me on a side table. After about 45 minutes of discussion, I realized that every time I reached way over to my right to grab my coffee mug in the real-world, my virtual self’s hand was reaching over and touching the crotch of the guy sitting next to me in the Metaverse! It looked like I was fondling the dude virtually! What a nightmare. I’m surprised someone didn’t report me for virtual harassment. I would have had to plead the coffee mug defense and throw myself on the mercy of the Meta-Court judge or jury.

Ok, so that’s a funny story, but you can imagine little mistakes like this happening all throughout the Metaverse as we slowly figure out how to interact normally in new virtual environments. We’ll have to rely on users and algorithms flagging some of the worst behaviors and then have humans evaluate the tough calls to the best of their abilities. But let’s not be fooled into thinking that humans can handle all these questions because the task at hand is too overwhelming and expensive for many platform operators. “Ten thousand employees here, ten thousand ergonomic mouse pads there, and pretty soon we’re talking about real money,” Feerst notes. “This is what the cost of running a platform looks like, once you’ve internalized the harmful and inexorable externalities we’ve learned about the hard way over the past decade.”

The Problem with “Explainability”

The key takeaway here is that content moderation at scale is messy, confusing, and unsatisfying. Do platforms need to be more transparent about how their algorithms work to do this screening? Yes, they do. But perfect transparency or “explainability” is impossible.

It’s hard to perfectly explain how algorithms work for the same reason it’s hard for your car mechanic to explain to you exactly how your car engine works. Except it’s even harder with algorithmic systems. As Feerst notes:

AI outputs can be hard to explain. In some cases, even the creators or managers of a particular product are no longer sure why it is functioning a particular way. It’s not like the formula to Coca-Cola; it’s constantly evolving. Requirements to “disclose the algorithm” may not help much if it means that companies will simply post a bunch of not especially meaningful code.

And if explainability was mandated by law, it’d instantly be gamed by still other troublemakers out there. A mandate to make AI perfectly transparent is an open invitation to every scam artist in the world to game platforms with new phishing attacks, spammy scams, and other such nonsense. Again, this is the “crafty adversaries” problem at work. Endless cat-and-mouse or, as Feerst says “eternal cops and robbers.”

So, in sum, content moderation — including algorithmic content moderation — is a nightmarishly difficult task, and there is no Goldilocks formula available to us that will help us get things just right. It’ll always just be endless experimentation and iteration with lots and lots of failures along the way. Learning by doing and constantly refining our systems and procedures is the key to helping us muddle through.

And if you think government will somehow figure this all out through some sort of top-down regulatory regime, ask yourself how well that worked out for Analog Era efforts to create “community standards” for broadcast radio and television. And then multiply that problem by a zillion. It cannot be done without severely undermining free speech and innovation. We don’t want to go down that path.

____________

Additional Reading

· “Again, We Should Not Ban All Teens from Social Media”

· “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues”

· “AI Eats the World: Preparing for the Computational Revolution and the Policy Debates Ahead”

· “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment“

· “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer“

· “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“

· “Conservatives & Common Carriage: Contradictions & Challenges“

· “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“

· “A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto“

· “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“

· “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“

· “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“

· “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“

· “The Not-So-SMART Act“

· “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/09/13/no-goldilocks-formula-for-content-moderation-in-social-media-or-the-metaverse-but-algorithms-still-help/feed/ 0 77041 Why the Endless Techno-Apocalyptica in Modern Sci-Fi? https://techliberation.com/2022/09/02/why-the-endless-techno-apocalyptica-in-modern-sci-fi/ https://techliberation.com/2022/09/02/why-the-endless-techno-apocalyptica-in-modern-sci-fi/#respond Fri, 02 Sep 2022 15:06:06 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77033

James Pethokousis of AEI interviews me about the current miserable state of modern science fiction, which is just dripping with dystopian dread in every movie, show, and book plot. How does all the techno-apocalyptica affect societal and political attitudes about innovation broadly and emerging technologies in particular. Our discussion builds on my recent a recent Discourse article, “How Science Fiction Dystopianism Shapes the Debate over AI & Robotics.” [Pasted down below.] Swing on over to Jim’s “Faster, Please” newsletter and hear what Jim and I have to say. And, for a bonus question, Jim asked me is we doing a good job of inspiring kids to have a sense of wonder and to take risks. I have some serious concerns that we are falling short on that front.

How Science Fiction Dystopianism Shapes the Debate over AI & Robotics

[Originally ran on Discourse on July 26, 2022.]

George Jetson will be born this year. We don’t know the exact date of this fictional cartoon character’s birth, but thanks to some skillful Hanna-Barbera hermeneutics the consensus seems to be sometime in 2022.

In the same episode that we learn George’s approximate age, we’re also told the good news that his life expectancy in the future is 150 years old. It was one of the many ways The Jestons, though a cartoon for children, depicted a better future for humanity thanks to exciting innovations. Another was a helpful robot named Rosie, along with a host of other automated technologies—including a flying car—that made George and his family’s life easier.

 

Most fictional portrayals of technology today are not as optimistic as  The Jetsons, however. Indeed, public and political conceptions about artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics in particular are being strongly shaped by the relentless dystopianism of modern science fiction novels, movies and television shows. And we are worse off for it.

AI, machine learning, robotics and the power of computational science hold the potential to drive explosive economic growth and profoundly transform a diverse array of sectors, while providing humanity with countless technological improvements in medicine and healthcare, financial services, transportation, retail, agriculture, entertainment, energy, aviation, the automotive industry and many others. Indeed, these technologies are already deeply embedded in these and other industries and making a huge difference.

But that progress could be slowed and in many cases even halted if public policy is shaped by a precautionary-principle-based mindset that imposes heavy-handed regulation based on hypothetical worst-case scenarios. Unfortunately, the persistent dystopianism found in science fiction portrayals of AI and robotics conditions the ground for public policy debates, while also directing attention away from some of the more real and immediate issues surrounding these technologies.

Incessant Dystopianism Untethered from Reality

In his recent book Robots, Penn State business professor John Jordan observes how over the last century “science fiction set the boundaries of the conceptual playing field before the engineers did.” Pointing to the plethora of literature and film that depicts robots, he notes: “No technology has ever been so widely described and explored before its commercial introduction.” Not the internet, cell phones, atomic energy or any others.

Indeed, public conceptions of these technologies, and even the very vocabulary of the field, has been shaped heavily by sci-fi plots beginning a hundred years ago with the 1920 play  R.U.R. (Rossum’s Universal Robots), which gave us the term “robot,” and Fritz Lang’s 1927 silent film Metropolis, with its memorable Maschinenmensch, or “machine-human.” There has been a deep and rich imagination surrounding AI and robotics since then, but it has tended to be mostly negative and has grown more hostile over time.

The result has been a public and policy dialogue about AI and robotics that is focused on an endless parade of horribles about these technologies. Not surprisingly, popular culture also affects journalistic framings of AI and robotics. Headlines breathlessly scream of how “Robots May Shatter the Global Economic Order Within a Decade,” but only if we’re not dead already because… “If Robots Kill Us, It’s Because It’s Their Job.”

Dark depictions of AI and robotics are ever-present in popular modern sci-fi movies and television shows. A short list includes:  2001: A Space Odyssey, Avengers: Age of Ultron, Battlestar Galactica (both the 1978 original and the 2004 reboot), Black Mirror, Blade Runner, Ex Machina, Her, The Matrix, Robocop, The Stepford Wives, Terminator, Transcendence, Tron, WALL-E, Wargames and Westworld, among countless others. The least nefarious plots among these films and television shows rest on the idea that AI and robotics are going to drive us to a life of distraction, addiction or sloth. In more extreme cases, we’re warned about a future in which we are either going to be enslaved or destroyed by our new robotic or algorithmic overlords.

Don’t get me wrong; the movies and shows on the above list are some of my favorites.  2001 and Blade Runner are both in my top 5 all-time flicks, and the reboot of Battlestar is one of my favorite TV shows. The plots of all these movies and shows are terrifically entertaining and raise many interesting issues that make for fun discussions.

But they are not representative of reality. In fact, the vast majority of computer scientists and academic experts on AI and robotics agree that claims about machine “superintelligence” are wildly overplayed and that there is no possibility of machines gaining human-equivalent knowledge any time soon—or perhaps ever. “In any ranking of near-term worries about AI, superintelligence should be far down the list,” argues Melanie Mitchell, author of Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans.

Contra the  Terminator-esque nightmares envisioned in so many sci-fi plots, MIT roboticist Rodney Brooks says that “fears of runaway AI systems either conquering humans or making them irrelevant aren’t even remotely well grounded.” John Jordan agrees, noting: “The fear and uncertainty generated by fictional representations far exceed human reactions to real robots, which are often reported to be ‘underwhelming.’”

The same is true for AI more generally. “A close inspection of AI reveals an embarrassing gap between actual progress by computer scientists working on AI and the futuristic visions they and others like to describe,” says Erik Larson, author of, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can’t Think the Way We Do. Larson refers to this extreme thinking about superintelligent AI as “technological kitsch,” or exaggerated sentimentality and melodrama that is untethered from reality. Yet, the public imagination remains captivated by tales of impending doom.

Seeding the Ground with Misery and Misguided Policy

But isn’t it all just harmless fun? After all, it’s just make believe. Moreover, can’t science fiction—no matter how full of techno-misery—help us think through morally weighty issues and potential ethical conundrums involving AI and robotics?

Yes and no. Titillating fiction has always had a cathartic element to it and helped us cope with the unknown and mysterious. Most historians believe it was Aristotle in his Poetics who first used the term katharsis when discussing how Greek tragedies helped the audience “through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.”

But are modern science fiction depictions of AI and robotics helping us cope with technological change, or instead just stoking a constant fear of it? Modern sci-fi isn’t so much purging negative emotion about the topic at hand as it is endlessly adding to the sense of dread surrounding these technologies. What are the societal and political ramifications of a cultural frame of reference that suggests an entire new class of computational technologies will undermine rather than enrich our human experiences and, possibly, our very existence?

The New Yorker’s Jill Lepore says we live in “A Golden Age for Dystopian Fiction,” but she worries that this body of work “cannot imagine a better future, and it doesn’t ask anyone to bother to make one.” She argues this “fiction of helplessness and hopelessness” instead “nurses grievances and indulges resentments” and that “[i]ts only admonition is: Despair more.” Lapore goes so far as to claim that, because “the radical pessimism of an unremitting dystopianism” has appeal to many on both the left and right, it “has itself contributed to the unravelling of the liberal state and the weakening of a commitment to political pluralism.”

I’m not sure dystopian fiction is driving the unravelling of pluralism, but Lapore is on to something when she notes how a fiction rooted in misery about the future will likely have political consequences at some point.

Techno-panic Thinking Shapes Policy Discussions

The ultimate question is whether public policy toward new AI and robotic technologies will be shaped by this hyperpessimistic thinking in the form of precautionary principle regulation, which essentially treats innovations as “guilty until proven innocent” and seeks to intentionally slow or retard their development.

If the extreme fears surrounding AI and robotics  do inspire precautionary controls—as they already have in the European Union—then we need to ask how the preservation of the technological status quo could undermine human well-being by denying society important new life-enriching and life-saving goods and services. Technological stasis does not provide a safer or healthier society, but instead holds back our collective ability to innovate, prosper and better our lives in meaningful ways.

Louis Anslow, curator of  Pessimists Archive calls this “the Black Mirror fallacy,” referencing the British television show that has enjoyed great success peddling tales of impending techno-disasters. Anslow defines the fallacy as follows: “When new technologies are treated as much more threatening and risky than old technologies with proven risks/harms. When technological progress is seen as a bigger threat than technological stagnation.”

Anslow’s Pessimists Archive collects real-world case studies of how moral panic and techno-panics have accompanied the introduction of new inventions throughout history. He notes, “Science fiction has conditioned us to be hypervigilant about avoiding dystopias born of technological acceleration and totally indifferent to avoiding dystopias born of technological stagnation.”

Techno-panics can have real-world consequences when they come to influence policymaking. Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF), has documented the many ways that “the social and political commentary [about AI] has been hype, bordering on urban myth, and even apocalyptic.” The more these attitudes and arguments come to shape policy considerations, the more likely it is precautionary principle-based recommendations will drive AI and robotics policy, preemptively limiting their potential. ITIF has published a report documenting “Ten Ways the Precautionary Principle Undermines Progress in Artificial Intelligence,” identifying how it will slow algorithmic advances in key sectors.

Similarly, in his important recent book Where Is My Flying Car ?, scientist J. Storrs Hall documents how “regulation clobbered the learning curve” for many important technologies in the U.S. over the last half century, especially nuclear, nanotech and advanced aviation. Society lost out on many important innovations due to endless bureaucratic delays, often thanks to opposition from special interests, anti-innovation activists, overzealous trial lawyers and a hostile media. Hall explained how this also sent a powerful signal to talented young people who might have been considering careers in those sectors. Why go into a field demonized by so many and where your creative abilities will be hamstrung by precautionary constraints?

Disincentivizing Talent

Hall argues that in those crucial sectors, this sort of mass talent migration “took our best and brightest away from improving our lives,” and he warns that those who still hope to make a career in such fields should be prepared to be “misconstrued and misrepresented by activists, demonized by ignorant journalists, and strangled by regulation.”

Is this what the future holds for AI and robotics? Hopefully not, and America continues to generate world-class talent on this front today in a diverse array of businesses and university programs. But if the waves of negativism about AI and robotics persist, we shouldn’t be surprised if it results in a talent shift away from building these technologies and toward fields that instead look to restrict them.

For example, Hall documents how, following the sudden shift in public attitudes surrounding nuclear power 50 years ago, “interests, and career prospects, in nuclear physics imploded” and “major discoveries stopped coming.” Meanwhile, enrollment in law schools and other soft sciences typically critical of technological innovation enjoyed greater success. Nobody writes any sci-fi stories about what a disaster that development has been for innovation in the energy sphere, even though it is now abundantly clear how precautionary principle policies have undermined environment goals and human welfare, with major geopolitical consequences for many nations.

If America loses the talent race on the AI front, it has ramifications for global competitive advantage going forward, especially as China races to catch up. In a world of global innovation arbitrage, talent and venture capital will flow to wherever it is treated most hospitably. Demonizing AI and robotics won’t help recruit or retain the next generation of talent and investors America needs to remain on top.

Flipping the Script

Some folks have had enough of the relentless pessimism surrounding technology and progress in modern science fiction and are trying to do something to reverse it. In a 2011  Wired essay decrying the dangers of “Innovation Starvation,” the acclaimed novelist Neal Stephenson decried the fact that “the techno-optimism of the Golden Age of [science fiction] has given way to fiction written in a generally darker, more skeptical and ambiguous tone.” While good science fiction, “supplies a plausible, fully thought-out picture of an alternate reality in which some sort of compelling innovation has taken place,” Stephenson said modern sci-fi was almost entirely focused on its potential downsides.

To help reverse this trend, Stephenson worked with the Center for Science and the Imagination at Arizona State University to launch Project Hieroglyph, an effort to support authors willing to take a more optimistic view of the future. It yielded a 2014 book, Hieroglyph: Stories and Visions for a Better Future that included almost 20 contributors. Later, in 2018, The Verge launched the “Better Worlds” project to support 10 writers of “stories that inspire hope” about innovation and the future. “Contemporary science fiction often feels fixated on a sort of pessimism that peers into the world of tomorrow and sees the apocalypse looming more often than not,” said Verge culture editor Laura Hudson when announcing the project.

Unfortunately, these efforts have not captured much public attention and that’s hardly surprising. “Pessimism has always been big box office,” says science writer Matt Ridley, primary because it really is more entertaining. Even though many of great sci-fi writers of the past, including Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein, wrote positively about technology, they ultimately had more success selling stories with darker themes. It’s just the nature of things more generally, from the best of Greek tragedy to Shakespeare and on down the line. There’s a reason they’re still rebooting Beowulf all these years later, after all.

So, There’s Star Trek and What Else?

While technological innovation will never enjoy the respect it deserves for being the driving force behind human progress, one can at least hope that more pop culture treatments of it might give it a fair shake. When I ask crowds of people to name a popular movie or television show that includes mostly positive depictions of technology, Star Trek is usually the first (and sometimes the only) thing people mention. It’s true that, on balance, technology was treated as a positive force in the original series, although “V’Ger”—a defunct space probe that attains a level of consciousness—was the prime antagonist in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Later, Star Trek: The Next Generation gave us the always helpful android Data, but also created the lasting mental image of the Borg, a terrifying race of cyborgs hell-bent on assimilating everyone into their hive mind.

The Borg provided some of The Next Generation’s most thrilling moments, but also created a new cultural meme, with tech critics often worrying about how today’s humans are being assimilated into the hive mind of modern information systems. Philosopher Michael Sacasas even coined the term “the Borg Complex,” to refer to a supposed tendency “exhibited by writers and pundits who explicitly assert or implicitly assume that resistance to technology is futile.” After years of a friendly back-and-forth with Sacasas, I felt compelled to even wrap up my book Permissionless Innovation with a warning to other techno-optimists not to fall prey to this deterministic trap when defending technological change. Regardless of where one falls on that issue, the fact that Sacasas and I were having a serious philosophical discussion premised on a famous TV plotline serves as another indication of how much science fiction shapes public and intellectual debate over progress and innovation.

And, truth be told, some movies know how to excite the senses without resorting to dystopianism.  Interstellar and The Martian are two recent examples that come to mind. Interestingly, space exploration technologies themselves usually get a fair shake in many sci-fi plots, often only to be undermined by onboard Ais or androids, as occurred not only in 2001 with the eerie HAL 9000, but also Alien.

There are some positive (and sometimes humorous) depictions of robots as in  Robot & Frank, or touching ones as in Bicentennial Man. Beyond The Jetsons, other cartoons like Iron Giant and Big Hero 6 offer more kindly visions of robots. KITT, a super-intelligent robot car, was Michael Knight’s dependable ally in NBC’s Knight Rider. And R2-D2 is always a friendly helper throughout the Star Wars franchise. But generally speaking, modern sci-fi continues to churn out far more negativism about AI and robotics.

What If We Took It All Seriously?

So long as the public and political imagination is spellbound by machine machinations that dystopian sci-fi produces, we’ll be at risk of being stuck with absurd debates that have no meaningful solution other than “Stop the clock!” or “Ban it all!” Are we really being assimilated into the Borg hive mind, or just buying time until a coming robopocalypse grinds us into dust (or dinner)?

If there was a kernel of truth to any of this, then we should adopt some of the extreme solutions, Nick Bostrom of Oxford suggests in his writing on these issues. Those radical steps include worldwide surveillance and enforcement mechanisms for scientists and researchers developing algorithmic and robotic systems, as well as some sort of global censorship of information about these capabilities to ensure the technology is not used by bad actors.

To Bostrom’s great credit, he is at least willing to tell us how far he’d go. Most of today’s tech critics prefer to just spread a gospel of gloom and doom and suggest  something must be done, without getting into the ugly details about what a global control regime for computational science and robotic engineering looks like. We should reject such extremist hypothesizing and understand that silly sci-fi plots, bombastic headlines and kooky academic writing should not be our baseline for serious discussions about the governance of artificial intelligence and robotics.

At the same time, we absolutely should consider what downsides any technology poses for individuals and society. And, yes, some precautions will be needed of a regulatory nature. But most of the problems envisioned by sci-fi writers are not what we should be concerned with. There are far more specific and nuanced problems AI and robotics confronts us with today that deserve more serious consideration and governance steps. How to program safer drones and driverless cars, improve the accuracy of algorithmic medical and financial technologies, and ensure better transparency for government uses of AI are all more mundane but very important issues that require reasoned discussion and balanced solutions today. Dystopian thinking gives us no roadmap to get there other than extreme solutions.

Imagining a Better Future

The way forward here is neither to indulge in apocalyptic fantasies nor pollyannaish techno-optimism, but to approach these technologies with reasoned risk analysis, sensible industry best practices, educational efforts and other agile governance steps. In a forthcoming book on flexible governance strategies for AI and robotics, I outline how these and other strategies are already being formulated to address real-world challenges in fields as diverse as driverless cars, drones, machine learning in medicine and much more.

A wide variety of ethical frameworks, offered by professional associations, academic groups and others, already exists to “bake in” best practices and align AI design with widely shared goals and values while also “keeping humans in the loop” at critical stages of the design process to ensure that they can continue to guide and occasionally realign those values and best practices as needed.

When things do go wrong, many existing remedies are available, including a wide variety of common law solutions (torts, class actions, contract law, etc.), recall authority possessed by many regulatory agencies, and various consumer protection policies and other existing laws. Moreover, the most effective solution to technological problems usually lies in more innovation, not less. It is only through constant trial and error that humanity discovers better  and safer ways of satisfying important wants and needs.

These are complicated and nuanced issues that demand tailored and iterative governance responses. But this should not be done using inflexible, innovation-limiting mandates. Concerns about AI dangers deserve serious consideration and appropriate governance steps to ensure that these systems are beneficial to society. However, there is an equally compelling public interest in ensuring that AI innovations are developed and made widely available to help improve human well-being across many dimensions.

So, enjoy your next dopamine hit of sci-fi hysteria—I know I will, too. But don’t let that be your guide to the world that awaits us. Even if most sci-fi writers can’t imagine a better future, the rest of us can.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/09/02/why-the-endless-techno-apocalyptica-in-modern-sci-fi/feed/ 0 77033 My Forthcoming Book on Artificial Intelligence & Robotics Policy https://techliberation.com/2022/07/22/my-forthcoming-book-on-artificial-intelligence-robotics-policy/ Fri, 22 Jul 2022 18:13:14 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77014

I’m finishing up my next book, which is tentatively titled, “A Flexible Governance Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” I thought I’d offer a brief preview here in the hope of connecting with others who care about innovation in this space and are also interested in helping to address these policy issues going forward.

The goal of my book is to highlight the ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) machine learning (ML), robotics, and the power of computational science are set to transform the world—and the world of public policy—in profound ways. As with all my previous books and research products, my goal in this book includes both empirical and normative components. The first objective is to highlight the tensions between emerging technologies and the public policies that govern them. The second is to offer a defense of a specific governance stance toward emerging technologies intended to ensure we can enjoy the fruits of algorithmic innovation.

AI is a transformational technology that is general-purpose and dual-use. AI and ML also build on top of other important technologies—computing, microprocessors, the internet, high-speed broadband networks, and data storage/processing systems—and they will become the building blocks for a great many other innovations going forward. This means that, eventually, all policy will involve AI policy and computational considerations at some level. It will become the most important technology policy issue here and abroad going forward.

The global race for AI supremacy has important implications for competitive advantage and other geopolitical issues. This is why nations are focusing increasing attention on what they need to do to ensure they are prepared for this next major technological revolution. Public policy attitudes and defaults toward innovative activities will have an important influence on these outcomes.

In my book, I argue that, if the United States hopes to maintain a global leadership position in AI, ML, and robotics, public policy should be guided by two objectives:

  1. Maximize the potential for innovation, entrepreneurialism, investment, and worker opportunities by seeking to ensure that firms and other organizations are prepared to compete at a global scale for talent and capital and that the domestic workforce is properly prepared to meet the same global challenges.
  2. Develop a flexible governance framework to address various ethical concerns about AI development or use to ensure these technologies benefit humanity, but work to accomplish this goal without undermining the goals set forth in the first objective.

The book primarily addresses the second of these priorities because getting the governance framework for AI right significantly improves the chances of successfully accomplishing the first goal of ensuring that the United States remains a leading global AI innovator.

I do a deep dive into the many different governance challenges and policy proposals that are floating out there today—both domestically and internationally. The most contentious of these issues involved the so-called “socio-algorithmic” concerns that are driving calls for comprehensive regulation today. Those include the safety, security, privacy, and discrimination risks that AI/ML technologies could pose for individuals and society.

These concerns deserve serious consideration and appropriate governance steps to ensure that these systems are beneficial to society. However, there is an equally compelling public interest in ensuring that AI innovations are developed and made widely available to help improve human well-being across many dimensions.

Getting the balance right requires agile governance strategies and decentralized, polycentric approaches. There are many different values and complex trade-offs in play in these debates, all of which demand tailored responses. But this should not be done in an overly rigid way through complicated, inflexible, time-consuming regulatory mandates that preemptively curtail or completely constrain innovation opportunities. There’s no need to worry about the future if we can’t even build it first. AI innovation must not be treated as guilty until proven innocent.

The more agile and adaptive governance approach I outline in my book builds on the core principles typically recommended by those favoring precautionary principle-based regulation. That is, it is similarly focused on (1) “baking in” best practices and aligning AI design with widely-shared goals and values; and, (2) keeping humans “in the loop” at critical stages of this process to ensure that they can continue to guide and occasionally realign those values and best practices as needed. However, a decentralized governance approach to AI focuses on accomplishing these objectives in a more flexible, evolutionary fashion without the costly baggage associated with precautionary principle-based regulatory regimes.

The key to the decentralized approach is a diverse toolkit of so-called soft law governance solutions. Soft law refers to agile, adaptable governance schemes for emerging technology that create substantive expectations and best practices for innovators without regulatory mandates. Precautionary regulatory restraints will be necessary in some limited circumstances—particular for certain types of very serious existential risk—but most AI innovations should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.

When things do go wrong, many existing remedies are available, including a wide variety of common law solutions (torts, class actions, contract law, etc), recall authority possessed by many regulatory agencies, and various consumer protection policies and other existing laws. Moreover, the most effective solution to technological problems usually lies in more innovation, not less of it. It is only through constant trial and error that humanity discovers better and safer ways of satisfying important wants and needs.

The book has six chapters currently, although I am toying with adding back in two other chapters (on labor market issues and industrial policy proposals) that I finished but then cut to keep the theme of the book more tightly focused on social and ethical considerations surrounding AI and robotics.

Here are the summaries of the current six chapters in the manuscript:

  • Chapter 1: Understanding AI & Its Potential Benefits – Defining the nature and scope of artificial intelligence and its many components and related subsectors is complicated and this fact creates many governance challenges. But getting AI governance right is vital because these technologies offer individuals and society meaningful improvements in living standards across multiple dimensions.
  • Chapter 2: The Importance of Policy Defaults for Innovation Culture – Every technology policy debate involves a choice between two general defaults: the precautionary principle and the proactionary principle or “permissionless innovation.” Setting the initial legal default for AI technologies closer to the green light of permissionless innovation will enable greater entrepreneurialism, investment, and global competitiveness.
  • Chapter 3: Decentralized Governance for AI: A Framework – The process of embedding ethics in AI design is an ongoing, iterative process influenced by many forces and factors. There will be much trial and error when devising ethical guidelines for AI and hammering out better ways of keeping these systems aligned with human values. A top-down, one-size-fits-all regulatory framework for AI is unwise. A more decentralized, polycentric governance approach is needed—nationally and globally. [This chapter is the meat of the book and several derivative articles will be spun out of it beginning with a report on algorithmic auditing and AI impact assessments.]
  • Chapter 4: The US Governance Model for AI So Far – U.S. digital technology and ecommerce sectors have enjoyed a generally “permissionless” policy environment since the early days of the Internet, and this has greatly benefited our innovation and global competitiveness. While AI has thus far been governed by a similar “light-touch” approach, many academics and policymakers are now calling for aggressive regulation of AI rooted in a precautionary principle-oriented mindset, which threatens to derail a great deal of AI innovation.
  • Chapter 5: The European Regulatory Model & the Costs of Precaution by Default – Over the past quarter century, the European Union has taken a more aggressive approach to digital technology and data regulation, and is now advancing several new comprehensive regulatory frameworks, including an AI Act. The E.U.’s heavy-handed regulatory regime, which is rooted in the precautionary principle, discouraged innovation and investment across the continent in the past and will continue to do so as it grows to encompass AI technologies. The U.S. should reject this model and welcome European innovators looking to escape it.
  • Chapter 6: Existential Risks & Global Governance Issues around AI & Robotics – AI and robotics could give rise to certain global risks that warrant greater attention and action. But policymakers must be careful to define existential risk properly and understand how it is often the case that the most important solution to such risks is more technological innovation to overcome those problems. The greatest existential risk of all would be to block further technological innovation and scientific progress. Proposals to impose global bans or regulatory agencies are both unwise and unworkable. Other approaches, including soft law efforts, will continue to play a role in addressing global AI risks and concerns.

This book, which I hope to have out some time later this year, grows out of a large body of research I’ve done over the past decade. [Some of that work is listed down below.] AI, ML, robotics, and algorithmic policy issues will dominate my research focus and outputs over the next few years.

I look forward to doing my small part to help ensure that America builds on the track record of success it has enjoyed with the Internet, ecommerce, and digital technologies. Again, that stunning success story was built on wise policy choices that promoted a culture of creativity and innovation and rejected calls to hold on to past technological, economic, or legal status quos.

Will America rise to the challenge once again by adopting wise policies to facilitate the next great technological revolution? I’m ready for that fight. I hope you are, too, because it will be the most important technology policy battle of our lifetimes.

___________

Recent Essays & Papers on AI & Robotics Policy

]]> 77014 Again, We Should Not Ban All Teens from Social Media https://techliberation.com/2022/07/05/again-we-should-not-ban-all-teens-from-social-media/ https://techliberation.com/2022/07/05/again-we-should-not-ban-all-teens-from-social-media/#respond Wed, 06 Jul 2022 00:16:49 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77004

A growing number of conservatives are calling for Big Government censorship of social media speech platforms. Censorship proposals are to conservatives what price controls are to radical leftists: completely outlandish, unworkable, and usually unconstitutional fantasies of controlling things that are ultimately much harder to control than they realize. And the costs of even trying to impose and enforce such extremist controls are always enormous.

Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal ran a response I wrote to a proposal set forth by columnist Peggy Noonan in which she proposed banning everyone under 18 from all social-media sites (“We Can Protect Children and Keep the Internet Free,” Apr. 15). I expanded upon that letter in an essay here entitled, “Should All Kids Under 18 Be Banned from Social Media?” National Review also recently published an article penned by Christine Rosen in which she also proposes to “Ban Kids from Social Media.” And just this week, Zach Whiting of the Texas Public Policy Foundation published an essay on “Why Texas Should Ban Social Media for Minors.”

I’ll offer a few more thoughts here in addition to what I’ve already said elsewhere. First, here is my response to the Rosen essay. National Review gave me 250 words to respond to her proposal:

While admitting that “law is a blunt instrument for solving complicated social problems,” Christine Rosen (“Keep Them Offline,” June 27) nonetheless downplays the radicalness of her proposal to make all teenagers criminals for accessing the primary media platforms of their generation. She wants us to believe that allowing teens to use social media is the equivalent of letting them operate a vehicle, smoke tobacco, or drink alcohol. This is false equivalence. Being on a social-media site is not the same as operating two tons of steel and glass at speed or using mind-altering substances. Teens certainly face challenges and risks in any new media environment, but to believe that complex social pathologies did not exist before the Internet is folly. Echoing the same “lost generation” claims made by past critics who panicked over comic books and video games, Rosen asks, “Can we afford to lose another generation of children?” and suggests that only sweeping nanny-state controls can save the day. This cycle is apparently endless: Those “lost generations” grow up fine, only to claim it’s the  next generation that is doomed! Rosen casually dismisses free-speech concerns associated with mass-media criminalization, saying that her plan “would not require censorship.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Rosen’s prohibitionist proposal would deny teens the many routine and mostly beneficial interactions they have with their peers online every day. While she belittles media literacy and other educational and empowerment-based solutions to online problems, those approaches continue to be a better response than the repressive regulatory regime she would have Big Government impose on society.

I have a few more things to say beyond these brief comments.

First, as I alluded to in my short response to Rosen, we’ve heard similar “lost generation” stories before. Rosen might as well be channeling the ghost of Dr. Fredric Wertham (author of Seduction of the Innocent), who in the 1950s declared comics books a public health menace and lobbied lawmakers to restrict teen access to them, insisting such comics were “the cause of a psychological mutilation of children.” The same sort of “lost generation” predictions were commonplace in countless anti-video game screeds of the 1990s. Critics were writing books with titles like Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill and referring to video games as “murder simulators,” Ironically, just as the video game panic was heating up, juvenile crime rates were plummeting. But that didn’t stop the pundits and policymakers from suggesting that an entire generation of so-called “vidiots” were headed for disaster. (See my 2019 short history: “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics“).

It is consistently astonishing to me how, as I noted in 2012 essay, “We Always Sell the Next Generation Short.” There seems to be a never-ending cycle of generational mistrust. “There has probably never been a generation since the Paleolithic that did not deplore the fecklessness of the next and worship a golden memory of the past,” notes Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist.

For example, in 1948, the poet T. S. Eliot declared: “We can assert with some confidence that our own period is one of decline; that the standards of culture are lower than they were fifty years ago; and that the evidences of this decline are visible in every department of human activity.” We’ve heard parents (and policymakers) make similar claims about every generation since then.

What’s going on here? Why does this cycle of generational pessimism and mistrust persist? In a 1992 journal article, the late journalism professor Margaret A. Blanchard offered this explanation:

“[P]arents and grandparents who lead the efforts to cleanse today’s society seem to forget that they survived alleged attacks on their morals by different media when they were children. Each generation’s adults either lose faith in the ability of their young people to do the same or they become convinced that the dangers facing the new generation are much more substantial than the ones they faced as children.”

In a 2009 book on culture, my colleague Tyler Cowen also noted how, “Parents, who are entrusted with human lives of their own making, bring their dearest feelings, years of time, and many thousands of dollars to their childrearing efforts.” Unsurprisingly, therefore, “they will react with extreme vigor against forces that counteract such an important part of their life program.” This explains why “the very same individuals tend to adopt cultural optimism when they are young, and cultural pessimism once they have children,” Cowen says.

Building on Blanchard and Cowen’s observation, I have explained how the most simple explanation for this phenomenon is that many parents and cultural critics have passed through their “adventure window.” The willingness of humans to try new things and experiment with new forms of culture—our “adventure window”—fades rapidly after certain key points in life, as we gradually settle in our ways. As the English satirist Douglas Adams once humorously noted: “Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

There is no doubt social media can create or exacerbate certain social pathologies among youth. But pro-censorship conservatives wants to take the easy way out with a Big Government media ban for the ages.

Ultimately, it’s a solution that will not be effective. Raising children and mentoring youth is certainly the hardest task we face as adults because simple solutions rarely exist to complex human challenges–and the issues kids face are often particularly hard for many parents and adults to grapple with because we often fail to fully understand both the unique issues each generation might face, and we definitely fail to fully grasp the nature of each new medium that youth embrace.  Simplistic solution–even proposals for outright bans–will not work or solve serious problems.

An outright government ban on online platforms or digital devices is likely never going to happen due to First Amendment constraints, but even ignoring the jurisprudential barriers, bans won’t work for a reason that these conservatives never bother considering: Many parents will help their kids get access to those technologies and to evade restrictions on their use. Countless parents already do so in violation of COPPA rules, and not just because they worry that their kid won’t have access to what some other kids have. Rather, many parents (like me) both wanted to make sure I could more easily communicate with them, and also ensure that they could enjoy those technologies and use them to explore the world.

These conservatives might think some parents like me are monsters for allowing my (now grown) children to get on social media when they were teens. I wasn’t blind to the challenges, but recognized that sticking one’s head in the ground or hoping for divine intervention from the Nanny State was impractical and unwise. The hardest conversations I ever had with my kids were about the ugliness they sometimes experienced online, but those conversations were also countered by the many joys that I knew online interactions brought them. Shall I tell you about everything my son learned online before 13 about building model rockets or soapbox derby cars? Or the countless sites my daughter visited gathering ideas for her arts and crafts projects when, before the age of 13, she started hand-painting and selling jean jackets (eventually prompting her to pursue an art school degree)? Again, as I noted in my National Review response, Rosen’s prohibitionist proposal would deny teens these experiences and the countless other routine and entirely beneficial interactions that they have with their peers online every day.

There is simply no substitute for talking to your kids in the most open, understanding, and loving fashion possible. My #1 priority with my own children was not foreclosing all the new digital media platforms and devices at their disposal. That was going to be almost impossible. Other approaches are needed.

Yes, of course, the world can be an ugly place. I mean, have you ever watched the nightly news on television? It’s damn ugly. Shouldn’t we block youth access to it when scenes of war and violence are shown? Newspapers are full of ugliness, too. Should a kid be allowed to see the front page of the paper when it discusses or shows the aftermath of school shootings, acts of terrorism, or even just natural disasters? I could go on, but you get the point. And you could try to claim that somehow today’s social media environment is significantly worse for kids than the mass media of old, but you cannot prove it.

Of course you’ll have anecdotes, and many of them will again point to complex social pathologies. But I have entire shelves full of books on my office wall that made similar claims about the effects of books, the telephone, radio and television, comics, cable TV, every musical medium ever, video games, and advertising efforts across all these mediums. Hundreds upon hundreds of studies were done over the past half century about the effects of depictions of violence in movies, television, and video games. And endless court battles ensued.

In the end, nothing came out of it because the literature was inconclusive and frequently contradictory. After many years of panicking about youth and media violence, in 2020, the American Psychological Association issued a new statement slowly reversing course on misguided past statements about video games and acts of real-world violence. The APA’s old statement said that evidence “confirms [the] link between playing violent video games and aggression.”  But the APA has come around and now says that, “there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior.” More specifically, the APA now says: “Violence is a complex social problem that likely stems from many factors that warrant attention from researchers, policy makers and the public. Attributing violence to violent video gaming is not scientifically sound and draws attention away from other factors.”

This is exactly what we should expect to find true for youth and social media. Most of the serious scholars in the field already note studies and findings about youth and social media must be carefully evaluated and that many other factors need to be considered whenever evaluating claims about complex social phenomenon.

While Rosen belittles media literacy and other educational and empowerment-based solutions to online problems, those approaches continue to represent the best first-order response when compared to the repressive regulatory regime she would impose on society.

Finally, I want to just reiterate what I said in my brief  National Review response about the enormous challenges associated with mass criminalization or speech platforms. Rosen seems to image that all the costs and controversies will lie on the supply-side of social media. Just call for a ban and then magically all kids disappear from social media and the big evil tech capitalists eat all the costs and hassles. Nonsense. It’s the demand-side of criminalization efforts where the most serious costs lie. What do you really think kids are going to do if Uncle Sam suddenly does ban everyone under 18 from going on a “social media site,” whatever that very broad term entails? This will become another sad chapter in the history of Big Government prohibitionist efforts that fail miserably, but not before declaring mass groups of people criminals–this time including everyone under 18–and then trying to throw the book at them when they seek to avoid those repressive controls. There are better ways to address these problems than with such extremist proposals.

Additional Reading from Adam Thierer on Media & Content Regulation :

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/07/05/again-we-should-not-ban-all-teens-from-social-media/feed/ 0 77004 Thoughts on the America COMPETES Act: The Most Corporatist & Wasteful Industrial Policy Ever https://techliberation.com/2022/01/26/thoughts-on-the-competes-act-the-most-corporatist-wasteful-industrial-policy-ever/ https://techliberation.com/2022/01/26/thoughts-on-the-competes-act-the-most-corporatist-wasteful-industrial-policy-ever/#respond Wed, 26 Jan 2022 19:37:24 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76942

On Tuesday, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, posted the text of the “America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology and Economic Strength Act of 2022,” or “The America COMPETES Act.” As far as industrial policy measures go, the COMPETES Act is one of the most ambitious and expensive central planning efforts in American history. It represents the triumph of top-down, corporatist, techno-mercantilist thinking over a more sensible innovation policy rooted in bottom-up competition, entrepreneurialism, private investment, and free trade.

Unprecedented Planning & Spending

First, the ugly facts: The full text of the COMPETES Act weighs in at a staggering 2,912 pages. A section-by-section “summary” of the measure takes up 109 pages alone. Even the shorter “fact sheet” for the bill is 20 pages long. It is impossible to believe that anyone in Congress has read every provision of this bill. It will be another case of having “to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it,” as Speaker Pelosi once famously said about another mega-measure.

Of course, a mega bill presents major opportunities for lawmakers to sneak in endless gobs of pork and unrelated policy measures they can’t find any other way to get through Congress. The Senate already passed a similar 2,600-page companion measure last summer, “The U.S. Innovation and Competition Act.” Lawmakers loaded up that measure with so much pork and favors for special interests that Sen. John N. Kennedy (R-La.) labelled the effort an “orgy of spending porn.” Like that effort, the new COMPETES Act includes $52 billion to boost domestic semiconductor production as well as $45 billion in grants and loans to address supply chain issues.

But there are billions allocated for other initiatives, as well as countless provisions addressing other technologies and sectors. The list is seemingly endless and includes: 5G mobile networks, biometrics, quantum information science, “the development of safe and trustworthy artificial intelligence and data science,” cybersecurity literacy, drone security, microelectronics, electronic waste, genomics, isotope development, and the Large Hadron Collider and high intensity lasers, among many other things. The measure also proposes a broad array of Green New Deal-esque efforts focused on things like: biometrology, climate and Earth modeling, deforestation and overfishing / “driftnet” fishing matters, marine mammal research, solar energy, bioenergy, the creation of a National Engineering Biology Research and Development Initiative and a Regional Clean Energy Innovation Program at the Department of Energy, clean water programs, a national clean energy incubator program, and helium conservation, again among many other things. There are even provisions addressing the trading of shark fins and almost 70 pages of provisions on coral reef conservation.

A Sweeping Macroeconomic Planning Exercise

There are more sweeping macroeconomic provisions and mandates in the bill. For example, the COMPETES Act would create a new “national supply chain database,” as well as a Supply Chain Resiliency and Crisis Response Office in the Department of Commerce, while also requiring the Director of White House Office of Science & Technology Policy to develop and submit to Congress a 4-year comprehensive national S&T strategy. The measure also includes trade adjustment assistance for workers, firms, and farmers and even provisions dealing with currency undervaluation. There are also many provisions addressing drug manufacturing and medical supply chain issues. There are even proposed expansions of federal antitrust power. (Apparently, once America’s grandiose industrial policies magically create global powerhouses in every sector, we’ll need expanding antitrust action to tear them all down and start all over again! Meanwhile, perhaps the greatest irony of the new industrial policy efforts is that, while lawmakers are falling all over themselves to shower corporate America with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, policymakers are simultaneously on a regulatory and antitrust jihad against many successful tech companies with bills that would break them up or destroy their business models.)

Perhaps most radically, the measure includes a 25-page section proposing a sweeping new “National Critical Capabilities Review” process to oversee outbound investments. Covington lawyers noted that, if such a regulatory regime is enacted, “the United States would become the first major Western advanced economy to adopt a broad-gauged outbound investment screening process, raising the prospect of a new era in national security-based reviews and restrictions of international investment flows.”

Finally, the COMPETES Act includes a huge assortment of other national security and foreign policy-related provisions, most of which focus on countering China in some fashion. “There’s a lot of Cold War-style influence mongering happening here,” says Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown, including programs that sound like they could have been concocted by the CIA, such as the bill’s “Countering China’s Educational and Cultural Diplomacy in Latin America” initiative. But there is also a lot of language here addressing other regions or countries, including: Oceania, Africa, the Arctic, the Middle East, Iran, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and others.

The relationship of most of these provisions to U.S. industrial competitiveness is tenuous to say the least. Nonetheless, those provisions take up a huge amount of space in this nearly 3,000-page industrial policy measure and may end up complicating its passage.

A Chicken in Every Pot

The inclusion of “Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs” in the bill deserves special attention. The Act proposes $7 billion over four years to fund 10 different innovation hubs and it includes many provisions about how and where money will be spent. It’s hard to see how spreading $7 billion across 10 hubs is actually going to result in much once every special interest gets their cut of the action, but proposals like these are all the rage these days. It’s the equivalent of policymakers promising a high-tech chicken in every pot, or a Silicon Valley in every state.

In a two-part series for Discourse, I documented the problems associated with the many previous government efforts to create innovation hubs, tech clusters, or science parks. The government’s  track record in this regard is long and lamentable. Instead of following a time-tested approach getting the broad innovation policy environment right through a “generalized” approach to economic growth and development, most policymakers took unwise shortcuts and tried using “targeted” development schemes that were incredibly risky and ended up squandering a huge amount of taxpayer resources.

But all those failed past efforts probably won’t stop this high-tech pork barrel effort from rolling forward in some fashion. The proposed new regional hub effort comes on top of an announcement last July by the Commerce Department that the agency plans to allocate $1 billion in pandemic recovery funds to create or expand “regional industry clusters” as part of the administration’s new “Build Back Better Regional Challenge.” The agency’s list of possible winning funding ideas includes an “artificial intelligence corridor” and a “climate-friendly electric vehicle cluster.” And there are many other federal and state programs throwing money at the idea of hub or “cluster” formation, or even just highly cronyist efforts to attract a single big tech firm. (Anyone remember the Foxconn fiasco in Wisconsin?)

As Matt Mitchell and I have noted, this growing trend represents the collision of federal industrial policy and long-standing state-based economic development efforts. Regardless of how well-intentioned they may be, it is highly unlikely these new tech pork barrel efforts will produce better results than the long string of earlier federal and state failures.

Secondary Effects & Unforeseeable Costs

A bill this big presents many other big opportunities for corporations and other special interests. It’s no wonder that many companies, trade associations, and other special interests are lining up to support this effort. In a recent study co-authored with Connor Haaland (“Does the US Need a More Targeted Industrial Policy for AI & High-Tech”), we outlined “the way rent-seeking and cronyism often become chronic problems for highly targeted, big-budget industrial policy efforts.” Those problems will grow exponentially if the COMPETES Act passes. Everyone expects a cut of the action when Washington starts showering sectors with money.

But there’s a bigger problem associated with the everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach to such a massive industrial policy bill.  All the ambiguities associated with a monster measure like this means that agency bureaucrats will be left to fill in all the details for many years to come. It is folly of the highest order to believe that all these agencies will work together in a tightly coordinated and consistent way to advance industrial policy efforts or address “strategic objectives.” Anyone currently following the fight between the FAA and FCC over the rollout of 5G wireless networks will know what I am talking about. Moreover, delegating broad authority and big money to all these agencies just further reinforces the rent-seeking instincts of special interests, who will rush to their respective regulatory masters with hat in hand. This presents agencies with an added policy lever to blackmail companies into doing what they want without any new regulations even being issued.

And then there is the final consideration: where will all the money come from for this grand exercise in technocratic central planning? The Senate bill costs an estimated $250 billion. To be clear, that’s A QUARTER TRILLION DOLLARS. We’re talking big money, and chances are that the final price tag for the House’s COMPETES Act will be even higher. Does the money to fund all this profligate spending just fall like manna from industrial policy heaven? No, it will come out the pockets of the American taxpayer and American companies (who will just pass the bill along to consumers). This will have dynamic effects on growth and innovation that are almost never discussed in industrial policy debates. Here’s how Connor Haaland and I put it in our big study:

“First, a dollar spent pursuing one objective is a dollar that could have been invested differently, and potential better. Second, the very act of imposing taxes to cover these state gambits results in costs and distortions that must be accounted for. Some of these costs are deadweight losses associated with taxes and tax collection more generally. But this points to a third lesson: The true potential costs associated with industrial policy programs also need to account for the negative secondary effects of rent-seeking, bureaucracy, and the many other downsides of the political system, included cost overruns and corruption.”

As the old saying goes: There is no free lunch.

Conclusion: There Is a Better Way

Some advocates of the COMPETES Act label it a “competitiveness bill” or an “innovation initiative.” It takes a great deal of hubris to pretend that that the economy is just a giant machine to be manipulated and that policymakers can easily “dial in” the desired innovation results through massive bills and expanded bureaucracy.

Lawmakers and bureaucrats are not going to allocate capital more efficiently than private innovators and investors. Nor are they going to be able to “shore up supply chains” or create tech hubs in every city just by sprinkling a little magical industrial policy pixie dust thinly across the entire nation.

We should not try to compete with China by becoming China. Nor do we need to. Markets and supply chains recover from setbacks faster than governments can. This week, the White House reiterated its support for industrial policy efforts to strengthen supply chains and extend subsidies to the semiconductors industry. But, assuming the COMPETES Act passes, it’ll take years to get all the planning and spending going. When government spins those proverbial dials, it does so very slowly and extremely inefficiently. Meanwhile, the same day the White House was making these announcements, it was also touting that $80 billion in private investment has been announced by the US semiconductor industry recently. Just last week, Intel announced it plans to invest at least $20 billion in two new chip-making facilities in Ohio. Scott Lincicome and Ilana Blumsack have documented the many other private initiatives underway by the semiconductor industry to expand domestic manufacturing capacity, as well as efforts by foreign firms like Samsung to invest here to take advantage of our skilled workforce and vibrant capital market. This is all happening despite the fact that Congress is still debating an industrial policy measure that may end up being too bloated to even achieve successful passage this session.

Does government have any role to play? It certainly does. Most current industrial policy proposals fail to understand that the most important thing that policymakers can do is to clean up decades of earlier failed industrial policy efforts. Industrial policies in fields like energy, aviation, space, communications and other sectors skewed markets in unnatural and inefficient ways by favoring specific technologies and companies over others. This is because industrial policy all too often devolves into the business of picking winners and losers. This is not always done in a formal way or even with clear intent. Rather, when government is throwing around billions and engaging in casino economics by placing big bets, a lucky few will win at the expense of others.

Of course, not all government support is as wasteful or corporatist in character. “Basic” R&D efforts are certainly more defensible than most “applied” or “targeted” efforts. “When government is supporting basic R&D,” Connor Haaland and I have noted, “the chances of wasting scarce resources on risky investments can be minimized to some degree, at least as compared with highly targeted applied R&D investments in unproven technologies and firms.”

And then there are all of the education and training efforts governments can undertake. If lawmakers were smart, they would have just limited their efforts to the sort of things found in Titles III, V, and VI of the COMPETES Act, which relates to boosting STEM education, high-tech workforce training, improving National Science Foundation research efforts, and funding various other federal science agencies and labs, that conduct more basic research. And more flexible immigration policies are also essential.

Meanwhile, government defense spending isn’t going to dry up anytime soon and it continues to represent an indirect form of industrial policy given the trillions of dollars that are spread around through the so-called “military-industrial complex.” That certainly doesn’t mean America should be greatly expanding its already bloated defense budgets in the name of expanding industrial policy. Yet, for better or worse, government is always going to be spending a lot of money on defense priorities and it gives it a chance to address whatever “strategic” needs it has.

But the current industrial policy behemoth advancing in Congress represents a misguided effort at domestic retrenchment and a collapse into a lamentable sort of techno-mercantilism thinking that happens every quarter century or so. In my paper with Haaland as well as a separate essay, I have documented just how misguided the “Japan panic” of the 1980s and 90s was. One policymaker and pundit after another lined up to breathlessly proclaim the end of America if we failed to adopt a grandiose industrial policy to counter Japan. Of course, that industrial policy approach ended up being such a disaster that even the Japanese government itself declared in a 2000 report that “the Japanese model was not the source of Japanese competitiveness but the cause of our failure.”

Moreover, it is worth noting what happened with the Internet and digital technology in the U.S. versus the rest of the world in the 1990s and beyond. America essentially put a policy firewall between the emerging digital technology sector and the old industrial policy regime we had for analog sectors and technologies, like broadcasting and wireline telephony. And thank God we did! America’s digital technology sector thrived, and U.S.-headquartered tech companies became household names across the globe. Meanwhile, the Europeans have spent 20 years crafting one misguided industrial policy scheme after another to equal America’s accomplishments. Despite highly targeted and expensive efforts to foster a domestic digital tech base, the EU has instead generated a string of industrial policy failures that Haaland and I documented in detail here.

Corporatism, cronyism, and profligate pork-barrel spending were not the sources of America’s competitive advantage in digital technology, and top-down planning did not make our digital technology companies global powerhouses.  Instead, we got our innovation culture right for digital technology. First and foremost, our the default regulatory policy for the digital economy was permissionless innovation. No one had to ask anyone for the right to develop all those new digital technologies and online platforms. The Clinton Administration’s 1997 “Framework for Global Electronic Commerce” announced that “governments should encourage industry self-regulation and private sector leadership where possible” and “avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce.” Second, investors saw that positive policy ecosystem developing and moved quickly to shower entrepreneurs in this sector with unprecedented private venture capital investment. Third, education and career opportunities in these sectors expanded accordingly. Real-time “learning by doing” took place as millions of people learned new digital skillsets on the fly. Kids learned how to code before anyone could even teach them how to type. Most importantly, talented immigrants and foreign investors then came here to take advantage of all this, allowing America to steal away the best and brightest from the rest of the world.

This constitutes one of the greatest capitalist success stories in human history, and it all happened without targeted, technocratic, top-down industrial policy planning. This is the more principled and less costly vision for innovation policy America needs today to counter China and the rest of the world. There is absolutely no reason that we can’t apply this same vision to aviation, space, semiconductors, energy, nanotech, AI, and many other sectors of importance.

Additional Reading from Adam Thierer on Industrial Policy:

Other critical essays on industrial policy:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/01/26/thoughts-on-the-competes-act-the-most-corporatist-wasteful-industrial-policy-ever/feed/ 0 76942 The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues https://techliberation.com/2021/12/08/the-classical-liberal-approach-to-digital-media-free-speech-issues/ https://techliberation.com/2021/12/08/the-classical-liberal-approach-to-digital-media-free-speech-issues/#respond Wed, 08 Dec 2021 20:41:45 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76930

On December 13th, I will be participating in an Atlas Network panel on, “Big Tech, Free Speech, and Censorship: The Classical Liberal Approach.” In anticipation of that event, I have also just published a new op-ed for The Hill entitled, “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment.” In this essay, I expand upon that op-ed and discuss the growing calls from both the Left and the Right for a variety of new content regulations. I then outline the classical liberal approach to concerns about free speech platforms more generally, which ultimately comes down to the proposition that innovation and competition are always superior to government regulation when it comes to content policy.

In the current debates, I am particularly concerned with calls by many conservatives for more comprehensive governmental controls on speech policies enforced by various private platforms, so I will zero in on those efforts in this essay. First, here’s what both the Left and the Right share in common in these debates: Many on both sides of the aisle desire more government control over the editorial decisions made by private platforms. They both advocate more political meddling with the way private firms make decisions about what types of content and communications are allowed on their platforms. In today’s hyper-partisan world,” I argue in my Hill column, “tech platforms have become just another plaything to be dominated by politics and regulation. When the ends justify the means, principles that transcend the battles of the day — like property rights, free speech and editorial independence — become disposable. These are things we take for granted until they’ve been chipped away at and lost.”

Despite a shared objective for greater politicization of media markets, the Left and the Right part ways quickly when it comes to the underlying objectives of expanded government control. As I noted in my Hill op-ed:

there is considerable confusion in the complaints both parties make about “Big Tech.” Democrats want tech companies doing more to limit content they claim is hate speech, misinformation, or that incites violence. Republicans want online operators to do less, because many conservatives believe tech platforms already take down too much of their content.

This makes life very lonely for free speech defenders and classical liberals. Usually in the past, we could count on the Left to be with us in some free speech battles (such as putting an end to “indecency” regulations for broadcast radio and television), while the Right would be with us on others (such as opposition to the “Fairness Doctrine,” or similar mandates). Today, however, it is more common for classical liberals to be fighting with both sides about free speech issues.

My focus is primarily on the Right because, with the rise of Donald Trump and “national conservatism,” there seems to be a lot of soul-searching going on among conservatives about their stance toward private media platforms, and the editorial rights of digital platforms in particular.

In my new  Hill essay and others articles (all of which are listed down below), I argue there is a principled classical liberal approach to these issues that was nicely outlined by President Ronald Reagan in his 1987 veto of Fairness Doctrine legislation, when he said:

History has shown that the dan­gers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and compe­tition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.

Let’s break that line down. Reagan admits that media bias can be a real thing. Of course it is! Journalists, editors, and even the companies they work for all have specific views. They all favor or disfavor certain types of content. But, at least in the United States, the editorial decisions made by these private actors are protected by the First Amendment. Section 230 is really quite secondary to this debate, even though some Trumpian conservatives wrongly suggest that it’s the real problem here. In reality, national conservatives would need to find a way to work around well-established First Amendment protections if they wanted to impose new restrictions on the editorial rights of private parties.

But why would they want to do that? Returning to the Reagan veto statement, we should remember how he noted that, even if the First Amendment did not protect the editorial discretion of private media platforms, bureaucratic regulation was not the right answer to the problem of “bias.”  Competition and choice were the superior answer. This is the heart and soul of the classical liberal perspective: more innovation is always superior to more regulation.

For the past 30 years, conservatives and classical liberals were generally aligned on that point. But the ascendancy of Donald Trump created a rift in that alliance that now threatens to grow into a chasm as more and more Right-of-center people begin advocating for comprehensive control of media platforms.

The problems with that are numerous beginning with the fact that none of the old rationales for media controls work (and most of them never did). Consider the old arguments justifying widespread regulation of private media:

  • “Scarcity” was the oldest justification for media regulation, but we live in the exact opposite world today, in which the most common complaint about media is the abundance of it!
  • Conversely, the supposed “pervasiveness” of some media (namely broadcasting) was used as a rationale for government censorship in the past. But that, too, no longer works because in today’s crowded media marketplace and Internet-enabled world, all forms of communications and entertainment are equally pervasive to some extent.
  • State ownership and licensing of spectrum was another rationale for control that no longer works. No digital media platforms need federal licenses to operate today. So, that hook is also gone. Moreover, the answer to the problem of government ownership of media is to stop letting the government own and control media assets, including spectrum.
  • “Fairness” is another old excuse for control, with some regulatory advocates suggesting that five unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (or some other agency) are well-suited to “balance” the airing of viewpoints on media platforms. Of course, America’s disastrous experience with the Fairness Doctrine proved just how wrong that thinking was. [I summarize all the evidence proving that here.]

That leaves a final, more amorphous rationale for media control: ” gatekeeper” concerns and assertions that private media platforms can essentially become “state actors.” In the wake of Donald Trump’s “de-platorming” from Facebook and Twitter, many of his supporters began adopting this language in defense of more aggressive government control of private media platforms, including the possibility of declaring those platforms common carriers and demanding that some sort of amorphous “neutrality” mandates be imposed on them. But as Berin Szóka and Corbin Barthold of Tech Freedom note:

Where courts have upheld imposing common carriage burdens on communications networks under the First Amendment, it has been because consumers reasonably expected them to operate conduits. Not so for social media platforms. [. . . ] When it comes to the regulation of speech on social media, however, the presumption of content neutrality does not apply. Conservatives present their criticism of content moderation as a desire for “neutrality,” but forcing platforms to carry certain content and viewpoints that they would prefer not to carry constitutes a “content preference” that would trigger strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, any “gatekeeper” power exercised by social media would be just as irrelevant as the monopoly power of local newspapers was in [previous Supreme Court holdings].

Put simply, efforts to stretch extremely narrow and limited common carriage precedents to fit social media just don’t work. We’ve already seen lower courts declare that recently when blocking the enforcement of new conservative-led efforts in Florida and Texas to limit the editorial discretion of private social media platforms. If conservatives really hope to get around these legal barriers to regulation, what would be needed would be a more far-reaching strike at the First Amendment itself. That would entail a jurisprudential revolution at the Supreme Court — reversing about a century of free speech precedents — or an some sort of an effort to amend the First Amendment itself. These things are almost certainly not going to occur.

But, again, this hasn’t stopped some conservatives from pitching extreme solutions in their efforts to regulate digital media at both the state and federal level. I discuss these efforts in previous essays on, “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality,“ “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet,“ and “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’.“ Perhaps some Trump-aligned conservatives understand that these legislative efforts are unlikely to work, but they continue to push them in an attempt to make life hell for tech platforms, or perhaps just to troll the Left and “own the Libs.”

On the other hand, some conservatives seem to really believe in some of the extreme ideas they are tossing around. What is particular troubling about these efforts is the way — following Trump’s lead — some conservatives, including even more mainstream conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, are increasingly referring to private media platforms as “the enemy of the people.” That’s the kind of extremist language typically used by totalitarian thugs and Marxist lunatics who so hate private enterprise and freedom of speech that they are willing to adopt a sort of burn-the-village-to-save-it rhetorical approach to media policy.

And speaking of Marxists, here’s what is even more incredible about these efforts by some conservatives to use such rationales in support of comprehensive media regulation: It is all based on the “media access” playbook concocted by radical Leftist scholars a generation ago. As I summarized in my essay on, “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“:

Media access advocates look to transform the First Amendment into a tool for social change to advance specific political ends or ideological objectives. Media access theory dispenses with both the editorial discretion rights and private property rights of private speech platforms. Private platforms become subject to the political whims of policymakers who dictate “fair” terms of access. We can think of this as communications collectivism.

Media access doctrine is rooted in an arrogant, elitist, anti-property, anti-freedom ethic that suggest the State is a better position to dictate what can and cannot be said on private speech platforms. “It’s astonishing, yet nonetheless true,” I continued on in that essay, “that the ideological roots of Trump’s anti-social media campaign lie in the works of those extreme Leftists and even media Marxists. He has just given media access theory his own unique nationalistic spin and sold this snake oil to conservatives.” Yet, Trump and other national conservatives are embracing this contemptible doctrine because now more than ever the ends apparently justify the means in American politics. Nevermind that all this could come back to haunt them when the Left somehow leverages this regulatory apparatus to control Fox News or other sites and content that conservatives favor! Once media platforms are viewed as just another thing to be controlled by politics, the only question is which politics and how are those politics enforced? Certainly both the Left and the Right cannot both have their way given all that current divides them.

Finally, what is utterly perplexing about all this is how much thanks national conservatives really owe to the major digital platforms they now seek to destroy. As I noted in my new Hill op-ed:

There has never been more opportunity for conservative viewpoints than right now. Each day on Facebook, the top-10 most shared links are dominated by pundits such as Ben Shapiro, Dan Bongino, Dinesh D’Souza and Sean Hannity. Right-leaning content is shared widely on Twitter each day. Websites like Dailywire.com and Foxnews.com get far more traffic than the New York Times or CNN.

Thus, conservatives might be shooting themselves in the foot if they were able to convince more legislatures to adopt the media access regulatory playbook because it could have profound unintended consequences once the Left uses those tools to somehow restrict access to “hate speech” or “misinformation” — and then define it so broadly so as to include much of the top material posted by conservatives on Facebook and Twitter ever day.

Not all conservatives have drank the media access kool-aid. In the wake of Trump’s deplatforming from a few major sites, a wave of new Right-leaning digital services are being planned or have already launched. (Axios and Forbes recently summarized some of these efforts.) I don’t know which will of these efforts will succeed, but more competition and platform-building are certainly superior to current calls by some Trump supporters for government regulation of mainstream social media services.

Again, this is the old Reagan vision at its finest! We can achieve a better media landscape, “only through the freedom and compe­tition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee,” not through bureaucratic regulation. It remains the principled path forward.

Additional Reading :

Older essays & testimony :

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/12/08/the-classical-liberal-approach-to-digital-media-free-speech-issues/feed/ 0 76930 New Mercatus Center Report on Industrial Policy https://techliberation.com/2021/11/17/new-mercatus-center-report-on-industrial-policy/ https://techliberation.com/2021/11/17/new-mercatus-center-report-on-industrial-policy/#comments Wed, 17 Nov 2021 21:21:29 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76921

The Mercatus Center has just released a new special study that I co-authored with Connor Haaland entitled, “Does the United States Need a More Targeted Industrial Policy for High Tech?” With industrial policy reemerging as a major issue — and with Congress still debating a $250 billion, 2,400-page industrial policy bill — our report does a deep dive into the history various industrial policy efforts both here and abroad over the past half century. Our 64-page survey of the historical record leads us to conclude that, “targeted industrial policy programs cannot magically bring about innovation or economic growth, and government efforts to plan economies from the top down have never had an encouraging track record.”

We zero in on the distinction between general versus targeted economic development efforts and argue that:

whether we are referring to federal, state, or local planning efforts—the more highly tar­geted development efforts typically involve many tradeoffs that are often not taken into consider­ation by industrial policy advocates. Downsides include government steering of public resources into unproductive endeavors, as well as more serious problems, such as cronyism and even corruption.

We also stress the need to more tightly define the term “industrial policy” to ensure rational evaluation is even possible. We argue that, “industrial policy has intentionality and directionality, which distinguishes it from science policy, innovation policy, and economic policy more generally.” We like the focus definition used by economist Nathaniel Lane, who defines industrial policy as “intentional political action meant to shift the industrial structure of an economy.”

Our report examines the so-called “Japan model” of industrial policy that was all the rage in intellectual circles a generation ago and then compares it to the Chinese and European industrial policy efforts of today, which many pundits claim that the US needs to mimic. We find problems with those models and argue that:

America’s goal should not be to “imitate China” or “copy its playbook” when it comes to targeted industrial policy and technological governance of AI and other high-tech sectors. Europe’s approach, although not as heavy-handed, is also not a good model. Not only would the Chinese and European approaches potentially undermine the permissionless innovation ethos that made America’s tech companies become global powerhouses, but expanded industrial policy efforts would entail massive state bets on risky ventures using taxpayer resources.

We discuss the public choice dynamics surrounding many industrial development efforts and note that, “what is often described as “industrial policy” is in reality nothing more than industrial politics.” We highlight how many of the largest industrial policy programs have been prone to highly inefficient contracting procedures and massive cost overruns. Sometimes outright corruption even becomes a problem with some of the largest programs. But that’s not the only cost. Sometimes, in their effort to promote specific industrial outputs or outcomes, government undermines the very innovation they hope to spur.

When governments repress the entrepreneurial spirit of their most innovative creators and companies, this is bound to have negative ramifications for long-term competitiveness and economic growth. Heavy-handed industrial policy schemes can contribute to this sort of repression as the state gains more levers of control over private companies.

We note how that has certainly been the case in the European Union, where “countries have adopted a highly precautionary regulatory model for new digital sectors that shuns risk-taking and focuses on maximizing other values at the expense of disruptive change. This approach has resulted in fewer national champions, and it has cost Europe in terms of global competitive advantage,” we note. We also highlight the long string of failed European industrial policy programs.

Ours is not a doctrinaire analysis; we take a pragmatic approach to the evaluation of industrial policy programs and proposals. Some of them may succeed based simply on the reality that “if government officials roll the proverbial industrial policy dice enough times, some bets are bound to pay off, at least indirectly.” But any serious analysis of these efforts, we argue, must fully weigh the trade-offs associated with the potential tax and compliance burdens associated with funding them to begin with.

But we admit that, “industrial policy will always be with us to some extent, given the sheer size of government and the many existing programs already devoted to economic development or high-tech initiatives.” Toward that end, we wrap up the paper with a variety of high-level recommendations about industrial policy. We highlight how:

The priority should be generalized economic development over targeted development efforts. The most important thing that policymakers can do to boost economic opportunities is to create a legal and regulatory environment that is conducive to entrepreneurship, investment, innovation, and free trade.  [. . . ] government should focus on setting the table for entrepreneurial activity instead of trying to determine everything on the plate. To put this differently, policymakers need to avoid the “fun stuff” and focus on “boring” issues that often get neglected.

We apply these insights to the ongoing debate over regional economic development and the specific effort currently underway at the federal level to encourage “regional innovation hubs,” as federal and state lawmakers look to create “the next Silicon Valley” elsewhere.

In terms of our nation’s overall investment in R&D, we note that “[t]he United States has the most vibrant venture capital (VC) market in the world, and this market helps support risky ventures without gambling with taxpayer dollars.” While some bemoan the fact that private enterprise provides the bulk of R&D expenditures in the US – and that amount is increasing relative to governmental sources – this is actually something that should be celebrated. The strength of private-funded R&D helps set the US apart and make investment markets nimbler and more responsive to real-world needs. Moreover, global unicorn growth in the US continues at a healthy clip. From 2010 to mid-2021, the US created 53 percent of global unicorns, compared with 20 percent for China. These facts are often overlook in industrial policy debates.

While our paper is comprehensive, admittedly, there are some things we leave out of the analysis or do not spend as much time discussing. For example, there is a never-ending debate about the relationship between national security and industrial policy that raises many hard questions. A nation needs military hardware to defend itself, and almost every program to provide weapons and military equipment in the US involve private contracting to get them. These are the biggest industrial policy programs at all, but we don’t spend a lot of time focus on them in our paper because that would have taken us far afield.

We have a short section on these issues that notes how “defense-related programs have also been prone to highly inefficient contracting procedures and massive cost overruns.” Many of these programs remain vital, however, and must find a way to make them more efficient and cost-effective. But there are still other issues related to national security and industrial policy that raise hard questions, including: export or import controls, trade restrictions, and more. These continue to be challenging issues and I personally hope to revisit some of them in upcoming essays.

With Congress still trying to finalize its mega industrial policy bill, our paper is relevant to the short-term debate over these issues. But our hope is that this paper offers a big-picture, long-term framework for thinking through the challenges associated with industrial policy issues both here and abroad.

Here is the outline of the paper and, again, you can find it at this link. (The report can also be found on SSRN & Research Gate).

  1. Introduction: Definitional Challenges 5
  2. Calls for Expanding Industrial Policy to Boost High-Tech Innovation 8
  3. Some (Quickly Forgotten) Recent History 11
  4. The Romantic View of Industrial Policy vs. Reality 15
  5. The Challenge of Creating “National Champions”: Europe’s Failures 20
  6. Adverse Effects of State-Led Promotion: The China Model Examined 23
  7. Where Does Real Competitive Advantage Come From? 27
  8. Industrial Policy Did Not Give Us the Internet and the iPhone 33
  9. Evaluating Other Industrial Policy Efforts 39
  10. Using Competitions and Prizes to Encourage Innovation More Efficiently 46
  11. Conclusion: Generality Is Better Than Targeting

Additional Reading:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/11/17/new-mercatus-center-report-on-industrial-policy/feed/ 1 76921 A Return of the Trustbusters Could Harm Consumers https://techliberation.com/2021/04/13/a-return-of-the-trustbusters-could-harm-consumers/ https://techliberation.com/2021/04/13/a-return-of-the-trustbusters-could-harm-consumers/#respond Tue, 13 Apr 2021 17:01:58 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76868

Is it a time for the return of the trustbusters? Some politicians seem to imply that today’s tech giants have become modern day robber barons taking advantage of the American consumer and, as a result, they argue that it is time for a return of aggressive antitrust enforcement and for dramatic changes to existing antitrust interpretations to address the concerns associated with today’s big business.

This criticism is not limited to one side of the aisle, with Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) both proposing their own dramatic overhauls of antitrust laws and the House Judiciary Committee majority issuing a report that greatly criticizes the current technology market. In both cases these new proposals create presumptive bans on mergers for companies of certain size and lower the burdens on the government for intervening and proving its case. I have previously analyzed the potential impact of Senator Klobuchar’s proposal, and Senator Hawley’s proposal raises many similar concerns when it comes to its merger ban and shift away from existing objective standards.

Proponents on both sides of the aisle argue changing current antitrust standards is needed to fight big business, but sadly these modern-day trustbusters may not be the heroes they see themselves as. In fact, such a shift would harm American consumers and small businesses well beyond the tech sector.

The Trustbusters-Era Standards Would Fail Consumers

The original trustbusters of the late 19th and early 20th century created a system that was not always clear and could be abused by regulators subjectively determining what was and was not anti-competitive behavior. The result was that, in this earlier era, businesses and consumers could never be certain what behaviors would be considered violations.

The shift to the consumer welfare standard helped fixed that problem by providing an objective framework using economic analysis to weigh the risk and benefits of behavior and judging it based on its impact on consumers and not specific competitors. Unfortunately, these new proposals would shift away from this objective focus and return to a presumption that big is bad. This shift would be bad news not only for big business but for smaller businesses and consumers as well. Small businesses would lose an important exit strategy option with the presumptive ban on mergers with large companies, and consumers would miss out on benefits such as price reductions, improvements, and innovations that these mergers could bring.

While much of the debate around antitrust changes focuses on large tech firms such as Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon, changing antitrust laws would impact far more of the economy than just tech. Both the Hawley and Klobuchar proposals would bar mergers unless there is strong evidence proving their value (a “regulatory presumption” against mergers), but this presumption would impact industries such as pharmaceuticals, finance, and agriculture that also frequently have mergers and acquisitions that benefit consumers by helping to expand the distribution of a product or improve on an existing service. In fact, companies including L’Oreal and Nike could find any mergers or acquisitions presumptively prohibited under the limits in these proposals.

Existing Standards Can Adapt to Dynamic Markets Like Tech

Existing standards are still able to address the concerns associated with this dynamic and changing markets as well as more established markets. For example, the Antitrust Modernization Commission concluded, “There is no need to revise the antitrust laws to apply different rules to industries in which innovation, intellectual property, and technological change are central features.”

Sometimes regulators’ sense of the market in technology may prove to be wrong by the evolution of a technology or the disruption caused by a dramatic shift in the industry. For example, debates used to be focused on MySpace and AOL , which have now become things of internet nostalgia. Today’s tech giants are facing growing challenges not only from each other in many cases, but also from many newer entrants, from ClubHouse and TikTok to Zoom and Shopify. Removing the need to firmly establish the existing standards of an antitrust case would risk unnecessary intervention into the market or, more likely, could prevent actions that benefit consumers.

Some question whether this economic analysis-based standard can handle the zero-price services offered by many technology companies. While price is often the easiest focus, this standard also considers issues such as quality and innovation, making it elastic enough to address potential concerns even if the price is zero. Still, this does not mean that the definition of harm under the consumer welfare standard should be expanded to address any litany of concerns that cannot be objectively shown to have market harm.

Trustbusters’ Concerns with Tech Are Unlikely to Be Solved by Antitrust

Antitrust is also a poor tool to address concerns such as data privacy or content moderation, and using it to do so could allow for future abuse for other political ends. There is no guarantee that smaller companies would respond to existing market demands around issues such as content moderation any differently than the current large players. Additionally, when it comes to privacy and targeted advertising, smaller platforms would have to find new ways to gain revenue and might be forced to monetize the platform more to stay afloat without being able to rely on the revenue from a larger parent company. Finally, there is no guarantee that these smaller companies would be more innovative or dynamic particularly as existing teams and talents are divided by break ups and walls are erected to prevent entry into certain markets.

The good news is some policymakers have realized that these problems exist and argued for preserving the existing framework and addressing these other concerns with appropriately targeted policies. For example, Sen. Mike Lee recently defended the consumer welfare standard and was critical of the negative impact “radically alter[ing] our antitrust regime” could have while still questioning some recent decisions around content moderation.

Conclusion

Many have hoped for a return of bipartisan cooperation in Washington, but unfortunately bad ideas can also emerge on both sides of the aisle. Shifting away from the consumer welfare standard would ultimately harm consumers at a time when innovation and economic recovery are especially critical.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/04/13/a-return-of-the-trustbusters-could-harm-consumers/feed/ 0 76868 Thoughts on Content Moderation Online https://techliberation.com/2021/03/25/thoughts-on-content-moderation-online/ https://techliberation.com/2021/03/25/thoughts-on-content-moderation-online/#respond Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:23:57 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76839

Content moderation online is a newsworthy and heated political topic. In the past year, social media companies and Internet infrastructure companies have gotten much more aggressive about banning and suspending users and organizations from their platforms. Today, Congress is holding another hearing for tech CEOs to explain and defend their content moderation standards. Relatedly, Ben Thompson at Stratechery recently had interesting interviews with Patrick Collison (Stripe), Brad Smith (Microsoft), Thomas Kurian (Google Cloud), and Matthew Prince (Cloudflare) about the difficult road ahead re: content moderation by Internet infrastructure companies.

I’m unconvinced of the need to rewrite Section 230 but like the rest of the Telecom Act—which turned 25 last month–the law is showing its age. There are legal questions about Internet content moderation that would benefit from clarifications from courts or legal scholars.

(One note: Social media common carriage, which some advocates on the left, right, and center have proposed, won’t work well, largely for the same reason ISP common carriage won’t work well—heterogeneous customer demands and a complex technical interface to regulate—a topic for another essay.)

The recent increase in content moderation and user bans raises questions–for lawmakers in both parties–about how these practices interact with existing federal laws and court precedents. Some legal issues that need industry, scholar, and court attention:

Public Officials’ Social Media and Designated Public Forums

Does Knight Institute v. Trump prevent social media companies’ censorship on public officials’ social media pages?

The 2nd Circuit, in Knight Institute v. Trump, deemed the “interactive space” beneath Pres. Trump’s tweets a “designated public forum,” which meant that “he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with.” For the 2nd Circuit and any courts that follow that decision, the “interactive space” of most public officials’ Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and YouTube pages seem to be designated public forums.

I read the Knight Institute decision when it came out and I couldn’t shake the feeling that the decision had some unsettling implications. The reason the decision seems amiss struck me recently:

Can it be lawful for a private party (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) to censor members of the public who are using a designated public forum (like replying to President Trump’s tweets)? 

That can’t be right. We have designated public forums in the physical world, like when a city council rents out a church auditorium or Lions Club hall for a public meeting. All speech in a designated public forum is accorded the strong First Amendment rights found in traditional public forums. I’m unaware of a case on the subject but a court is unlikely to allow the private owner of a designated public forum, like a church, to censor or dictate who can speak when its facilities are used as a designated public forum.

The straightforward implication from Knight Institute v. Trump seems to be that neither politicians nor social media companies can make viewpoint-based decisions about who can comment on or access an official’s social media account.

Knight Institute creates more First Amendment problems than it solves, and could be reversed someday. [Ed. update: In April 2021, the Supreme Court vacated the 2nd Circuit decision as moot since Trump is no longer president. However, a federal district court in Florida concluded, in Attwood v. Clemons, that public officials’ “social media accounts are designated public forums.” The Knight Institute has likewise sued Texas Attorney General Paxton for blocking user and claimed that his social media feed is a designated public forum. It’s clear more courts will adopt this rule.] But to the extent Knight Institute v. Trump is good law, it seems to limit how social media companies moderate public officials’ pages and feeds.

Cloud neutrality

How should tech companies, lawmakers, and courts interpret Sec. 512?

Wired recently published a piece about “cloud neutrality,” which draws on net neutrality norms of nondiscrimination towards content and applies them to Internet infrastructure companies. I’m skeptical of the need or constitutionality of the idea but, arguably, the US has a soft version of cloud neutrality embedded in Section 512 of the DMCA.

The law conditions the copyright liability safe harbor for Internet infrastructure companies only if: 

the transmission, routing, provision of connections, or storage is carried out through an automatic technical process without selection of the material by the service provider.

17 USC § 512(a).

Perhaps a copyright lawyer can clarify, but it appears that Internet infrastructure companies may lose their copyright safe harbor if they handpick material to censor. To my knowledge, there is no scholarship or court decision on this question.

State Action

What evidence would a user-plaintiff need to show that their account or content was removed due to state action?

Most complaints of state action for social media companies’ content moderation are dubious. And while showing state action is hard to prove, in narrow circumstances it may apply. The Supreme Court test has said that when there is a “sufficiently close nexus between the State and [a] challenged action,” the action of a private company will be treated as state action. For that reason, content removals made after non-public pressure or demands from federal and state officials to social media moderators likely aren’t protected by the First Amendment or Section 230.

Most examples of federal and state officials privately jawboning social media companies will never see the light of day. However, it probably occurs. Based on Politico reporting, for instance, it appears that state officials in a few states leaned on social media companies to remove anti-lockdown protest events last April. It’s hard to know exactly what occurred in those private conversations, and Politico has updated the story a few times, but examples like that may qualify as state action.

Any public official who engages in non-public jawboning resulting in content moderation could also be liable to a Section 1983 claim–civil liability for deprivation of an affected user’s constitutional rights.

Finally, what should Congress do about foreign state action that results in tech censorship in the US? A major theme of the Stretechery interviews ist that many tech companies feel pressure to set their moderation standards based on what foreign governments censor and prohibit. Content removal from online services because of foreign influence isn’t a First Amendment problem, but it is a serious free speech problem for Americans.

Many Republicans and Democrats want to punish large tech companies for real or perceived unfairness in content moderation. That’s politics, I suppose, but it’s a damaging instinct. For one thing, the Section 230 fixation distract free-market and free-speech advocates from, among other things, alarming proposals for changes to the FEC that empower it to criminalize more political speech. The singular focus on Section 230 repeal-reform distracts from these other legal questions about content moderation. Hopefully the Biden DOJ or congressional hearings will take some of these up.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/03/25/thoughts-on-content-moderation-online/feed/ 0 76839 Skeptical Takes on Expansive Industrial Policy Efforts https://techliberation.com/2021/03/15/skeptical-takes-on-expansive-industrial-policy-efforts/ https://techliberation.com/2021/03/15/skeptical-takes-on-expansive-industrial-policy-efforts/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2021 17:09:11 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76845

[Last updated 3/25/22]

Industrial Policy is a red-hot topic once again with many policymakers and pundits of different ideological leanings lining up to support ambitious new state planning for various sectors — especially 5G, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors. A remarkably bipartisan array of people and organizations are advocating for government to flex its muscle and begin directing more spending and decision-making in various technological areas. They all suggest some sort of big plan is needed, and it is not uncommon for these industrial policy advocates to suggest that hundreds of billions will need to be spent in pursuit of those plans.

Others disagree, however, and I’ll be using this post to catalog some of their concerns on an ongoing basis. Some of the criticisms listed here are portions of longer essays, many of which highlight other types of steps that governments can take to spur innovative activities. Industrial policy is an amorphous term with many definitions of a broad spectrum of possible proposals. Almost everyone believes in  some form of industrial policy if you define the term broadly enough. But, as I argued in a September 2020 essay “On Defining ‘Industrial Policy‘,” I believe it is important to narrow the focus of the term such that we can continue to use the term in a rational way. Toward that end, I believe a proper understanding of industrial policy refers to targeted and directed efforts to plan for specific future industrial outputs and outcomes.

The collection of essays below is merely an attempt to highlight some of the general concerns about the most ambitious calls for expansive industrial policy, many of which harken back to debates I was covering in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when I first started a career in policy analysis. During that time, Japan and South Korea were the primary countries of concern cited by industrial policy advocates. Today, it is China’s growing economic standing that is fueling calls for ambitious state-led targeted investments in “strategic” sectors and technologies. To a lesser extent, grandiose European industrial policy proposals are also prompting new US counter-proposals.

All this activity is what has given rise to many of the critiques listed below. If you have suggestions for other essays I might add to this list, please feel free to pass them along. FYI: There’s no particular order here.

Scott Lincicome and Huan Zhu, “Questioning Industrial Policy: Why Government Manufacturing Plans Are Ineffective and Unnecessary,” Cato Institute Working Paper, June 16, 2021.

[I]ndustrial policy – properly defined – has an extensive and underwhelming history in the United States, featuring high costs (seen and unseen), failed objectives, and political manipulation. Surely, not every U.S. industrial policy effort has ended in disaster, but facts here and abroad argue strongly against new government efforts to boost “critical” industries and workers and thereby fix alleged market failures. Such efforts warrant intense skepticism – skepticism that today is unfortunately in short supply.

Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy as Casino Economics,” The Hill, July 12, 2021.

While some government investments will always be necessary, policymakers engaging in casino economics means bad industrial policy bets and taxpayer money squandered on risky ventures best made by private actors. We need to keep Uncle Sam’s gambling habits in check.

Adam Thierer, “Thoughts on the America COMPETES Act: The Most Corporatist & Wasteful Industrial Policy Ever,” Technology Liberation Front, January 26, 2022.

As far as industrial policy measures go, the COMPETES Act is one of the most ambitious and expensive central planning efforts in American history. It represents the triumph of top-down, corporatist, techno-mercantilist thinking over a more sensible innovation policy rooted in bottom-up competition, entrepreneurialism, private investment, and free trade.

Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Does the US Need a More Targeted Industrial Policy for AI & High-Tech?” Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Special Study, November 2021.

This paper considers how both the recent history of high-tech industrial policy efforts at the national and international level—as well as some state and local economic development efforts in the United States—might better inform the wisdom of proposed efforts for AI or other high-tech sectors. That history is spotted with some limited successes alongside a long string of costly failures. We explore the reasons for those failures and recommend that the US refocus on the policy prerequisites that helped give rise to the computing and internet revolutions: a more generalized approach to economic development rooted in light-touch regulation and taxation of emerging technology.

Samuel Gregg, “Can America Build A Broad-Based Economy?”  Law & Liberty, March 1, 2022

Of course, if a government decides to put enough money and resources behind a given industrial policy, it will likely produce some results. Yet the same is true of the gambler. If she stays in the casino long enough and spends enough money, she will win a few hands of cards. But the odds are that she will also lose a great deal of money, especially if she is as inept a gambler as the government is maladroit at identifying industry trends or entrepreneurial opportunities. Moreover, just as a compulsive gambler’s behavior will have numerous negative effects on her family’s well-being, so too does industrial policy risk inflicting wider damage upon a nation’s economy and political system. The harms range from gross misallocations of resources to the rampant cronyism and rent-seeking that seems inseparable from industrial policy (which, I again note, its advocates studiously avoid discussing), to name just a few.

Phil Gramm & Mike Solon, “Peace Through Strength Requires Economic Freedom,” Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2022.

The America Competes Act is the House’s effort to outdo the Chinese Communist Party’s latest five-year plan. The 2,900-page bill would make an old Soviet commissar blush.  [. . . ] America’s success in the world economy has never depended on industrial policy or government subsidies. It has come from the relative absence of government planning and subsidies. This is hardly news. The U.S. government provided support for the efforts of Samuel Langley, the greatest aviation expert of the 1890s, in his effort to make America first in powered flight. His manned Aerodrome flopped into the Potomac River. It was the Wright brothers, two unsubsidized but determined bicycle makers from Dayton, Ohio, who flew at Kitty Hawk, N.C., and changed the world.

Scott Lincicome, “Moving Fast and Breaking Things,” Capitolism, February 2, 2022.

Adam Thierer, “The Coming Industrial Policy Hangover,”  The Hill, February 16, 2022.

In the rush to pass legislation, we’ve barely heard a peep about the $250-$350 billion price tag. This follows a massive splurge of recent government borrowing, which led to the U.S. national debt hitting another lamentable new record: $30 trillion. China already owns over $1 trillion of that debt, making one wonder if we’re really countering China by adopting a massive, new and unfunded industrial policy that they will end up financing indirectly.

Podcast: “What’s Wrong with Industrial Policy,” Hold These Truths with Rep. Dan Crenshaw, February 16, 2022.

Tad DeHaven and Adam Thierer, “ The Military-Industrial Complex Offers a Cautionary Tale for Industrial Policy Planning,” Discourse, March 25, 2022.

Wayne Crews, “What To Do Instead Of The America COMPETES Act,” Forbes, February 2, 2022.

All this spending and expansion of the federal government, atop which our leaders would lay the America COMPETES Act and doubtless its own accompanying guidebook, has massive, ignored regulatory effects. Trillions in government spending (”investment”) have altered and will alter the entire trajectory and competitive environment of industries engaged in large-scale enterprises and transactions. This removes vast swaths of business activity from free competitive enterprise altogether, and creates displacements and distortions such that the restoration of free enterprise becomes a near-impossible disentanglement. The result is, after 100 years of big government and seduction of and fusion with big business, the greatest endeavors—from infrastructure to artificial intelligence, from smart cities to space—now consist of “partnerships” with governments rather than free enterprise, at scales and at costs so gigantic they can only be ignored.

Adam Thierer, “‘Japan Inc.’ and Other Tales of Industrial Policy Apocalypse,” Discourse, June 28, 2021.

Perhaps the most ironic indictment of industrial policy punditry lies in the way all the earlier books and essays about Japanese planning not only failed to forecast the many flops associated with it, but also did not foresee China as a potential future economic juggernaut. [. . .] What might that tell us about the ability of experts to predict the future course of countries and economies?

Adam Thierer, “Can Government Reproduce Silicon Valley Everywhere?”  Technology Liberation Front, September 12, 2021.

government efforts to artificially try to create regional innovation hubs in a top-down, technocratic fashion will almost certainly persist. As they do, some will argue that this time will be different! Perhaps, but it is more likely that the past is prologue; these new hubs will likely cause federal politicians to jockey for position to have their regions named one of the winners and get a big cut of all the new high-tech pork being served up by Washington.

Weifeng Zhong, “Beijing Can’t Make Sense of Biden’s China Strategy. Can Biden?” Washington Examiner, July 01, 2021.

America is not China, and it would be a fatal mistake to equate competing with China with imitating what China does. Doing so would risk the advantageous U.S. position as the world’s chief innovator, whose ideas are turned into products by vibrant private sectors both domestically and internationally.

Mike Watson, “Industrial Policy in the Real World,” National Affairs, Summer 2021.

Given the nature of industrial policymaking in the United States, there’s little reason to believe future attempts at industrial planning will result in a more coherent, rational, or strategic allocation of resources than they have in the past. [. . .] In short, industrial policy in the United States cannot be steered by a small group of enlightened individuals, because a small group of enlightened individuals will never be at the helm. Indeed, in some sense, there is no single “helm” to speak of.
 

Samuel Gregg, “Industrial Policy Mythology Confronts Economic Reality,” Law & Liberty, September 3, 2021.

If prizes in policy debates were given out for persistence, those advocating for more widespread use of industrial policy in America would be first in line. No matter how many times it is pointed out that they don’t understand the nature and workings of comparative advantage; or avoid acknowledging how industrial policy fosters rampant cronyism and corruption; or highlight what they consider examples of countries in which industrial policy has been employed successfully (only to have it demonstrated that it didn’t quite work out the way they suggested), they don’t give up.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown, “If This Is How America COMPETES, We’re Going to Lose,” Reason, January 26, 2022.

the bill can’t simply address one main issue or a few critical needs. Instead, it tries to insert the government into every aspect of all sorts of industries and markets and pretend that bureaucrats can solve complex social and cultural issues.

Chang-Tai Hsieh, “Countering Chinese Industrial Policy Is Counterproductive,” Project Syndicate, September 15, 2021.

US political leaders have long tried to counter Chinese industrial policy. And now they seem to have decided that the best way to do that is to emulate it. But their agenda betrays a profound lack of understanding of the unique challenge posed by China’s coupling of an authoritarian political regime with a dynamic market economy.

Adam Thierer, “Industrial Policy Advocates Should Learn from Don Lavoie,” Discourse, November 5, 2021.

“In light of the inherent deficiencies of central planning,” Lavoie said, “it might be argued that the U.S. should instead try to reduce current government interference with the competitive process to the absolute minimum consistent with other political goals.” It remains wise advice for today’s policymakers.
Image

Anne O. Krueger, “America’s Muddled Industrial Policy,” CGTN, June 25, 2021.

Governments have a poor track record of identifying “winners” – be it a company or a category of technology – whereas private companies have proved better at transforming new discoveries into new products or cost savings. That is why the U.S. state traditionally has stuck to funding basic research.

Eric Boehm, “Massive Subsidies Won’t Solve the Semiconductor Supply Chain Crisis,” Reason, January 28, 2022.

Tracy C. Miller, “The Case for Limiting Government Semiconductor Subsidies,” The Hill, June 26, 2021.

Without the subsidies, firms would be more cautious about building or expanding foundries. If long-term production capacity is truly insufficient, high prices and anticipated profits give firms the right incentives to build or expand and satisfy demand at cost-covering prices.

Scott Lincicome, “The ‘Endless Frontier’ and American Industrial Policy,” Cato Institute Blog, May 26, 2021.

U.S. industrial policy has a long history of struggling to overcome political pressures, just as public choice predicts, and the EFA is no different. None of this means that all legislating is bad, or that politicians don’t at least occasionally vote in the national interest. Instead, the public choice framework simply adds another hurdle—along with things like the “knowledge problem,” seen and unseen costs, and misaligned incentives—to designing and implementing commercial policies specifically intended to beat the admittedly messy and imperfect situation that the market generates. It’s imperative that we understand these risks before supporting policies that, while they might look good on paper, could easily morph into a counterproductive boondoggle—one we’ve seen countless times with respect to U.S. industrial policy.

Daniel W. Drezner, “Is the United States capable of industrial policy in 2021?” Washington Post, June 14, 2021.

To believe that the United States can pursue a high-caliber industrial policy, however, requires assuming a more competent state than I have seen in the past decade.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, “The Nicest Thing I Can Write About Supply Chain Policy,” The Daily Dish, June 10, 2021.

Nevertheless, the Senate just passed a provision for $50 billion to subsidize chip fabrication – something the president had requested – and the House will doubtlessly concur. That might seem like an industry victory, but wait until it realizes that the administration will assume it gives it the right to insist on union jobs, micromanage the design of chips, and dictate the pricing and distribution of the products. Good luck with that. As the definitive volume on policy analysis (Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack) put it, “He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.”

Lipton Matthews, “Industrial Policy—a.k.a. Central Planning—Won’t Make America Great,” Mises Wire, November 5, 2021.

Although industrial policy is in vogue, the evidence suggests that it is not necessary for long-term development. Moreover, despite the popularity of industrial policy in China, America remains the world’s economic power, and by following China, it may lose this vaunted position.

Richard Beason, “Japanese Industrial Policy: An Economic Assessment,” National Foundation for American Policy, November 2021.

There is no evidence to support the claim that Japanese industrial policy during the 1955-1990 period enhanced growth rates by sector, industries with economies of scale (greater efficiency when produced in increased amounts), productivity growth or “competitiveness.” The reality of the political process and government spending priorities makes it very difficult for such policies to be effective. Furthermore, even if political pressures had not intervened, it seems questionable to suggest that government policymakers would be better than actual market participants in determining the most efficient allocation of resources to produce the best economic outcomes.

Douglas Irwin, “ Memo to the Biden administration on how to rethink industrial policy,” Peterson Institute for International Economics, October 2020.

The challenge for policymakers is to identify such industries without succumbing to the notion that every industry is vital to some public objective. For example, the goal of “economic security” is so broadly defined and open-ended that virtually every domestic producer could claim the need for government support on that basis. The risk is that ill-conceived government programs will encourage corrupt behavior in which industries benefit themselves without contributing to national welfare.

Jim Pethokoukis, “Will Biden’s embrace of industrial policy pay off?” AEI Blog, January 15, 2021.

The history of such efforts in advanced capitalist economies gives ample reason for skepticism about the effectiveness of such top-down government planning, from Japanese economic stagnation to the now-mothballed Concorde supersonic jet to France’s failed attempt to create a thriving tech sector. The Internet might seem like the exception that negates the rule, but what turned out to be a successful partnership of government and entrepreneurs didn’t arise out of some master plan from Washington. And what do even the smartest plans look like when filtered through the dodgy quality of American governance? Maybe as an excuse for cronyism and protectionism.

Adam Thierer & Connor Haaland, “Should the U.S. Copy China’s Industrial Policy?” Discourse, March 11, 2021.

America needs to embrace its already vibrant venture capital market, the benefits of basic science and prize competitions, and a light-touch regulatory approach instead of gambling taxpayer dollars on grandiose industrial policy schemes that would likely become boondoggles.

Connor Haaland & Adam Thierer, “Can European-Style Industrial Policies Create Tech Supremacy?” Discourse, February 11, 2021.

Thus far, however, the Europeans don’t have much to show for their attempts to produce home-grown tech champions. Despite highly targeted and expensive efforts to foster a domestic tech base, the EU has instead generated a string of industrial policy failures that should serve as a cautionary tale for U.S. pundits and policymakers, who seem increasingly open to more government-steered innovation efforts.

Phil Levy & Christine McDaniel, “ Does the U.S. Need a Vigorous Industrial Policy?” Discourse, February 16, 2021.

we are certainly hearing new enthusiasm these days about industrial policy. It seems to have proponents or converts on both sides of the aisle. This either means that a new consensus has emerged, or it means that the term is being used so loosely that it has lost its original meaning. I’ll go with the latter; it now means different things to different people.

Wall Street Journal columnist Greg Ip discussing why “ The traditional skepticism toward industrial policy is well deserved.”

The traditional skepticism toward industrial policy is well deserved. Once Washington starts writing checks for semiconductors, other industries may get in line with the outcome determined more by political clout than economic merit. As in shipbuilding, the targeted companies may end up in perpetual need of federal protection and unable to compete internationally

David Ignatius, “The U.S. is quietly mobilizing its economy against China,” Washington Post, March 4, 2021.

The industrial policy the AI commission recommends could unlock talent and innovation. But if officials aren’t careful, government intervention could also afflict our best companies with the dead weight and dysfunction of our broken political system. We need government to spawn brainpower, not bureaucracy.

Veronique de Rugy, “Support for Industrial Policy is Growing,” AIER, January 18, 2020.

Looking at the federal government today tells me that the problems surrounding R&D programs in the past continue today, and will continue tomorrow, because they are simply a consequence of the normal functioning of government. It is hard to wish these problems away, even in the face of the private sector’s “imperfections.” Those arguing for more funding in R&D should proceed with caution.
This bill is proposing to give money with risk-averse restrictions to a risk-averse organization (the NSF) to be dispersed among other risk-averse organizations (Universities) into a system with increasingly risk-averse incentives. Note that I’m not saying “it’s all fubar’d lets burn it to the ground!” but I am suggesting that instead of slamming on the accelerator, we should be asking “what would a tune-up and an oil change look like instead?”

Ryan Bourne, “Do Oren Cass’s Justifications for Industrial Policy Stack Up?”  Cato Commentary, August 15, 2019.

Oren Cass asserts that markets cannot generally allocate resources efficiently by industry. Yet he provides no meaningful metrics to show this is the case, nor shows why his policies would deliver better outcomes. His two main claims about the benefits of a manufacturing sector — “stable employment” and “strong productivity growth” — are directly contradictory. A plethora of evidence suggests as countries’ get richer due to automation and technological improvements, they demand relatively more services, and so the industrial sector declines in employment terms.
Scott Lincicome, “ Manufactured Crisis: ‘Deindustrialization, Free Markets, and National Security,” Cato Policy Analysis No. 907, January 27, 2021.
This skepticism—mostly absent from Washington—is indeed warranted: analyses of the U.S. manufacturing sector and the relationship between trade and national security, as well as the United States’ long and checkered history of security‐​related protectionism, undermine the theoretical justifications for imposing protectionism and industrial policy in the name of national defense. Instead, open trade, freer markets, and global interdependence will in almost all cases produce better outcomes in terms of national security and, most importantly, preventing wars and other forms of armed conflict.
Matthew Lau, “Trudeau government’s ‘industrial policy’ creates all the wrong incentives,” Toronto Sun, March 16, 2021.
]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/03/15/skeptical-takes-on-expansive-industrial-policy-efforts/feed/ 1 76845 The End of Permissionless Innovation? https://techliberation.com/2021/01/10/the-end-of-permissionless-innovation/ https://techliberation.com/2021/01/10/the-end-of-permissionless-innovation/#comments Sun, 10 Jan 2021 21:24:12 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76823

Time magazine recently declared 2020 “The Worst Year Ever.” By historical standards that may be a bit of hyperbole. For America’s digital technology sector, however, that headline rings true. After a remarkable 25-year run that saw an explosion of innovation and the rapid ascent of a group of U.S. companies that became household names across the globe, politicians and pundits in 2020 declared the party over. “We now are on the cusp of a new era of tech policy, one in which the policy catches up with the technology,” says Darrell M. West of the Brookings Institution in a recent essay, “The End of Permissionless Innovation.” West cites the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee’s October report on competition in digital markets—where it equates large tech firms with the “oil barons and railroad tycoons” of the Gilded Age—as the clearest sign that politicization of the internet and digital technology is accelerating. It is hardly the only indication that America is set to abandon permissionless innovation and revisit the era of heavy-handed regulation for information and communication technology (ICT) markets. Equally significant is the growing bipartisan crusade against Section 230, the provision of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that shields “interactive computer services” from liability for information posted or published on their systems by users. No single policy has been more important to the flourishing of online speech or commerce than Sec. 230 because, without it, online platforms would be overwhelmed by regulation and lawsuits. But now, long knives are coming out for the law, with plenty of politicians and academics calling for it to be gutted. Calls to reform or repeal Sec. 230 were once exclusively the province of left-leaning academics or policymakers, but this year it was conservatives in the White House, on Capitol Hill and at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who became the leading cheerleaders for scaling back or eliminating the law. President Trump railed against Sec. 230 repeatedly on Twitter, and most recently vetoed the annual National Defense Authorization Act in part because Congress did not include a repeal of the law in the measure. Meanwhile, conservative lawmakers in Congress such as Sens. Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz have used subpoenas, angry letters and heated hearings to hammer digital tech executives about their content moderation practices. Allegations of anti-conservative bias have motivated many of these efforts. Even Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the law in a recent opinion. Other proposed regulatory interventions include calls for new national privacy laws, an “Algorithmic Accountability Act” to regulate artificial intelligence technologies, and a growing variety of industrial policy measures that would open the door to widespread meddling with various tech sectors. Some officials in the Trump administration even pushed for a nationalized 5G communications network in the name of competing with China. This growing “techlash” signals a bipartisan “Back to the Future” moment, with the possibility of the U.S. reviving a regulatory playbook that many believed had been discarded in history’s dustbin. Although plenty of politicians and pundits are taking victory laps and giving each other high-fives over the impending end of the permissionless innovation era, it is worth considering what America will be losing if we once again apply old top-down, permission slip-oriented policies to the technology sector.

Permissionless Innovation: The Basics

As an engineering principle, permissionless innovation represents the general freedom to tinker and develop new ideas and products in a relatively unconstrained fashion. As I noted in a recent book on the topic, permissionless innovation can also describe a governance disposition or regulatory default toward entrepreneurial activities. In this sense, permissionless innovation refers to the idea that experimentation with new technologies and innovations should generally be permitted by default and that prior restraints on creative activities should be avoided except in those cases where clear and immediate harm is evident. There is an obvious relationship between the narrow and broad definitions of permissionless innovation. When governments lean toward permissionless innovation as a policy default, it is likely to encourage freewheeling experimentation more generally. But permissionless innovation can sometimes occur in the wild, even when public policy instead tends toward its antithesis—the precautionary principle. As I noted in my latest book, tinkerers and innovators sometimes behave evasively and act to make permissionless innovation a reality even when public policy discourages it through precautionary restraints. To be clear, permissionless innovation as a policy default has not meant anarchy. Quite the opposite, in fact. In the United States, over the past 25 years, no major federal agencies that regulate technology or laws that do so were eliminated. Indeed, most agencies grew bigger. But in spite of this, entrepreneurs during this period got more green lights than red ones, and innovation was treated as innocent until proven guilty. This is how and why social media and the sharing economy developed and prospered here and not in other countries, where layers of permission slips prevented such innovations from ever getting off the drawing board. The question now is, how will the shift to end permissionless innovation as a policy default in the U.S. affect innovative activity here more generally? Economic historians Deirdre McCloskey and Joel Mokyr teach us that societal and political attitudes toward growth, risk-taking and entrepreneurialism have a powerful connection with the competitive standing of nations and the possibility of long-term prosperity. If America’s innovation culture sours on the idea of permissionless-ness and moves toward a precautionary principle-based model, creative minds will find it harder to experiment with bold new ideas that could help enrich the nation and improve the well-being of the citizenry—which is exactly why America discarded its old top-down regulatory model in the first place.

Why America Junked the Old Model

Perhaps the easiest way to put some rough bookends on the beginning and end of America’s permissionless innovation era is to date it to the birth and impending death of Sec. 230 itself. The enactment in 1996 of the Telecommunications Act was important, not only because it included Sec. 230, but also because the law created a sort of policy firewall between the old and new worlds of ICT regulation. The old ICT regime was rooted in a complex maze of federal, state and local regulatory permission slips. If you wanted to do anything truly innovative in the old days, you typically needed to get some regulator’s blessing first—sometimes multiple blessings. The exception was the print sector, which enjoyed robust First Amendment protection from the time of the nation’s founding. Newspapers, magazines and book publishers were left largely free of prior restraints regarding what they published or how they innovated. The electronic media of the 20th century were not so lucky. Telephony, radio, television, cable, satellite and other technologies were quickly encumbered with a crazy quilt of federal and state regulations. Those restraints include price controls, entry restrictions, speech restrictions and endless agency threats. ICT policy started turning the corner in the late 1980s after the old regulatory model failed to achieve its mission of more choice, higher quality and lower prices for media and communications. Almost everyone accepted that change was needed, and it came fast. The 1990s became a whirlwind of policy and technological change. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration decided to allow open commercialization of the internet, which, until then, had mostly been a plaything for government agencies and university researchers. But it was the enactment of the 1996 telecommunications law that sealed the deal. Not only did the new law largely avoid regulating the internet like analog-era ICT, but, more importantly, it included Sec. 230, which helped ensure that future regulators or overzealous tort lawyers would not undermine this wonderful new resource. A year later, the Clinton administration put a cherry on top with the release of its Framework for Global Electronic Commerce. This bold policy statement announced a clean break from the past, arguing that “the private sector should lead [and] the internet should develop as a market-driven arena, not a regulated industry.” Permissionless innovation had become the foundation of American tech policy.

The Results

Ideas have consequences, as they say, and that includes ramifications for domestic business formation and global competitiveness. While the U.S. was allowing the private sector to largely determine the shape of the internet, Europe was embarking on a very different policy path, one that would hobble its tech sector. America’s more flexible policy ecosystem proved to be fertile ground for digital startups. Consider the rise of “unicorns,” shorthand for companies valued at $1+ billion. “In terms of the global distribution of startup success,” notes the State of the Venture Capital Industry in 2019, “the number of private unicorns has grown from an initial list of 82 in 2015 to 356 in Q2 2019,” and fully half of them are U.S.-based. The United States is also home to the most innovative tech firms. Over the past decade, Strategy& (PricewaterhouseCooper’s strategy consulting business) has compiled a list of the world’s most innovative companies, based on R&D efforts and revenue. Each year that list is dominated by American tech companies. In 2013, 9 of the top 10 most innovative companies were based in the U.S., and most of them were involved in computing, software and digital technology. Global competition is intensifying, but in the most recent 2018 list, 15 of the top 25 companies are still U.S.-based giants, with Amazon, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Oracle and Cisco leading the way. Meanwhile, European digital tech companies cannot be found on any such list. While America’s tech companies are household names across the European continent, most people struggle to name a single digital innovator headquartered in the EU. Permissionless innovation crushed the precautionary principle in the trans-Atlantic policy wars. European policymakers have responded to the continent’s digital stagnation by doubling down on their aggressive regulatory efforts. The EU closed out 2020 with two comprehensive new measures (the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act), while the U.K. simultaneously pursued a new “online harms” law. Taken together, these proposals represent “the biggest potential expansion of global tech regulation in years,” according to The Wall Street Journal. The measures will greatly expand extraterritorial control over American tech companies. Having decimated their domestic technology base and driven away innovators and investors, EU officials are now resorting to plugging budget shortfalls with future antitrust fines on U.S.-based tech companies. It has essentially been a lost quarter century for Europe on the information technology front, and now American companies are expected to pay for it.

Republicans Revive ‘Regulation-By-Raised-Eyebrow’

In light of the failure of Europe’s precautionary principle-based policy paradigm, and considering the threat now posed by the growing importance of various Chinese tech companies, one might think U.S. policymakers would be celebrating the competitive advantages created by a quarter century of American tech dominance and contemplating how to apply this winning vision to other sectors of the economy. Alas, despite its amazing run, business and political leaders are now turning against permissionless innovation as America’s policy lodestar. What is most surprising is how this reversal is now being championed by conservative Republicans, who traditionally support deregulation. President Trump also called for tightening the screws on Big Tech. For example, in a May 2020 Executive Order on “Preventing Online Censorship,” he accused online platforms of “selective censorship that is harming our national discourse” and suggested that “these platforms function in many ways as a 21st century equivalent of the public square.” Trump and his supporters put Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon in their crosshairs, accusing them of discriminating against conservative viewpoints or values. The irony here is that no politician owes more to modern social media platforms than Donald Trump, who effectively used them to communicate his ideas directly to the American people. Moreover, conservative pundits now enjoy unparalleled opportunity to get their views out to the wider world thanks to all the digital soapboxes they now can stand on. YouTube and Twitter are chock-full of conservative punditry, and the daily list of top 10 search terms on Facebook is dominated consistently by conservative voices, where “the right wing has a massive advantage,” according to Politico. Nonetheless, conservatives insist they still don’t get a fair shake from the cornucopia of new communications platforms that earlier generations of conservatives could have only dreamed about having at their disposal. They think the deck is stacked against them by Silicon Valley liberals. This growing backlash culminated in a remarkable Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Oct. 28 in which congressional Republicans hounded tech CEOs and called for more favorable treatment of conservatives, and threatened social media companies with regulation if conservative content was taken down. Liberal lawmakers, by contrast, uniformly demanded the companies do more to remove content they felt was harmful or deceptive in some fashion. In many cases, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle were talking about the exact same content, putting the companies in the impossible position of having to devise a Goldilocks formula to get the content balance just right, even though it would be impossible to make both sides happy. In the broadcast era, this sort of political harassment was known as the “regulation-by-raised-eyebrow” approach, which allowed officials to get around First Amendment limitations on government content control. Congressional lawmakers and regulators at the FCC would set up show trial hearings and use political intimidation to gain programming concessions from licensed radio and television operators. These shakedown tactics didn’t always work, but they often resulted in forms of soft censorship, with media outlets editing content to make politicians happy. The same dynamic is at work today. Thus, when a firebrand politician like Sen. Josh Hawley suggests “we’d be better off if Facebook disappeared,” or when Sohrab Ahmari, the conservative op-ed editor at the New York Post, calls for the nationalization of Twitter, they likely understand these extreme proposals won’t happen. But such jawboning represents an easy way to whip up your base while also indirectly putting intense pressure on companies to tweak their policies. Make us happy, or else! It is not always clear what that “or else” entails, but the accumulated threats probably have some effect on content decisions made by these firms. Whether all this means that Sec. 230 gets scrapped or not shouldn’t distract from the more pertinent fact: few on the political right are preaching the gospel of permissionless innovation anymore. Even tech companies and Silicon Valley-backed organizations now actively distance themselves from the term. Zachary Graves, head of policy at Lincoln Network, a tech advocacy organization, worries that permissionless innovation is little more than a “legitimizing facade for anarcho-capitalists, tech bros, and cynical corporate flacks.” He lines up with the growing cast of commentators on both the left and right who endorse a “Tech New Deal” without getting concrete about what that means in practice. What it likely means is a return to a well-worn regulatory playbook of the past that resulted in innovation stagnation and crony capitalism.

A More Political Future

Indeed, as was the case during past eras of permission slip-based policy, our new regulatory era will be a great boon to the largest tech companies. Many people advocate greater regulation in the name of promoting competition, choice, quality and lower prices. But merely because someone proclaims that they are looking to serve the public interest doesn’t mean the regulatory policies they implement will achieve those well-intentioned goals. The means to the end—new rules, regulations and bureaucracies—are messy, imprecise and often counterproductive. Fifty years ago, the Nobel prize-winning economist George Stigler taught us that, “as a rule, regulation is acquired by the industry and is designed and operated primarily for its benefits.” In other words, new regulations often help to entrench existing players rather than fostering greater competition. Countless experts since then have documented the problem of regulatory capture in various contexts. If the past is prologue, we can expect many large tech firms to openly embrace regulation as they come to see it as a useful way of preserving market share and fending off pesky new rivals, most of whom will not be able to shoulder the compliance burdens and liability threats associated with permission slip-based regulatory regimes. True to form, in recent congressional hearings, Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg called on lawmakers to begin regulating social media markets. The company then rolled out a slick new website and advertising campaign inviting new rules on various matters. It is always easy for the king of the hill to call for more regulation when that hill is a mound of red tape of their own making—and which few others can ascend. It is a lesson we should have learned in the AT&T era, when a decidedly unnatural monopoly was formed through a partnership between company officials and the government.

Image Credit: Infrogmation/Wikimedia Commons

Many independent telephone companies existed across America before AT&T’s leaders cut sweetheart deals with policymakers that tilted the playing field in its favor and undermined competition. With rivals hobbled by entry restrictions and other rules, Ma Bell went on to enjoy more than a half century of stable market share and guaranteed rates of return. Consumers, by contrast, were expected to be content with plain-vanilla telephone services that barely changed. Some of us are old enough to remember when the biggest “innovation” in telephony involved the move from rotary-dial phones to the push-button Princess phone, which, we were thrilled to discover, came in multiple colors and had a longer cord. In a similar way, the impending close of the permissionless innovation era signals the twilight of technological creative destruction and its replacement by a new regime of political favor-seeking and logrolling, which could lead to innovation stagnation. The CEOs of the remaining large tech companies will be expected to make regular visits to the halls of Congress and regulatory agencies (and to all those fundraising parties, too) to get their marching orders, just as large telecom and broadcaster players did in the past. We will revert to the old historical trajectory, which saw communications and media companies securing marketplace advantages more through political machinations than marketplace merit.

Will Politics Really Catch Up?

While permissionless innovation may be falling out of favor with elites, America’s entrepreneurial spirit will be hard to snuff out, even when layers of red tape make it riskier to be creative. If for no other reason, permissionless innovation still has a fighting chance so long as Congress struggles to enact comprehensive technology measures. General legislative dysfunction and profound technological ignorance are two reasons that Congress has largely become a non-actor on tech policy in recent years. But the primary limitation on legislative meddling is the so-called pacing problem, which refers to the way technological innovation often outpaces the ability of laws and regulations to keep up. “I have said more than once that innovation moves at the speed of imagination and that government has traditionally moved at, well, the speed of government,” observed former Federal Aviation Administration head Michael Huerta in a 2016 speech.

DNA sequencing machine. Image Credit: Assembly/Getty Images

The same factors that drove the rise of the internet revolution—digitization, miniaturization, ubiquitous mobile connectivity and constantly increasing processing power—are spreading to many other sectors and challenging precautionary policies in the process. For example, just as “Moore’s Law” relentlessly powers the pace of change in ICT sectors, the “Carlson curve” now fuels genetic innovation. The curve refers to the fact that, over the past two decades, the cost of sequencing a human genome has plummeted from over $100 million to under $1,000, a rate nearly three times faster than Moore’s Law. Speed isn’t the only factor driving the pacing problem. Policymakers also struggle with metaphysical considerations about how to define the things they seek to regulate. It used to be easy to agree what a phone, television or medical tracking device was for regulatory purposes. But what do those terms really mean in the age of the smartphone, which incorporates all of them and much more? “‘Tech’ is a very diverse, widely-spread industry that touches on all sorts of different issues,” notes tech analyst Benedict Evans. “These issues generally need detailed analysis to understand, and they tend to change in months, not decades.” This makes regulating the industry significantly more challenging than it was in the past. It doesn’t mean the end of regulation—especially for sectors already encumbered by many layers of preexisting rules. But these new realities lead to a more interesting game of regulatory whack-a-mole: pushing down technological innovation in one way often means it simply pops up somewhere else. The continued rapid growth of what some call “the new technologies of freedom”—artificial intelligence, blockchain, the Internet of Things, etc.—should give us some reasons for optimism. It’s hard to put these genies back in their bottles now that they’re out. This is even more true thanks to the growth of innovation arbitrage—both globally and domestically. Creators and capital now move fluidly across borders in pursuit of more hospitable innovation and investment climates. Recently, some high-profile tech CEOs like Elon Musk and Joe Lonsdale have relocated from California to Texas, citing tax and regulatory burdens as key factors in their decisions. Oracle, America’s second-largest software company, also just announced it is moving its corporate headquarters from Silicon Valley to Austin, just over a week after Hewlett Packard Enterprise said it too is moving its headquarters from California to Texas—in this case, Houston. “Voting with your feet” might actually still mean something, especially when it is major tech companies and venture capitalists abandoning high-tax, over-regulated jurisdictions.

Advocacy Remains Essential

But we shouldn’t imagine that technological change is inevitable or fall into the trap of thinking of it as a sort of liberation theology that will magically free us from repressive government controls. Policy advocacy still matters. Innovation defenders will need to continue to push back against the most burdensome precautionary policies, while also promoting reforms that protect entrepreneurial endeavors. The courts offer us great hope. Groups like the Institute for Justice, the Goldwater Institute, the Pacific Legal Foundation and others continue to litigate successfully in defense of the freedom to innovate. While the best we can hope for in the legislative arena may be perpetual stalemate, these and other public interest law firms are netting major victories in courtrooms across America. Sometimes court victories force positive legislative changes, too. For example, in 2015, the Supreme Court handed down North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, which held that local government cannot claim broad immunity from federal antitrust laws when it delegates power to nongovernmental bodies, such as licensing boards. This decision made much-needed occupational licensing reform an agenda item across America. Many states introduced or adopted bipartisan legislation aimed at reforming or sunsetting occupational licensing rules that undermine entrepreneurship. Even more exciting are proposals that would protect citizens’ “right to earn a living.” This right would allow individuals to bring suit if they believe a regulatory scheme or decision has unnecessarily infringed upon their ability to earn a living within a legally permissible line of work. Meanwhile, there have been ongoing state efforts to advance “right to try” legislation that would expand medical treatment options for Americans tired of overly paternalistic health regulations. Perhaps, then, it is too early to close the book on the permissionless innovation era. While dark political clouds loom over America’s technological landscape, there are still reasons to believe the entrepreneurial spirit can prevail.
]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/01/10/the-end-of-permissionless-innovation/feed/ 1 76823 5 Tech Policy Topics to Follow in the Biden Administration and 117th Congress https://techliberation.com/2020/11/12/5-tech-policy-topics-to-follow-in-the-biden-administration-and-117th-congress/ https://techliberation.com/2020/11/12/5-tech-policy-topics-to-follow-in-the-biden-administration-and-117th-congress/#comments Thu, 12 Nov 2020 14:08:17 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76818

In a five-part series at the American Action Forum, I presented prior to the 2020 presidential election the candidates’ positions on a range of tech policy topics including: the race to 5G, Section 230, antitrust, and the sharing economy. Now that the election is over, it is time to examine what topics in tech policy will gain more attention and how the debate around various tech policy issues may change. In no particular order, here are five key tech policy issues to be aware of heading into a new administration and a new Congress. 

The  Use of Soft Law for Tech Policy 

In 2021, it is likely America will still have a divided government with Democrats controlling the White House and House of Representatives and Republicans expected to narrowly control the Senate. The result of a divided government, particularly between the two houses of Congress, will likely be that many tech policy proposals face logjams. The result will likely be that many of the questions of tech policy lack the legislation or hard law framework that might be desired. As a result, we are likely to continue to see “soft law”—regulation by various sub-regulatory means such as guidance documents, workshops, and industry consultations—rather than formal action. While it appears we will see more formal regulatory action from the administrative state as well in a Biden Administration, these actions require quite a process through comments and formal or informal rulemaking. As technology continues to accelerate, many agencies turn to soft law to avoid “pacing problems” where policy cannot react as quickly as technology and rules may be outdated by the time they go into effect. 

A soft law approach can be preferable to a hard law approach as it is often able to better adapt to rapidly changing technologies. Policymakers in this new administration, however, should work to ensure that they are using this tool in a way that enables innovation and that appropriate safeguards ensure that these actions do not become a crushing regulatory burden. 

Return of  the  Net Neutrality  Debate 

One key difference between President Trump and President-elect Biden’s stances on tech policy concerns whether the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) should categorize internet service providers (ISPs) as Title II “common carrier services,” thereby enabling regulations such as “net neutrality” that places additional requirements on how these service providers can prioritize data. President-elect Biden has been clear in the past that he favors reinstating net neutrality. 

The imposition of this classification and regulations occurred during the Obama Administration and the FCC removed both the classification under Title II and the additional regulations for “net neutrality” during the Trump Administration. Critics of these changes made many hyperbolic claims at the time such as that Netflix would be interrupted or that ISPs would use the freedom in a world without net neutrality to block abortion resources or pro-feminist groups. These concerns have proven to be misguided. If anything, the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the benefits to building a robust internet infrastructure and expanded investment that a light-touch approach has yielded. 

It is likely that net neutrality will once again be debated. Beyond just the imposition of these restrictions, a repeated change in such a key classification could create additional regulatory uncertainty and deter or delay investment and innovation in this valuable infrastructure. To overcome such concerns, congressional action could help fashion certainty in a bipartisan and balanced way to avoid a back-and-forth of such a dramatic nature. 

Debates Regarding  Sharing Economy Providers ’   Classification  as Independent Contractors 

California voters passed Proposition 22 undoing the misguided reclassification of app-based service drivers as employees rather than independent contractors under AB5; during the campaign, however, President-elect Biden stated that he supports AB5 and called for a similar approach nationwide. Such an approach would make it more difficult on new sharing economy platforms and a wide range of independent workers (such as freelance journalists) at a time when the country is trying to recover economically.  

Changing classifications to make it more difficult to consider service providers as independent contractors makes it less likely that platforms such as Fiverr or TaskRabbit could provide platforms for individuals to offer their skills. This reclassification as employees also misunderstands the ways in which many people choose to engage in gig economy work and the advantages that flexibility has. As my AAF colleague Isabel Soto notes, the national costs of a similar approach found in the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act “could see between $3.6 billion and $12.1 billion in additional costs to businesses” at a time when many are seeking to recover during the recession. Instead, both parties should look for solutions that continue to allow the benefits of the flexible arrangements that many seek in such work, while allowing for creative solutions and opportunities for businesses that wish to provide additional benefits to workers without risking reclassification. 

Shifting Conversations and Debates Around Section 230 

Section 230 has recently faced most of its criticism from Republicans regarding allegations of anti-conservative bias. President-elect Biden, however, has also called to revoke Section 230 and to set up a taskforce regarding “Online Harassment and Abuse.” While this may seem like a positive step to resolving concerns about online content, it could also open the door to government intervention in speech that is not widely agreed upon and chip away at the liability protection for content moderation. 

For example, even though the Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act was targeting the heinous crime of sex trafficking (which was already not subject to Section 230 protection) was aimed at companies such as Backpage where it was known such illegal activity was being conducted, it has resulted in legitimate speech such as Craigslist personal ads being removed  and companies such as Salesforce being subjected to lawsuits for what third parties used their product for. A carveout for hate speech or misinformation would only pose more difficulties for many businesses. These terms to do not have clearly agreed-upon meanings and often require far more nuanced understanding for content moderation decisions. To enforce changes that limit online speech even on distasteful and hateful language in the United States would dramatically change the interpretation of the First Amendment that has ruled such speech is still protected and would result in significant intrusion by the government for it to be truly enforced. For example, in the UK, an average of nine people a day were questioned or arrested over offensive or harassing “trolling” in online posts, messages, or forums under a law targeting online harassment and abuse such as what the taskforce would be expected to consider. 

Online speech has provided new ways to connect, and Section 230 keeps the barriers to entry low. It is fair to be concerned about the impact of negative behavior, but policymakers should also recognize the impact that online spaces have had on allowing marginalized communities to connect and be concerned about the unintended consequences changes to Section 230 could have. 

Continued Antitrust Scrutiny of “Big Tech” 

One part of the “techlash” that shows no sign of diminishing in the new administration or new Congress is using antitrust to go after “Big Tech.” While it remains to be seen if the Biden Department of Justice will continue the current case against Google, there are indications that they and congressional Democrats will continue to go after these successful companies with creative theories of harm that do not reflect the current standards in antitrust. 

Instead of assuming a large and popular company automatically merits competition scrutiny  or attempting to utilize antitrust to achieve policy changes for which it is an ill-fitted tool, the next administration should return to the principled approach of the consumer welfare standard. Under such an approach, antitrust is focused on consumers and not competitors. In this regard, companies would need to be shown to be dominant in their market, abusing that dominance in some ways, and harming consumers. This approach also provides an objective standard that lets companies and consumers know how actions will be considered under competition law. With what is publicly known, the proposed cases against the large tech companies fail at least one element of this test. 

There will likely be a shift in some of the claimed harms, but unfortunately scrutiny of large tech companies and calls to change antitrust laws to go after these companies are likely to continue. 

Conclusion 

There are many other technology and innovation issues the next administration and Congress will see. These include not only the issues mentioned above, but emerging technologies like 5G, the Internet of Things, and autonomous vehicles. Other issues such as the digital divide provide an opportunity for policymakers on both sides of the aisle to come together and have a beneficial impact and think of creative and adaptable solutions. Hopefully, the Biden Administration and the new Congress will continue a light-touch approach that allows entrepreneurs to engage with innovative ideas and continues American leadership in the technology sector. 

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/11/12/5-tech-policy-topics-to-follow-in-the-biden-administration-and-117th-congress/feed/ 1 76818 The Conservative Crack-Up Over the Fairness Doctrine & FCC Regulation https://techliberation.com/2020/08/08/the-conservative-crack-up-over-the-fairness-doctrine-fcc-regulation/ https://techliberation.com/2020/08/08/the-conservative-crack-up-over-the-fairness-doctrine-fcc-regulation/#respond Sat, 08 Aug 2020 21:01:16 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76799

There is a war going on in the conservative movement over free speech issues and FCC Commissioner Mike O’Reilly just became a causality of that skirmish. Neil Chilson and I just posted a new essay about this over on the Federalist Society blog. As we note there:

Plenty of people claim to favor freedom of expression, but increasingly the First Amendment has more fair-weather friends than die-hard defenders. Michael O’Rielly, a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), found that out the hard way this week. Last week, O’Rielly delivered an important speech before the Media Institute highlighting a variety of problematic myths about the First Amendment, as well as “a particularly ominous development in this space.” In a previous political era, O’Rielly’s remarks would have been mainstream conservative fare. But his well-worded warnings are timely with many Democrats and Republicans – including some in the White House – looking to resurrect analog-era speech mandates and let Big Government reassert control over speech decisions in the United States.

Shortly after delivering his remarks, the White House yanked O’Rielly’s nomination to be reappointed to the agency. It was a shocking development that was likely motivated by growing animosities between Republicans on the question of how much control the federal government–and the FCC in particular–should exercise over speech platforms, including platforms that the FCC has no authority to regulate.

For the 30 years that I have been covering media and technology policy, I’ve heard conservatives rail against the Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality and arbitrary Big Government only to see many of them now reverse suit and become the biggest defenders of these things as it pertains to speech controls and FCC regulation. It will certainly be interesting to see what a potential future Biden Administration does with the various new regulations that some in the GOP are seeking to impose.

But all hope is not lost. There are still brave voices in Republican and conservative circles who continue to stand up the the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and limits on federal regulatory meddling with speech platforms and outcomes. Commissioner O’Reilly basically lost his job because he acted as the equivalent of an intellectual whistle-blower; he called out the ideological rot seen in recent statements and actions by the White House, Senator Josh Hawley, and many other Republicans.

There is nothing remotely “conservative” about calls for reinvigorating the Fairness Doctrine and FCC speech controls. That represents repressive regulation that betrays the First Amendment and which will ultimately backfire badly and come back to haunt conservatives down the road.

Read my new essay with Neil for more details. And down below I have listed all my recent writing on this topic.

Additional Reading:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/08/08/the-conservative-crack-up-over-the-fairness-doctrine-fcc-regulation/feed/ 0 76799 The Section 230 Executive Order, Free Speech, and the FCC https://techliberation.com/2020/06/03/the-section-230-executive-order-free-speech-and-the-fcc/ https://techliberation.com/2020/06/03/the-section-230-executive-order-free-speech-and-the-fcc/#comments Wed, 03 Jun 2020 18:50:22 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76746

Section 230 is in trouble. Both presidential candidates have made its elimination a priority. In January, Joe Biden told the New York Times that the liability protections for social media companies should be revoked “immediately.” This week, President Trump called for revoking Section 230 as well. Most notably, after a few years of threatening action, the President issued an Executive Order about Section 230, its liability protections, and free speech online. (My article with Jennifer Huddleston about Section 230, its free speech benefits, and the common law precedents for Section 230 was published in the Oklahoma Law Review earlier this year.) 

There have been thousands of reactions to and news stories about the Executive Order and a lot of hyperbole. No, the Order doesn’t eliminate tech companies’ Section 230 protection and make it easier for conservatives to sue. No, the Order isn’t “plainly illegal.”

It’s fairly modest in reach actually. The Executive Order can’t change the deregulatory posture and specific protections of Section 230 but the President has broad authority to interpret the unclear meanings of statutes. Some of the thoughtful responses that stuck out are from Adam Thierer, Jennifer Huddleston, Patrick Hedger, and Adam White. I won’t reiterate what they’ve said but will focus on what the Order does and what the FCC can do.

Election Year Jawboning

The Order is a political document. For the baseball fans, it’s the political equivalent of a brushback pitch to tech companies–the pitcher throws an inside fastball intended to scare the batter without hitting him. (Enjoy 4 minutes of brushback pitches on YouTube.) Most of the time, a pitcher won’t get ejected by the umpire for throwing a brushback pitch. Likewise, here, I don’t see much chance of the Order being struck down by judges. The Order was wordsmithed, even in the last 24 hours before release, in a way to avoid legal troubles.

As Jesse Blumenthal points out in Slate, the Order is just the latest example of the long tradition of politicians using informal means and publicity to pressure media outlets. The political threats to TV and radio broadcasters during the Nixon, LBJ, and Kennedy years were extreme examples and are pretty well-documented.

More recently, there was a huge amount of jawboning of media companies in the runup to the 2004 election. Newspaper condemnation and legal threats forced a documentary critical of John Kerry off the air nationwide. Stations either pulled the documentary or only ran a few minutes of it because activists’ threatened to challenge TV station licenses for years at the FCC if stations ran the documentary. Many people remember the Citizens United case, which derived from the FEC’s censorship of an anti-John Kerry documentary in 2004 and an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary in 2008. Less remembered is that the conservative group started creating political documentaries only after the FEC rejected its complaint to get a Michael Moore’s anti-Bush documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, off the air before the 2004 election.

The Title II net neutrality regulations were, per advocates close to the Obama White House, imposed largely to rally the base after Democrats’ 2014 midterm losses.

Implementation of the Executive Order

The timing of the Order–a few months before the election–seems intended to accomplish two things:

  1. Rally the Trump base by publicly threatening tech companies’ liability protections and provoking tech companies’ ire.
  2. Focus public and media scrutiny on tech companies so they think twice before suspending, demonetizing, or banning conservatives online.

The legal effect in the short term is negligible. Unless the relevant agencies (DOJ, FTC, NTIA, FCC) patched something together hastily, the Order won’t have an effect on tech companies and their susceptibility to lawsuits in the near term. The most immediate practical effect of the Order is the instructions to the NTIA. The agency is directed to petition the FCC to clarify what some unclear provisions of Sec. 230 mean, particularly the “good faith” requirement and how (c)(2) in the statute interacts with (c)(1).

It’s not clear why the Order makes this roundabout instruction to the NTIA and FCC. (The FCC is an independent agency and can refuse instructions from the White House.) “Good faith” is a term of art in contract law. It seems to me that referring this to the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, not the FCC, would be the natural place for an administration to turn to to interpret legal terms of art and how provisions in federal statutes interact with each other. 

One reason the White House might use the roundabout method is because the administration knows the downsides of weakening Section 230 and isn’t actually intending to make material changes to existing interpretations of Sec. 230. The roundabout request to the FCC allows the White House to do something on the issue without upsetting established interpretations. And if the FCC refuses to take it up, the White House can tell supporters they tried but it was out of their hands.

Alternatively it could be that this was referred to the FCC because Section 230 is within the Communications Act and the FCC has more expertise and jurisdiction in communications law. The FCC has interpreted Section 230 before and has also interpreted what “good faith” means because Congress requires good faith negotiations between cable TV and broadcast TV operators.

If they took it up, I suspect FCC review would be perfunctory. The NTIA petition need not even get decided at the commission level. The FCC can delegate issues to bureau chiefs or other FCC staff. Bureaus can respond to a petition with an enforcement advisory or, after notice-and-comment, a declaratory ruling regarding the interpretative issues. It would take months to complete, but the full commission could also consider and rule on the NTIA petition.

But I suspect the commissioners don’t want to get dragged into election-year controversies. (As I mentioned above, White House staff may have even sent this to the FCC in order to let the issue die quietly.) The FCC is busy with pressing issues like spectrum auctions and rural broadband. Further, the NTIA-FCC relationship, while cordial, is not particularly good at the moment. Finally, the commissioners know the agency’s history of mission creep and media regulation. The Republican majority has consistently tried to untangle itself from legacy media regulations. An FCC inquiry into what “good faith” means in the statute and how (c)(2) in the statute interacts with (c)(1)–while an intriguing academic and legal interpretation exercise–would be a small but significant step towards FCC oversight of Internet services.

Section 230 is in Trouble

The fact is, Section 230 is in trouble. Courts have applied it reluctantly since its inception because of its broad protections. As Prof. Eric Goldman has meticulously documented, in recent years, courts have undermined Section 230 precedent and protection.

At some level the President and his advisors know that opening the door to regulation of the Internet will end badly for right-of-center and free speech. This was the foundation of the President’s opposition to Title II net neutrality rules. As he’s stated on Twitter:

Obama’s attack  on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The Executive Order, while it doesn’t allow the FCC to regulate online media like Title II net neutrality did, is the Administration playing with fire. It’s essentially a bet that the Trump administration can get a short-term political win without unleashing long-term problems for conservatives and free speech online.

The Trump team may be right. But the Order, by inviting FCC involvement, represents a small step to regulation of Internet services. More significantly, there’s a reason prominent Democrats are calling for the elimination of Section 230. The trial bar, law school clinics, and advocacy nonprofits would like nothing more than to make it expensive for tech companies to defend their hosting and disseminating conservative publications and provocateurs.

Prominent Democrats are calling for the elimination of Sec. 230 and replacing it with a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet. If things go Democrats’ way, the Executive Order could give regulators, much of the legal establishment, and the left a foothold they’ve sought for years to regulate Internet services and online speech. Be careful what you wish for.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/06/03/the-section-230-executive-order-free-speech-and-the-fcc/feed/ 1 76746 Panicking About 5G is a Celebrity Trend You Shouldn’t Follow https://techliberation.com/2020/05/13/panicking-about-5g-is-a-celebrity-trend-you-shouldnt-follow/ https://techliberation.com/2020/05/13/panicking-about-5g-is-a-celebrity-trend-you-shouldnt-follow/#respond Wed, 13 May 2020 14:00:03 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76728

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown how important technology is for enabling social distancing measures while staying connected to friends, family, school, and work. But for some, including a number of celebrities, it has also heightened fears of emerging technologies that could further improve our connectivity. The latest technopanic should not make us fear technology that has added so much to our lives and that promises to help us even more.

Celebrities such as Keri Hilson, John Cusack, and Woody Harrelson have repeated concerns about 5G—from how it could be weakening our immune systems to even causing this pandemic. These claims about 5G have gotten serious enough that Google banned ads with misleading health information regarding 5G, and Twitter has stated it will remove tweets with 5G and health misinformation that could potentially cause harm in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. 5G is not causing the current pandemic, nor has it been linked to other health concerns. As the director of American Public Health Association Dr. Georges C. Benjamin has stated, “COVID-19 is caused by a virus that came through a natural animal source and has no relation to 5G, or any radiation linked to technology.”  As the New York Times has pointed out, much of the non-COVID-19 5G health concerns originated from Russian propaganda news source RT or trace back to a single decades-old flawed study. In short, there is no evidence to support many of the outrageous health claims regarding 5G.

New technologies have often faced unfounded concerns about their potential risks. In the late 19 th and early 20th centuries, many people feared electricity in the home was making people tired and weak (similar to the health claims about 5G today). More recently, many were concerned that technologies such as microwave ovens and cell phones might cause cancer or other health issues, but studies have proved that these worst fears have little grounding in science.

Some of these fears are based on misunderstandings of how technology works or confusion over similar but distinct technologies. For example, in the case of concerns about cell phones and cancer, the fears may stem from misunderstandings about the differences between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. In a time of uncertainty, we may want to rush to maintain the status quo. But any number of innovations such as the radio, trains, or cars that were once feared have themselves become part of the status quo.

Why does it matter if some people are afraid of new technologies? While it is completely rational to want to avoid catastrophic and irreversible harms, unfounded fears can risk delaying important and beneficial technologies. For example, work by Linda Simon suggests that the exaggerated claims and fears of electricity’s impact on health may have slowed its adoption. While all technologies carry some risks, can we imagine all that might have been lost if we had listened to those trying to convince us to avoid electricity out of an abundance of caution? we may laugh about fears of electricity and not understanding its benefits, we still see extreme reactions out of fear of new technology, such as recent attempts to burn 5G towers in the United Kingdom because of misinformation about the health risks.

The recent pandemic should remind why constantly improving connectivity and internet infrastructure has been beneficial. As more of us are working from home and have an increased number of connected devices, 5G will increase network capacity and enable faster download speeds. These improvements also play a key role in the development of a number of emerging technologies from smart home devices and virtual reality to driverless cars and remote surgery.

The problem is not in individual choices to avoid a specific technology, but rather how such technopanics can impact broader adoption of beneficial technologies and innovation-friendly public policies. The good news is policymakers recognize the importance of policies that enable 5G and are also informing the public on the facts about wireless technology and health. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal Communications Commission has continued to pursue policies that can improve connectivity, including for advancements toward 5G.

While we may want to follow celebrity trends when it comes to the latest fashion or TikTok dances, we should only let them scare us in the movies and not when it comes to 5G. If we only focus on the most outrageous and unfounded claims, our fear might distract us too much to see its benefits.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/05/13/panicking-about-5g-is-a-celebrity-trend-you-shouldnt-follow/feed/ 0 76728 “Human Needs Are Breaking Down Yesterday’s Precautionary Approaches” https://techliberation.com/2020/05/06/human-needs-are-breaking-down-yesterdays-precautionary-approaches/ https://techliberation.com/2020/05/06/human-needs-are-breaking-down-yesterdays-precautionary-approaches/#respond Wed, 06 May 2020 18:02:15 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76709

I really liked this new essay, “Innovation is thriving in the fight against Covid-19,” by Norman Lewis over at Spiked, a UK-based publication. In it, he makes several important points similar to themes discussed in my book launch essay last week (“Evasive Entrepreneurialism and Technological Civil Disobedience in the Midst of a Pandemic.”) Lewis begins by noting that:

There is nothing like a crisis to concentrate the mind. And the Covid-19 catastrophe has certainly done this. It has speeded up latent trends and posed new questions. The issue of our technologically informed capacity to solve problems is just one example.

He continues on to argue:

a crisis like Covid-19 will necessarily pose new urgent questions that could not have been anticipated. New initiatives will rise to meet these. Pre-existing skills, knowledge, technologies and attitudes will always be the starting point of new problem-solving quests. Where and how we focus attention will, in part, be based on prior cultural assumptions and existing technologies, and also on the novelty of the problem to be solved.

Lewis discusses how innovative minds are pushing back against archaic regulatory barriers, business models and government regulations. As he nicely summarizes:

Unimagined solutions are being pushed while a more open attitude towards experimentation, risk-taking and side-stepping onerous and costly regulation is starting to emerge. Human needs are breaking down yesterday’s precautionary approaches.

That last line really resonated with me because it’s a major theme that runs throughout my new book, “Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments.” As I summarized in my book launch essay:

Eventually, people take notice of how regulators and their rules encumber entrepreneurial activities, and they act to evade them when public welfare is undermined. Working around the system becomes inevitable when the permission society becomes so completely dysfunctional and counterproductive.

This was happening before the coronavirus outbreak, but the crisis has supercharged this phenomenon. Evasive entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the growth of new devices and platforms that let citizens circumvent (or perhaps just ignore) public policies that limit innovative efforts. These can include common tools like smartphones, computers, and various new interactive platforms, as well as more specialized technologies like cryptocurrencies, private drones, immersive technologies (like virtual reality), 3D printers, the “Internet of Things,” and sharing economy platforms and services. But that list just scratches the surface and the public is increasingly using these new technological capabilities to assert themselves and push back against laws and regulations that defy common sense and hold back progress.

Lawmakers and regulators need to consider a balanced response to evasive entrepreneurialism that is rooted in the realization that technology creators and users are less likely to seek to evade laws and regulations when public policies are more in line with common sense. Yesterday’s heavy-handed approaches that are rooted in the Precautionary Principle will need to be reformed to make sure progress can happen. 

Read my book to find out more!

 

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/05/06/human-needs-are-breaking-down-yesterdays-precautionary-approaches/feed/ 0 76709 Evasive Entrepreneurialism and Technological Civil Disobedience in the Midst of a Pandemic https://techliberation.com/2020/04/28/evasive-entrepreneurialism-and-technological-civil-disobedience-in-the-midst-of-a-pandemic/ https://techliberation.com/2020/04/28/evasive-entrepreneurialism-and-technological-civil-disobedience-in-the-midst-of-a-pandemic/#respond Tue, 28 Apr 2020 22:39:23 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76704

[Originally published on the Cato Institute blog.]

A pandemic is no time for bad governance. As the COVID-19 crisis intensified, bureaucrats and elected officials slumbered. Government regulations prevented many in the private sector from helping with response efforts. The result was a sudden surge of evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience. With institutions and policies collapsing around them, many people took advantage of cutting‐​edge technological capabilities to evade public policies that were preventing practical solutions from emerging.

Examples were everywhere. Distilleries started producing hand sanitizers to address shortages while average folks began sharing do‐​it‐​yourself sanitizer recipes online. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) looked to modify hand sanitizer guidelines quickly to allow for it, but few really cared because those rules weren’t going to stop them. Gray markets in face masks, medical face shields, and respirators developed. Some people and organizations worked together to make medical devices using off‐​the‐​shelf hardware and open source software. More simply, others just fired up sewing machines to make masks—and then, faced with an emerging public health consensus, the guidance from the federal government shifted dramatically: where formerly ordinary people were instructed not to buy or use masks, within a matter of days, the policy reversed, and all were encouraged to make and use cloth protective masks.

Meanwhile, doctors and nurses started “writing the playbook for treating coronavirus patients on the fly” by improvising treatments and then sharing them on social media. A few doctors even converted breathing machines to ventilators themselves using 3-D printed parts to address shortages for their patients even though the FDA had not yet authorized it.

Social media sites were also suddenly filled with discussions about how average people might come together to build tools or share information to assist with virus testing or treatments. A 17‐​year‐​old used his coding skills to build one of the most popular coronavirus‐​tracking websites in the world (ncov2019.live) after noticing how hard it was to use government sites. And two high school science teachers in Tennessee set up testing operations in their school lab to help reduce testing time in their area.

Meanwhile, journalists and columnists like the  Wall Street Journal’s Andy Kessler cheered on such activity, encouraging the public to “innovate from your couch.” Modern digital technologies and platforms that had been pariahs and the target of a regulatory‐​minded “techlash” just a few months earlier suddenly became essential public services that were showered with praise for helping people cope with social distancing and the solitude associated with shelter‐​in‐​place requirements. Headlines in major media outlets explained how “Facebook Is More Trustworthy than the President” and “Twitter Is Making the Coronavirus World a Better Place.”

Philanthropists like Bill Gates were also funding their own solutions. The former Microsoft founder and CEO pointed out that, in an effort to find testing solutions and vaccines, private groups like his Gates Foundation could likely mobilize faster than governments. Gates likely had grown frustrated with government responses after a Seattle‐​based lab that the Gates Foundation funded figured out an effective way to test for coronavirus, only to be blocked from expanding it by over‐​cautious federal bureaucrats. Frustrated by federal intransigence, that Seattle lab started testing for COVID-19 anyway to prove they indeed had an effective test. Commenting on the case study, the New York Times  expressed exasperation about “how existing regulations and red tape—sometimes designed to protect privacy and health—have impeded the rapid rollout of testing nationally.”

Wait, Isn’t All This Illegal?

What is interesting about all these examples of bottom‐​up innovation and evasive entrepreneurialism is that they are remarkably inspiring, but also mostly illegal. Almost all these activities butted up against longstanding regulations governing medical devices, practices, or therapies. Some of those rules are enforced by large and powerful federal bureaucracies like the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Others take the form of state‐​based occupational licensing limitations or certificate‐​of‐​need laws, which require healthcare providers to first obtain permission before they open or expand their facilities or services. This crazy quilt of medical laws and regulations accumulated steadily over time, creating what constitutional scholar Timothy Sandefur calls a “permission society,” which values proceduralism and conformity over practicality and common sense.

Eventually, however, the mountains of red tape that the permission society is built upon start to collapse under their own weight. Laws and agencies that previously commanded obedience are now viewed as an opaque, ossified, and confusing morass of one‐​size‐​fits‐​all mandates, prohibitions, and penalties that actually undermine the very health goals they were put in place to achieve. Suddenly, headlines in every major newspaper screamed of how, as it pertained to virus testing procedures, “The Government Failed” (Wall Street Journal) because of “Flawed Tests, Red Tape and Resistance” (Washington Post) and this resulted in “The Lost Month” (New York Times) in the United States.

Eventually, people take notice of how regulators and their rules encumber entrepreneurial activities, and they act to evade them when public welfare is undermined. Working around the system becomes inevitable when the permission society becomes so completely dysfunctional and counterproductive.

Technological Empowerment vs. the Status Quo

What’s going on here, and what lessons can we derive from it?

In a new Cato Institute book, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance, I document how the sort of behavior we have recently witnessed was growing rapidly even before the COVID-19 crisis. In many different contexts, evasive entrepreneurs—innovators who don’t always conform to social or legal norms—are using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems. They at least want to put pressure on public policymakers to reform or selectively enforce laws and regulations that are outmoded, inefficient, or counterproductive.

Evasive entrepreneurs rely on a strategy of permissionless innovation in both the business world and the political arena. They push back against the permission society by creating exciting new products and services without always receiving the blessing of public officials before doing so. While evasive entrepreneurialism has always been with us to some extent, many of the responses to the pandemic would not have been possible even just a few decades ago. Recent advancements have supercharged in a more technologically empowered world of information abundance and decentralized, inexpensive tools.

As I show in the book, evasive entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the growth of what we might think of as technologies of freedom or resistance. These are devices and platforms that let citizens circumvent (or perhaps just ignore) public policies that limit their liberty or freedom to innovate or to enjoy the fruits of innovation. These can include common tools like smartphones, computers, and various new interactive platforms, as well as more specialized technologies like cryptocurrencies, private drones, immersive technologies (like virtual reality), 3D printers, the “Internet of Things,” and sharing economy platforms and services. But that list just scratches the surface. When the public uses tools such as these to explicitly evade public policies on moral grounds because they find then offensive, illogical, or perhaps just annoying, we can think of that as technological civil disobedience.

Common Sense Prevails

Evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience accelerated during the pandemic because both the practicality and morality of government policies came into question in stark fashion. The first month of the crisis witnessed “a torrent of governmental incompetence that is breathtaking in scale,” my Mercatus colleague Scott Sumner argues. “There are regulations so bizarre that if put in a novel no one would believe them,” he notes. “In contrast, the private sector has reacted fairly well, and has been far ahead of the government in most areas.”

Indeed, the pandemic has been a stress test for our institutions, and many of them have failed it. Confusing rules and inflexible agencies that should have been reformed years ago were suddenly exposed and judged harshly. Philip K. Howard, founder of Common Good, says that “Covid‐​19 is the canary in the bureaucratic mine.” Bloated bureaucracies and overbearing regulatory systems, he argues, have created a “toxic atmosphere that silenced common sense” and managed to “institutionalize failure.” Cato’s Paul Matzko has documented how the FDA has been particularly guilty of blocking sensible forms of progress on simple things like face mask production or distribution.

While countless others lambasted the practical failures of our institutions, the morality of government policies was also coming into focus. Why should citizens have their innovative efforts to help others stifled at seemingly every juncture? Must we really follow the law when it undercuts the basic human need to care for others and ourselves?

These are the issues addressed in my new book, which explains the practical reasons why evasive entrepreneurialism is on the rise and then provides a moral defense of it. When innovators and average citizens use tools and technological capabilities to pursue a living, enjoy new experiences, or improve the human condition, they often disrupt legal or social norms in the process. That is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, evasive entrepreneurialism can transform our society for the better because it can help expand the range of life‐​enriching (and often life‐​saving) innovations. Evasive entrepreneurialism can help citizens pursue lives of their own choosing—both as creators looking for the freedom to earn a living and as individuals looking to discover and enjoy important new goods and services.

Defending evasive entrepreneurialism is easy  after it occurs, but few defend it before or as it is happening. I argue in the book that the freedom to innovate is essential to human betterment—for each of us individually and for civilization as a whole—and that freedom deserves to be taken more seriously today. The COVID-19 pandemic has made this more apparent than ever before.

There are few things more human than acts of invention. At its root, innovation involves efforts to discover new and better ways of solving practical human needs and wants. People have a right to innovate and create technologies because they possess a more general right to take steps to improve their lot in life and the lives of others around them. When misguided or archaic government programs and policies blocked that potential during the pandemic, people began ignoring or evading them. That was both practically sensible and morally justifiable.

Innovation as the New Checks and Balances

By extension, the response to the pandemic has proven the second thesis set forth in my book: Evasive entrepreneurialism and technologically enabled civil disobedience can actually help us improve government by keeping public policies fresh, sensible, and in line with common sense and the consent of the governed. Evasiveness and technological disruption can act as a sort of relief valve or circuit breaker to counteract negative pressures in the system before things break down completely. By challenging legislators and regulators to reevaluate the wisdom of their policies, evasive entrepreneurs can help us break political logjams and force governments to become more adaptive and accountable.

The proof is in the pudding. As the crisis unfolded, agencies at the federal, state, and local levels were forced to suspend hundreds of regulations that were clearly undermining helpful responses. These “rule departures” would not have been necessary if governments had engaged in periodic spring cleanings earlier. When COVID-19 hit, it became essential to suspend or repeal hundreds of misguided old rules that clearly undermined public health. The only question now is whether those inefficient, counterproductive policies will be put back on the books to do harm again in the next crisis.

But even before the current crisis, rule departures by government actors were becoming more common because  even government officials could no longer understand their own rules. Just as private citizens have increasingly resorted to evasive techniques to get things done, many regulatory agencies have given up trying to “go by the book” themselves because endless regulatory accumulation has made it impossible to understand what the law means.

My book documents many cases of public officials essentially ignoring their own policies and making up governance solutions as they go along. This is another sign of profound institutional failure, yet it should also give us some hope that even policymakers themselves now realize that government cannot just grow forever without breaking down at some point. The need for comprehensive reform is now abundantly clear, and the pandemic has moved the so‐​called “Overton Window” (i.e., the acceptable range of possible policy reforms) on many fronts.

A New Approach to Governance

Policymakers need a new approach for technological governance that is more in line with modern realities. Flexibility and humility will be essential. Regulators do not need to throw out the old rulebooks altogether, though. Some precautionary rules still make sense, particularly in cases involving extreme risk. But why not embrace the entrepreneurial spirit of the citizenry and allow more experimental trials, flexible testing procedures, and perhaps even prizes for particularly innovative ideas?

When enforcing the rules that remain on the books, policymakers should also consider targeted waivers and ex post regulatory reviews as opposed to ex ante regulatory prohibitions on any and all evasive innovations. Liability rules can also be tweaked so innovators do not have to live in constant fear of getting sued for trying to make the world a better place. Finally, post‐​market monitoring and recall notices can also be used to ensure flexible experiments have some regulatory guardrails.

But shutting down creative solutions and unique thinking simply because they run counter to some crusty old rulebook is never the right response. We should view evasive entrepreneurialism as an important part of a broader discovery process that incorporates the profound importance of ongoing, decentralized, trial‐​and‐​error experimentation to the process of societal learning and improvement. Lawmakers should find a way to accommodate a little more outside‐​the‐​box thinking and innovating—and not just when our lives are on the line.

Additional Reading 

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/04/28/evasive-entrepreneurialism-and-technological-civil-disobedience-in-the-midst-of-a-pandemic/feed/ 0 76704 Remote Work and the State of US Broadband https://techliberation.com/2020/03/12/remote-work-and-the-state-of-us-broadband/ https://techliberation.com/2020/03/12/remote-work-and-the-state-of-us-broadband/#respond Thu, 12 Mar 2020 18:36:53 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76677

To help slow the spread of the coronavirus, the GMU campus is moving to remote instruction and Mercatus is moving to remote work for employees until the risk subsides. GMU and Mercatus employees join thousands of other universities and businesses this week. Millions of people will be working from home and it will be a major test of American broadband and cellular networks. 

There will likely be a loss of productivity nationwide–some things just can’t be done well remotely. But hopefully broadband access is not a major issue. What is the state of US networks? How many people lack the ability to do remote work and remote homework?

The FCC and Pew research keep pretty good track of broadband buildout and adoption. There are many bright spots but some areas of concern as well.

Who lacks service?

The top question: How many people want broadband but lack adequate service or have no service?

The good news is that around 94% of Americans have access to 25 Mbps landline broadband. (Millions more have access if you include broadband from cellular and WISP providers.) It’s not much consolation to rural customers and remote workers who have limited or no options, but these are good numbers.

According to Pew’s 2019 report, about 2% of Americans cite inadequate or no options as the main reason they don’t have broadband. What is concerning is that this 2% number hasn’t budged in years. In 2015, about the same number of Americans cited inadequate or no options as the main reason they didn’t have home broadband. This resembles what I’ve called “the 2% problem“–about 2% of the most rural American households are extremely costly to serve with landline broadband. Satellite, cellular, or WISP service will likely be the best option.

Mobile broadband trends

Mobile broadband is increasingly an option for home broadband. About 24% of Americans with home Internet are mobile only, according to Pew, up from ~16% in 2015.

The ubiquity of high-speed mobile broadband has been the big story in recent years. Per FCC data, from 2009 to 2017 (the most recent year we have data), the average number of new mobile connections increased about 30 million annually. In Dec. 2017 (the most recent data), there were about 313 million mobile subscriptions.

Coverage is very good in the US. OpenSignal uses crowdsourced data and software to determine how frequently users’ phones have a 4G LTE network available (a proxy for coverage and network quality) around the world. The US ranked fourth the world (86%) in 2017, beating out every European country, save Norway.

There was also a big improvement was in mobile speeds. In 2009, a 3G world, almost all connections were below 3 Mbps. In 2017, a world of 4G LTE, almost all connections were above 3 Mbps.

Landline broadband trends

Landline broadband also increased significantly. From 2009 to 2017, there were about 3.5 million new connections per year, about 108 million connections in 2017. In Dec. 2009, about half of landline connections were below 3 Mbps.

There were some notable jumps in high-speed and rural broadband deployment. There was a big jump in fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) connections, like FiOS and Google Fiber. From 2012 to 2017, the number of FTTP connections more than doubled, to 12.6 million. Relatedly, sub-25 Mbps connections have been falling rapidly while 100 Mbps+ connections have been shooting up. In 2017, there were more connections with 100 Mbps+ (39 million) than there were connections below 25 Mbps (29 million).

In the most recent 5 years for which we have data, the number of rural subscribers (not households) with 25 Mbps increased 18 million (from 29 million to 47 million).

More Work

We only have good data for the first year of the Trump FCC, so it’s hard to evaluate but signs are promising. One of Chairman Pai’s first actions was creating an advisory committee to advise the FCC on broadband deployment (I’m a member). Anecdotally, it’s been fruitful to regularly have industry, academics, advocates, and local officials in the same room to discuss consensus policies. The FCC has acted on many of those.

The rollback of common carrier regulations for the Internet, the pro-5G deployment initiatives, and limiting unreasonable local fees for cellular equipment have all helped increase deployment and service quality.

An effective communications regulator largely stays of the way and removes hindrances to private sector investment. But the FCC does manage some broadband subsidy programs. The Trump FCC has made some improvements to the $4.5 billion annual rural broadband programs. The 17 or so rural broadband subprograms have metastasized over the years, making for a kludgey and expensive subsidy system.

The recent RDOF reforms are a big improvement since they fund a reverse auction program to shift money away from the wasteful legacy subsidy programs. Increasingly, rural households get broadband from WISP, satellite, and rural cable companies–the RDOF reforms recognize that reality.

Hopefully one day reforms will go even further and fund broadband vouchers. It’s been longstanding FCC policy to fund rural broadband providers (typically phone companies serving rural areas) rather than subsidizing rural households. The FCC should consider a voucher model for rural broadband, $5 or $10 or $40 per household per month, depending on the geography. Essentially the FCC should do for rural households what the FCC does for low-income households–provide a monthly subsidy to make broadband costs more affordable.

Many of these good deployment trends began in the Obama years but the Trump FCC has made it a national priority to improve broadband deployment and services. It appears to be be working. With the coronavirus and a huge increase in remote work, US networks will be put to a unique test.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/03/12/remote-work-and-the-state-of-us-broadband/feed/ 0 76677 Impressions from the DOJ Workshop about Section 230 https://techliberation.com/2020/02/26/impressions-from-the-doj-workshop-about-section-230/ https://techliberation.com/2020/02/26/impressions-from-the-doj-workshop-about-section-230/#respond Wed, 26 Feb 2020 18:54:26 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76670

Last week I attended the Section 230 cage match workshop at the DOJ. It was a packed house, likely because AG Bill Barr gave opening remarks. It was fortuitous timing for me: my article with Jennifer Huddleston, The Erosion of Publisher Liability in American Law, Section 230, and the Future of Online Curation, was published 24 hours before the workshop by the Oklahoma Law Review.

These were my impressions of the event:

I thought it was pretty well balanced event and surprisingly civil for such a contentious topic. There were strong Section 230 defenders and strong Section 230 critics, and several who fell in between. There were a couple cheers after a few pointed statements from panelists, but the audience didn’t seem to fall on one side or the other. I’ll add that my friend and co-blogger Neil Chilson gave an impressive presentation about how Section 230 helped make the “long tail” of beneficial Internet-based communities possible.

AG Bob Barr gave the opening remarks, which are available online. A few things jumped out. He suggested that Section 230 had its place but Internet companies are not an infant industry anymore. In his view, the courts have expanded Section 230 beyond drafters’ intent, and the Reno decision “unbalanced” the protections, which were intended to protect minors. The gist of his statement was that the law needs to be “recalibrated.”

Each of these points were disputed by one or more panelists, but the message to the Internet industry was clear: the USDOJ is scrutinizing industry concentration and its relationship to illegal and antisocial online content.

The workshop signals that there is now a large, bipartisan coalition that would like to see Section 230 “recalibrated.” The problem for this coalition is that they don’t agree on what types of content providers should be liable for and they are often at cross-purposes. The problematic content ranges from sex trafficking, to stalkers, to opiate trafficking, to revenge porn, to unfair political ads. For conservatives, social media companies take down too much content, intentionally helping progressives. For progressives, social media companies leave up too much content, unwittingly helping conservatives.

I’ve yet to hear a convincing way to modify Section 230 that (a) satisfies this shaky coalition, (b) would be practical to comply with, and (c) would be constitutional.

Now, Section 230 critics are right: the law blurs the line between publisher and conduit. But this is not unique to Internet companies. The fact is, courts (and federal agencies) blurred the publisher-conduit dichotomy for fifty years for mass media distributors and common carriers as technology and social norms changed. Some cases that illustrate the phenomenon:

In Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes, a 1991 federal district court decision, some Washington apple growers sued some local CBS affiliates for airing allegedly defamatory programming. The federal district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the affiliates are conduits of CBS programming. Critically, the court recognized that the CBS affiliates “had the power to” exercise editorial control over the broadcast and “in fact occasionally [did] censor programming . . . for one reason or another.” Still, case dismissed. The principle has been cited by other courts. Publishers can be conduits.

Conduits can also be publishers. In 1989, Congress passed a law requiring phone providers to restrict “dial-a-porn” services to minors. Dial-a-porn companies sued. In Information Providers Coalition v. FCC, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that regulated common carriers are “free under the Constitution to terminate service” to providers of indecent content. The Court relied on its decision a few years earlier in Carlin Communications noting that when a common carrier phone company is connecting thousands of subscribers simultaneously to the same content, the “phone company resembles less a common carrier than it does a small radio station.”

Many Section 230 reformers believe Section 230 mangled the common law would like to see the restoration of the publisher-conduit dichotomy. As our research shows, that dichotomy had already been blurred for decades. Until advocates and lawmakers acknowledge these legal trends and plan accordingly, the reformers risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Relevant research:
Brent Skorup & Jennifer Huddleston, The Erosion of Publisher Liability in American Law, Section 230, and the Future of Online Curation (Oklahoma Law Review).

Brent Skorup & Joe Kane, The FCC and Quasi–Common Carriage: A Case Study of Agency Survival (Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology).

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/02/26/impressions-from-the-doj-workshop-about-section-230/feed/ 0 76670 Europe’s New AI Industrial Policy https://techliberation.com/2020/02/20/europes-new-ai-industrial-policy/ https://techliberation.com/2020/02/20/europes-new-ai-industrial-policy/#comments Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:37:48 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76667

The race for artificial intelligence (AI) supremacy is on with governments across the globe looking to take the lead in the next great technological revolution. As they did before during the internet era, the US and Europe are once again squaring off with competing policy frameworks.

In early January, the Trump Administration announced a new light-touch regulatory framework and then followed up with a proposed doubling of federal R&D spending on AI and quantum computing. This week, the European Union Commission issued a major policy framework for AI technologies and billed it as “a European approach to excellence and trust.”

It seems the EU basically wants to have its cake and eat it too by marrying up an ambitious industrial policy with a precautionary regulatory regime. We’ve seen this show before. Europe is doubling down on the same policy regime it used for the internet and digital commerce. It did not work out well for the continent then, and there are reasons to think it will backfire on them again for AI technologies.

An Ambitious Industrial Policy Vision

The new EU framework includes a lot of catchphrases and proposals that are an industrial policy lover’s dream. In an attempt to create “an ecosystem of excellence” and ensure the “human-centric development if AI,” it identifies a variety of existing or new industrial planning efforts, including: Digital Innovation Hubs, Enterprise Resource Planning, the Digital Europe Programme, the Key Digital Technology Joint Undertaking, and broad-based public private partnerships. This is all part of an official “Coordinated Plan” prepared together with the Member States “to foster the development and use of AI in Europe.”

To accomplish that, the Commission says it will “facilitate the creation of excellence and testing centres” that will “concentrate in sectors where Europe has the potential to become a global champion.” The Commission also wants to give special consideration to growing small and mid-size enterprises (SMEs) is establishing these plans.

Again, it’s an ambitious industrial policy vision, and one that will be accompanied by a wide variety of (yet-to-be-determined) regulatory enactments to shape the development and use of AI. But if that approach really works, why aren’t European digital companies global leaders today? Instead, firms based mostly in the US have risen to become household names across the globe. Regulation had an influence on that result because American firms enjoyed a policy regime that was rooted in “permissionless innovation,” which generally allows experimentation by default and addresses concerns by using more flexible, ex post remedies. By contrast, Europe’s internet policy approach was rooted in the precautionary principle, or the notion that innovation is essentially guilty until proven innocent. New technologies are to be subjected to prior constraints—or what the new European Commission white paper calls “prior conformity assessments”—before being allow into the wild.

Precautionary Regulation Dominates

Despite losing that last round of the innovation wars, the new EU white paper makes it clear that Europe will keep using a precautionary approach. What does that mean for AI regulation? The problem here begins with defining what is a “high-risk” AI application requiring prior restraints. The white paper defines it in a somewhat circular fashion, saying that, “an AI application should be considered high-risk where…(it) is employed in a sector where, given the characteristics of the activities typically undertaken, significant risks can be expected to occur” and is “used in such a manner that significant risks are likely to arise.” Instead of providing legal certainty, this definition clarifies almost nothing and will require future regulatory inquires to determine the full scope and nature of AI controls.

There’s also a lot of talk in the proposal about preemptively addressing “risks for fundamental rights,” which is understandable. AI innovations can raise various safety, security, and privacy concerns that deserve to be taken seriously. But what about the risk of not having access to important AI innovations at all? What about the risk of losing out on life-enriching—and in many cases life-saving—innovations because, instead of “building trust,” the regulatory regime builds the exact opposite: fear of innovating.

Entrepreneurs and investors respond to incentives. Before building or investing in a new technology, they want to know how long it will take to get that good or service launched—assuming they can get approval at all. Every innovator and investor factors such political risk into their business plans. When the potential costs of product launch overwhelm the likely benefits, they will abandon innovative efforts or look to engage in them elsewhere.

The EU says “the race for global leadership is ongoing,” and claims that, “Europe offers significant potential, knowledge and expertise” through its efforts to make the continent an AI innovation hub. Indeed, some of the best AI researchers are in Europe, and there are plenty of brilliant people brimming with entrepreneurial enthusiasm about creating world-class AI applications. But all that knowledge and enthusiasm do not matter much if the regulatory deck is stacked against innovation from the start.

And Even More Expansive Regulation Down the Road

Beyond the precautionary approach in that document, the EU’s accompanying white paper on safety and liability implications of AI leaves open the possibility of an expansion in preemptive regulatory requirements. “Additional obligations may be needed for manufacturers to ensure that they provide features to prevent the upload of software having an impact on safety during the lifetime of the AI products,” the document notes. Moreover, if an ongoing AI software update “modifies substantially the product in which it is downloaded, the entire product might be considered as a new product and compliance with the relevant safety product legislation must be reassessed at the time the modification is performed.”

That sort of regulatory regime may sound quite sensible at first blush. In practice, however, it means that every conceivable tweak to an algorithm requires costly and complex regulatory approval. If traditional computer software had required regulatory approval before any new modifications could be made, most consumers would still be stuck with an aol.com email address and Windows 95 as an operating system.

What the European Commission proves with its new AI policy framework is that it is easy to talk a big game about planning for an innovative future, but it is an entirely different thing to actually bring one about. The European approach will have clear competitive effects, or more specifically, anti-competitive effects. As is already the case with the EU’s regulatory approach to the data economy and GDPR in particular, regulatory compliance costs continue to skyrocket and small and mid-size enterprises struggle to cope. This means that only firms operating the largest digital platforms are able to shoulder these burdens, leaving consumers without as many competitive, low-cost choices as they might otherwise enjoy. Not even generous government support for SMEs will be able to counter-balance the costly entry barriers associated with over-regulation.

Solidifying Market Power of Existing Giants?

This is why it is so ironic how worried the EU is about the market power of Google, Facebook and other US-based tech giants: the regulatory burden now helps those firms maintain their market dominance. Over-regulation by the EU undermined both home-grown and international investment and competition that might challenge those existing players. With each addition layer of AI regulation that now gets piled on top of the Europe’s existing regulatory burden, the prospects for creative destruction decrease, as do the chances for life-enriching innovations to ever make it to consumers.

While the European Commission will, no doubt, insist that they are implementing this new AI regime with the very best of intentions in mind, there is no escaping the fact that regulation involves complex trade-offs and unforeseeable consequences. The consequences in this case are likely a bit easier to predict, however: By smothering new AI applications in layers of red tape, we can expect fewer innovations and less competition.

Despite all the talk of boosting SMEs, perhaps the EU will eventually become more like China and unabashedly support larger home-grown firms to make sure they are part of the global AI race. China has already made waves on this front with its 2017 “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan,” an audacious industrial policy plan which seeks “to build China’s first-mover advantage in the development of AI [and] to accelerate the construction of an innovative nation and global power in science and technology.” The document is as much a manifesto about geopolitical power as it is about technological governance. And it does not try to hide China’s authoritarian impulse to meticulously plan every facet of daily life under the auspices of promoting global technological leadership. China’s AI manifesto even concludes with a section on “public opinion guidance” that creepily insists the country will, “Fully use all kinds of traditional media and new media to quickly propagate new progress and new achievements in AI, to let the healthy development of AI become a consensus in all of society, and muster the vigor of all of society to participate in and support the development of AI.”

The new European AI industrial policy framework does not go as far as China’s, not only because the continent is obviously more open and democratic by nature, but also because the EU is a collection of many countries and cultures that will never be able to speak as coherently and forcefully with one voice on all technological governance matters. In fact, the EU’s new governance framework explicitly leaves room for more tailored AI regulation by individual member states.

Conclusion

This leaves Europe stuck between the polar opposites of China and the US when it comes to AI governance. China’s meticulously detailed, highly centralized, state-driven approach stands in stark contrast to the more bottom-up, adaptive American approach which insists that regulators, “must avoid a precautionary approach that holds AI systems to such an impossibly high standard that society cannot enjoy their benefits.”

The US approach also leans heavily on “soft law,” or informal governance mechanisms that are not as burdensome as precautionary regulatory controls. Soft law can include a wide variety of tools and methods for addressing policy concerns, including multistakeholder initiatives, best practices and standards, agency workshops and guidance documents, educational efforts, and much more. These are the governance tools the dominated for the internet and digital platforms for that past twenty years in the US, and they will likely continue to be the primary governance mechanisms for artificial intelligence, robotics, the internet of things, and other emerging tech sectors.

The EU probably thinks it has found the Goldilocks formula and gotten AI policy just right by falling between China and the US on the governance spectrum. It is more likely, however, that European policymakers will be unable to resist the urge to over-plan and micro-manage AI markets until they are once again left wondering how they got stuck trying to regulate market leaders that are headquartered oceans away from them. With the US once again adopting a more flexible approach, we could see a replay of the Web Wars, with innovators and investors putting their efforts behind AI launches in the US instead of Europe. Meanwhile, China will likely attract far more global venture capital for AI and robotics launches than they did for digital platforms. This could really put the squeeze on Europe.

Only time will tell. But, to paraphrase Yoda, when it comes to global artificial intelligence governance, one thing is clear: Begun the AI war has.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/02/20/europes-new-ai-industrial-policy/feed/ 1 76667 Congress as a Non-Actor in Tech Policy https://techliberation.com/2020/02/04/congress-as-a-non-actor-in-tech-policy/ https://techliberation.com/2020/02/04/congress-as-a-non-actor-in-tech-policy/#comments Tue, 04 Feb 2020 19:28:42 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76658

ImageCongress has become a less important player in the field of technology policy. Why did that happen, and what are the ramifications for technological governance efforts going forward?

I’ve spent almost 30 years covering technology policy. There was a time in my life when I spent almost all my time as a policy analyst preoccupied with developments in the federal legislative arena. I lived in the trenches of Capitol Hill and interacted with lawmakers and their staff morning, noon, and night.

In recent years, however, I have spent very little time focused on the Legislative Branch because it has effectively become a non-actor on technology policy. It is not that congressional lawmakers stopped caring about tech policy. Interest actually remains quite high—perhaps higher than ever before. Congress also continues to introduce lots of bills, host plenty of hearings, and issue mountains of press releases related to tech policy issues.

Nonetheless, all that interest and activity has not really translated into much important legislation. While it is hard to track tech-oriented legislative trends statistically because of the complication of defining “technology policy” over time, judged by substantive output, Congress has largely checked out of technological policymaking.

Think about digital privacy. How many years now have people been predicting a comprehensive “baseline” privacy bill would pass in each legislative session? It never happens. Perhaps it will this year, but if you would like to place a wager on it, I will take that bet.

Speaking of bets, for several years now, I have been wagering with friends that Congress will not pass federal legislation creating a national autonomous vehicles framework. Each session I win that bet. Keep in mind, a framework for driverless cars is far less controversial than privacy policy. Still, nothing substantive ever gets done in Congress.

Same goes for cybersecurity with lots of calls for big measures, but no final action. Folks are now also telling me to expect a big artificial intelligence bill one day soon. I sincerely doubt it. Again, I’ll bet on it if you’d like to lose some money!

Let me be clear, there may actually be some very good reasons why Congress should implement a national framework for privacy, driverless cars, and some AI policy issues. But all the wishful thinking in the world will not magically make it happen.

We need to entertain the possibility that Congress has largely checked out of the world of substantive tech policymaking and isn’t coming back. We may get a few big surprise measures here and there, as we did with clumsily-drafted FOSTA-SESTA. If anything, it is more likely that we instead see misguided legislative riders attached to non-germane measures during late night negotiations. But even haphazard efforts like those will be extremely rare. The days of Congress passing big bills like the Telecom Act of 1996 or the Cable Act of 1992 appear mostly over.

Why Congress Is No Longer the Major Player It Once Was

I think there are probably many obvious explanations for why Congress has checked out of tech policymaking, but let me try to boil it down to a couple of interrelated trends:

The “pacing problem” has intensified: The pacing problem refers to the inability of legal or regulatory regimes to keep adjust to the intensifying pace of technological change. There are just more emerging technologies than ever, and they are evolving faster than ever, too. “New technologies that used to have two-year cycle times now can become obsolete in six months, and the pace of change is not slowing,” says consulting firm Deloitte.

A growing multiplicity of technologies means more tech policy issues to cover. And those issues grow more complicated each year. As soon as lawmakers wrap their heads around one technology (if they do at all), another innovation pops up that complicates things further or crowds out their attention.

Technological convergence and blurring governance boundaries: Technology policymaking increasingly involves metaphysical questions about the underlying nature of things. For example, what is a “phone,” a “medical device,” or an “aerial vehicle”? These things used to be relatively easy to define and had well-understood meanings in federal statutes and regulations. But those concepts evolved rapidly in an age of widespread technological convergence and rapid-fire “combinatorial innovation,” with new technologies multiplying and building on top of one another in the symbiotic fashion. Basically, almost as soon as new tech laws or regulations are enacted, they are confronted with new marketplace realities and technological changes that call into question legal classifications or regulatory distinctions.

For example, today’s smartphones combine dozens of different functions that were previously quite distinct, including health tracking capabilities, mobile payment systems, and video distribution, all of which remain heavily regulated by an assortment of federal laws and agencies. But the convergence of all these capabilities in a single device that we can carry in our pockets creates massive governance challenges, not only for archaic legislative frameworks, but even for newer semantic distinctions that may seem current one moment only to be obliterated the next. These factors also make it harder to figure out who in Congress should be driving policy because technological convergence blurs previously distinct governance categories among legislative committees and the laws they have crafted.

Legislative dysfunctionalism: Policymaking processes move slowly by design. Constitutional constraints and other legal requirements demand it. But things move even slower today because of what Jonathan Rauch calls “demosclerosis,” or the “government’s progressive loss of the ability to adapt.” “[A]s layer is dropped upon layer,” he argued, “the accumulated mass becomes gradually less rational and less flexible.”

Inadequate resources are also part of the problem with Congress facing a complex, rapidly-evolving set of issues but devoting only limited resources to technical staff or studies to better understand these developments. This combined with the factors cited above has led to a never-ending “competency trap,” with lawmakers and their staffs seemingly always one step behind technological developments and societal demands or expectations.

Meanwhile, partisanship increases and the work load on many other fronts grows alongside it. There’s just a lot more on Congress’s plate than ever before. Plus, tech policy matters seemingly always take a back seat to tax, budget, entitlements, defense, and other issues.

Many people hope that boosting technology assessment efforts might help correct these problems. Perhaps better technical advice could help lawmakers ask less ignorant questions at tech-oriented congressional hearings, which have become showcases for the staggering lack of congressional understanding of modern technologies. But just adding new technology assessment capacity, such as in the form of a revived Office of Technology Assessment, won’t likely move the needle much in terms of actual legislative output. More serious structural reforms will be required.

Globalization: Many modern technologies “are truly global and call out for policy approaches that do not respect traditional national borders,” note former NITA officials Lawrence E. Strickling and Jonah Force Hill. Congress only has so much control over technologies that defy national boundaries, further complicating tech governance questions.

Yet, one would think that when America’s global competitive advantage was on the line, Congress would have greater reason to assert itself and craft frameworks to ensure US firms are not disadvantaged by a lack of policy clarity. That has not proven to be the case, however. Congressional lawmakers do plenty of huffing and puffing about the tech governance choices made by Europe, China, and other governments, but they then leave the field wide open to them (as well as lower levels of government) to craft policies that govern national markets throughout the United States.

Endless delegation: Speaking of passing the buck, Congress has been doing it for decades on tech policy by delegating massive and quite amorphous authority to technocratic administrative agencies. Over the past half century, scholars from various disciplines—economics, law, political science, history, and others—have explored the growth of what has been alternatively called the “interest group society,”  “receivership by regulation,”  “iron triangles,” and “client politics.” This literature identifies the way Congress has increasingly abdicated its constitutional role as lawmaker by shifting hard policy questions to regulatory agencies and then hoping that bureaucrats could figure out all the answers.

Delegation is even more common for the most technical policy matters, and that trend has only accelerated in recent years as the complexity increases and overwhelms lawmakers and their staff.

Ramifications for Tech Governance Going Forward

If Congress remains largely incapable of ever getting the ball over the goal line on important tech policy matters, what are some of the ramifications? There are many, but I will identify just a few of the most obvious ones:

  • More tech-oriented legislative activity will shift to the states: In fact, it already has. For each of the tech policy issues I identified earlier (privacy, driverless cars, cybersecurity, and even some AI-related issues like facial recognition), states are—for better or worse—picking up the slack. We should expect that trend to accelerate. This will create an increasingly confusing patchwork of policies that will potentially raise serious barriers to entry and innovation. Nonetheless, I can’t see this trend reversing anytime soon. Perhaps Congress will finally act on privacy or driverless cars legislation if for no other reason than to preempt a crazy-quilt of contradictory policies. Of course, that’s what people have been predicting for years, and it never happens.
  • “Soft law” becomes the dominate governance force for tech: Again, it already has. Soft law refers to informal, collaborative, and constantly evolving governance mechanisms that differ from hard law in that they lack the same degree of enforceability. Soft law can include things like multi-stakeholder processes, industry best practices and standards, agency workshops and guidance documents, and educational efforts. But that just scratches the surface of soft law mechanisms. For better or worse, soft law is becoming the dominant modus operandi for most modern technological governance. We can expect that trend to accelerate to fill the governance gap left by Congressional inaction. For example, we don’t have any formal “rules of the road” for driverless cars, but we do now have four iterations of Department of Transportation guidance on driverless cars. Version 4.0of the DoT guidance for automated vehicles was just released this month. Expect the “soft law-ization” of technological governance to expand considerably in coming years because it is really the only way for agencies to cope with the pacing problem and those metaphysical issues identified earlier. Because soft law is not boxed in by rigid preconceptions of what a particular technology or technological process is or entails, it is often better able to address new marketplace realities. Soft law can adapt as technologies do. With Congress out of the picture, it will have to.
  • The congressional tech policy death spiral accelerates. Some may think (or at least hope) that the situation described here can’t get any worse. To the contrary, it can get radically worse. With our politics increasingly infected with bitter partisanship and rancor, what are the chances that lawmakers can work together to craft comprehensive tech policy measures? I’d say the odds are approaching zero. The Cable Act, the Telecom Act (and Sec. 230), and the Internet Tax Freedom Act all enjoyed broad, bipartisan support when they passed in the 1990s. People reached across the aisle to get things done. It didn’t always work, and sometimes it resulted in misguided policies (like the Communications Decency Act’s provisions trying to censor internet “indecency”). But bipartisan lawmaking scenarios like those seem almost unthinkable now. To the extent many lawmakers even show up at tech-oriented congressional hearings anymore, it is mostly to score points in front of the cameras for Team Red or Team Blue back home. Serious legislative oversight and policymaking is dead; it’s mostly just show-trials and media circuses at this point.

Should I Care about Congress Anymore?

If you believe this miserable thesis is correct but continue to focus on the Legislative Branch for a living, you may be asking yourself: Am I wasting all my time here? Not necessarily. Congress is still actively interested in tech policy matters. For those who hope to limit that damage Congress might do by hastily passing ham-handed, crisis-driven policy measures, your efforts in the trenches will continue to be important in curbing the worst instincts of some lawmakers. In many instances, preserving a perpetual stalemate may go down as a tremendous victory.

For example, as the debate over Section 230 intensifies—with politicians of all stripes looking to gut the most important of all Internet freedom policies—it is vital that smart people work with lawmakers and their staff to beat back misguided and destructive measures. Hopefully this becomes another instance of legislative gridlock winning out! And I think it will.

More realistically, your role will not be to stop Congress from doing insanely destructive things, it will be to just stop them from saying those things. In fact, that seems to be what a lot of people who work with Congress already do today. When I chat with various inside-the-Beltway policy advocates and industry reps today, they usually acknowledge that the prospects for actual legislation on any given issue are quite slim. They will, of course, continue to try to work with lawmakers, their committees, and their staff to either advance or stop legislative measures. Yet, they all seem to accept the utter futility of it all.

Why do they persist? Most obviously, they want to at least preserve the legislative stalemate and not cede the ground to their enemies who might succeed in getting lawmakers to do something if only one side was communicating with Congress.

But the other thing these policy advocates are hoping to achieve is better messaging. Regulatory advocates want lawmakers to use the power of the bully pulpit to put pressure on various people or groups to change behavior, even in the absence of any legislative action. By contrast, many in industry want to make sure that their technologies are understood and not endlessly demonized. Bad press isn’t good for business, even if all the congressional threats never result in final legislation. Also, those defending innovation more generally will want to make sure that even if lawmakers aren’t making any actual laws, they still better understand and appreciate the importance of new technological capabilities for improving human welfare.

Those are all good reasons not to give up your legislative advocacy. For some of us, however, the personal cost-benefit analysis just doesn’t add up. Our focus has shifted to where the real action is at: federal administrative agencies, statehouses and state administrative agencies, the courts, and the growing world of multi-stakeholder governance and other soft law efforts. Congress has checked out, but technological governance lives on in many other forms and venues.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/02/04/congress-as-a-non-actor-in-tech-policy/feed/ 1 76658 Trump’s AI Framework & the Future of Emerging Tech Governance https://techliberation.com/2020/01/08/trumps-ai-framework-the-future-of-emerging-tech-governance/ https://techliberation.com/2020/01/08/trumps-ai-framework-the-future-of-emerging-tech-governance/#respond Wed, 08 Jan 2020 20:04:57 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76648

This week, the Trump Administration proposed a new policy framework for artificial intelligence (AI) technologies that attempts to balance the need for continued innovation with a set of principles to address concerns about new AI services and applications. This represents an important moment in the history of emerging technology governance as it creates a policy vision for AI that is generally consistent with earlier innovation governance frameworks established by previous administrations.

Generally speaking, the Trump governance vision for AI encourages regulatory humility and patience in the face of an uncertain technological future. However, the framework also endorses a combination of “hard” and “soft” law mechanisms to address policy concerns that have already been raised about developing or predicted AI innovations.

AI promises to revolutionize almost every sector of the economy and can potentially benefit our lives in numerous ways. But AI applications also raise a number of policy concerns, specifically regarding safety or fairness. On the safety front, for example, some are concerned about the AI systems that control drones, driverless cars, robots, and other autonomous systems. When it comes to fairness considerations, critics worry about “bias” in algorithmic systems that could deny people jobs, loans, or health care, among other things.

These concerns deserve serious consideration and some level of policy guidance or else the public may never come to trust AI systems, especially if the worst of those fears materialize as AI technologies spread. But how policy is formulated and imposed matters profoundly. A heavy-handed, top-down regulatory regime could undermine AI’s potential to improve lives and strengthen the economy. Accordingly, a flexible governance framework is needed and the administration’s new guidelines for AI regulation do a reasonably good job striking that balance.

Background

Last February, the White House issued Executive Order 13859, on “Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence.” The Order announced the creation of the “American AI Initiative,” an effort to “focus the resources of the Federal government to develop AI.” It prioritized investments in AI-focused research and development (R&D), building a workforce ready for the AI era, international engagement on AI priorities, and the establishment governance standards for AI systems to “help Federal regulatory agencies develop and maintain approaches for the safe and trustworthy creation and adoption of new AI technologies.”

Regarding that last objective, Order 13589 required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop a framework and set of principles for federal agencies to follow when considering the development of regulatory and non‑regulatory approaches for AI. Importantly, the Order also specified that the framework should seek to “advance American innovation” and “reduce barriers to the use of AI technologies in order to promote their innovative application while protecting civil liberties, privacy, American values, and United States economic and national security.”

That resulted in the memorandum sent to heads of federal departments and agencies this week entitled, “Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications” (hereinafter AI Guidance). The draft version of the AI Guidance specifies that “federal agencies must avoid regulatory or non-regulatory actions that needlessly hamper AI innovation and growth.” More specifically:

“Agencies must avoid a precautionary approach that holds AI systems to such an impossibly high standard that society cannot enjoy their benefits. Where AI entails risk, agencies should consider the potential benefits and costs of employing AI, when compared to the systems AI has been designed to complement or replace.”

But the AI Guidance is certainly not a call for comprehensive deregulation or the abandonment of all AI federal oversight. The memorandum’s very title reflects an understanding that existing laws and agency rules will continue to play a role in guiding the development of AI, machine-learning, and autonomous systems.

Accordingly, and consistent with past executive orders and OMB regulatory guidance documents for federal agencies, the AI Guidance establishes a set of ten principles that agencies must take into consideration when considering AI policy:

  1. Public trust in AI: Requiring that “the government’s regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to AI promote reliable, robust, and trustworthy AI applications, which will contribute to public trust in AI.”
  2. Public participation: Agencies must provide “ample opportunities for the public to provide information and participate in all stages of the rulemaking process.”
  3. Scientific integrity and information quality: Agencies should “leverage scientific and technical information and processes” to build trust and ensure data quality and transparency.
  4. Risk assessment and management: Acknowledging that “all activities involve tradeoffs,” the AI Guidance requires that “a risk-based approach should be used to determine which risks are acceptable and which risks present the possibility of unacceptable harm, or harm that has expected costs greater than expected benefits.”
  5. Benefits and costs: As part of those risk assessments, agencies must “carefully consider the full societal costs, benefits, and distributional effects before considering regulations related to the development and deployment of AI applications. Such consideration will include the potential benefits and costs of employing AI, when compared to the systems AI has been designed to complement or replace, whether implementing AI will change the type of errors created by the system, as well as comparison to the degree of risk tolerated in other existing ones.”
  6. Flexibility: OMB encourages agencies to “pursue performance-based and flexible approaches that can adapt to rapid changes and updates to AI applications.”
  7. Fairness and non-discrimination: Acknowledging that “in some instances, introduce real-world bias that produces discriminatory outcomes or decisions that undermine public trust and confidence in AI,” the AI Guidance requires agencies to consider “issues of fairness and non-discrimination with respect to outcomes and decisions produced by the AI application at issue.”
  8. Disclosure and transparency: Agencies are encouraged to consider how greater “transparency and disclosure can increase public trust and confidence in AI applications.”
  9. Safety and security: Agencies are required to “promote the development of AI systems that are safe, secure, and operate as intended, and encourage the consideration of safety and security issues throughout the AI design, development, deployment, and operation process.”
  10. Interagency coordination: The guidance makes it clear that a “coherent and whole-of-government approach to AI oversight requires interagency coordination.”

Soft Law Ascends

Importantly, the AI Guidance also encourages agencies to be open to “non-regulatory approaches to AI” governance and specifies three particular models:

  • Sector-specific policy guidance or frameworks: OSTP writes that “agencies should consider using any existing statutory authority to issue non-regulatory policy statements, guidance, or testing and deployment frameworks, as a means of encouraging AI innovation in that sector.” The memorandum also notes that this can include “work done in collaboration with industry, such as development of playbooks and voluntary incentive frameworks.”
  • Pilot programs and experiments: The document encourages the use of “pilot programs that provide safe harbors for specific AI applications” which “could produce useful data to inform future rulemaking and non-regulatory approaches.”
  • Voluntary consensus standards: Before regulating, the AI Guidance encourages agencies to consider how voluntary consensus standards, assessment programs, and compliance programs might be used to address policy concerns.

These represent “soft law” approaches to technological governance and they are becoming all the rage in technology policy discussions today. Soft law mechanisms are informal, collaborative, and constantly evolving governance efforts. While not formerly binding like “hard law” rules and regulations, soft law efforts nonetheless create a set of expectations about sensible development and use of technologies. Soft law can include multistakeholder initiatives, best practices and standards, agency workshops and guidance documents, educational efforts, and much more.

Soft law has become the dominant governance approach for emerging technologies because it is often better able to address the “pacing problem,” which refers to the growing gap between the rate of technological innovation and policymakers’ ability to keep up with it. As I have previously noted, the pacing problem is “becoming the great equalizer in debates over technological governance because it forces governments to rethink their approach to the regulation of many sectors and technologies.”

Not only do traditional legislative and regulatory hard law systems struggle to keep up with fast-paced technological changes, but oftentimes those older mechanisms are just too rigid and unsuited for new sectors and developments. That is definitely the case for AI, which is multi-dimensional in nature and even defies easy definition. Soft law offers a more flexible, adaptive approach to learning on the fly and cobbling together principles and policies that can address new policy concerns as they develop in specific contexts, without derailing potentially important innovations.

Building on Past Governance Frameworks

In this sense, the Trump administration’s AI Guidance borrows from past policy frameworks by marrying up a desire to promote an exciting new set of emerging technologies alongside the need for reasonable but flexible oversight and governance mechanisms. At a high level, the AI Guidance builds on many of the same principles that motivated the Clinton administration’s Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, a statement of principles and policy objectives for the then-emerging Internet. The document, which was issued in July 1997, said that “governments should encourage industry self-regulation and private sector leadership where possible” and “avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce.”

The Framework was a clean break from the top-down regulatory paradigm that had previously governed traditional communications and media technologies. Clinton’s Framework insisted that, to the extent government intervention was needed at all, “its aim should be to support and enforce a predictable, minimalist, consistent and simple legal environment for commerce.” The use of soft law and multistakeholder models was a key component of this vision, and those more flexible governance approaches were tapped by the subsequent administrations to address emerging tech policy concerns.

For example, the Obama administration considerably expanded the use of multistakeholder mechanisms and other soft law tools in response to the need of oversight of fast-moving technologies. The Obama administration had many different policy governance efforts underway for specific AI technologies and concerns, including workshops and multistakeholder efforts focused on the safety, security, and privacy-related issues surrounding “big data” systems, online advertising, connected cars, drones, and more.

Whereas the Obama administration was deeper in the weeds of the policy issues associated with specific AI and machine-learning applications, the Trump administration has sought to both build on those focused efforts while also stepping back to consider AI governance at the 30,000-foot level. In essence, the AI Guidance combines some of the aspirational elements found in the Clinton Framework alongside the Obama administration’s more targeted approach to consider specific policy concerns across many different sectors and technologies.

Trump’s AI Guidance adds an element of formality to this process regarding how federal agencies should address AI developments and formulate potential policy responses. It does so by counseling humility and even potential forbearance until all the facts are in. “Fostering innovation and growth through forbearing from new regulations may be appropriate,” the memorandum says. Agencies should consider new regulation only after they have reached the decision, in light of the foregoing section and other considerations, that Federal regulation is necessary.” Again, this is very much consistent with more general regulatory guidance issued by every administration since President Reagan was in office.

Flexible, Adaptive Governance is Key

The AI Guidance foreshadows the future of not only AI governance but the governance of many other emerging technologies. Hard law will continue to provide a backstop and have a role in guiding technological developments. Toward that end, efforts like the new AI Guidance are important because it represents an effort to “regulate the regulators” by placing some ground rules on how they go about applying old law to new developments.

But soft law governance is where the real action is at, both for AI and almost all emerging technologies today. The Trump AI Guidance reflects the extent to which soft law has become the dominant governance paradigm for modern tech sectors. As my colleagues Jennifer Huddleston and Trace Mitchell have noted, soft law is already effectively the law of the land for driverless cars, for example. After years of congressional wrangling over a federal autonomous vehicle regulatory framework—one that has widespread bipartisan support, no less—we still do not have a law on the books. Instead, the Department of Transportation has been cobbling together informal “rules of the road” through informal guidance documents that have been “versioned” as if they were computer software (i.e., Version 1.0, 2.0, 3.0). Version 4.0 of the DoT guidance for automated vehicles was just released this week.

That is the same approach that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has taken with the privacy guidelines it developed. NIST’s Privacy Framework: A Tool for Improving Privacy through Enterprise Risk Management is also versioned like software. And many other federal agencies, especially the Federal Trade Commission, have tapped a wide variety of soft law tools—such as agency workshops and workshop reports that recommended privacy best practices for various technologies. Meanwhile, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has used multistakeholder processes to address privacy concerns surrounding a wide range of technologies, including drones and facial recognition. NIST, FTC, and NTIA have undertaken these informal governance efforts because, despite over a decade of debate, Congress still has not advanced comprehensive federal privacy legislation. For better or worse, soft law has filled that governance gap.

Addressing Likely Objections from Left & Right

Many people of varying ideological dispositions will object to the growing role of soft law as the primary governance tool for emerging technology policy. Some conservatives will cringe at the sound of giving regulators greater leeway to address amorphous policy concerns, fearing that it will result in unconstrained exercises of unaccountable, extra-constitutional power.

Some of those concerns are valid, but they fail to account for the fact that the prospects for agency downsizing or deregulation they prefer are extremely limited. Practically speaking, the administrative state isn’t going anywhere. In some cases, agencies can actually do some real good by encouraging innovators to think about how to “bake-in” sensible best practices to preemptively address concerns about the privacy, safety, security, and fairness of various AI systems. Better those concerns be addressed in more flexible, adaptive fashion than by a heavy-handed, overly-rigid regulatory approach. Soft law offers that possibility, even if legitimate concerns remain about agency accountability and transparency.

Many to the left of center will be critical of this governance approach as well, but on very different grounds. As Associated Press reporter Matt O’Brien notes, “the vagueness of the principles announced by the White House is unlikely to satisfy AI watchdogs who have warned of a lack of accountability as computer systems are deployed to take on human roles in high-risk social settings, such as mortgage lending or job recruitment.”

These concerns actually are addressed in several of the OSTP’s ten principles, including those which stress the need for fairness and non-discrimination, information quality, public participation, disclosure and transparency, and safety and security. Yet many on the left will claim these principles merely pay lip service to these values and that what is really needed is a full-blown regulatory regime and some sort of corresponding new federal AI agency, which would preemptively determine which AI technologies would be allowed into the wild.

Already, an Algorithmic Accountability Act was introduced in Congress last year that would ask the FTC to take a more active role in policing “inaccurate, unfair, biased, or discriminatory decisions impacting consumers” that may have resulted from “automated decision systems.” Meanwhile, some academics have called for the creation of a Federal Robotics Commission or a National Algorithmic Technology Safety Administration to preemptively oversee new AI developments.

The problem with overly-precautionary regulation of that sort could potentially unduly limit AI innovation and the many benefits it entails. There may be some AI applications that pose serious and immediate risks to humanity and which require preemptive restraints on their development and use. Autonomous military and law enforcement applications are the most obvious examples. But most AI applications do not rise to that same level of regulatory concern, and other governance approaches are required to balance the use and misuse of them. This is why a more open and flexible governance approach is needed. Moreover, the old regulatory system just cannot keep up anymore, and it is ill-suited to address most policy concerns in a timely or efficient fashion.

Cristie Ford, and advocate of greater regulatory oversight for fintech, notes in her latest book that the problem with “old-style Welfare State regulation” is that it is “a clumsy, blunt instrument for achieving regulatory objectives” due to its reliance upon “one-size-fits-all mandates, prohibitions, and penalties.” Ford acknowledges what many other regulatory advocates are reluctant to admit:  public policies toward fast-paced technology sectors can no longer be governed effectively using the Analog Era’s top-down, command-and-control regulatory processes. Far too many federal agencies rely on a “build-and-freeze model” of regulation that puts rules in stone to deal with one sets of issues one day, but then either fails to eliminate them later when they become obsolete or to reform those rules to bring them in line with new social, economic, and technical realities.

If we hope to encourage continued innovation in sectors that could produce profoundly important, life-enriching technologies, America’s regulatory approach for AI and emerging technology needs to move away from “build-and-freeze” and toward “build-and-adapt.” Regulation is still needed, but the old regulatory toolkit is badly broken. For better or worse, soft law is going to fill the resulting governance gap, regardless of objections from some on the left or the right. Pragmatic policymaking is going to carry the day for emerging technology governance.

Conclusion

The Trump Administration AI Guidance represents a continuation and extension of this trend toward more flexible, adaptive governance approaches for emerging technologies. It offers a pragmatic vision that builds on the policies and paradigms of the past, while also encouraging fresh thinking about how best to balance the need for continued innovation alongside the various concerns about disruptive technological change.

There are many challenging issues that lie ahead and the new AI Guidance cannot provide bright-line answers to all the hypothetical questions that people want answered today. No one possesses a crystal ball that will allow them to forecast the technological future. Only ongoing trial-and-error experimentation and policy improvisation will allow us to find sensible solutions. A policy approach rooted in humility, flexibility, and forbearance will help ensure that America’s regulatory policies continue to promote both innovation and the public good.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/01/08/trumps-ai-framework-the-future-of-emerging-tech-governance/feed/ 0 76648 The Top 10 Most-Read Posts of 2019 https://techliberation.com/2020/01/07/the-top-10-most-read-posts-of-2019/ https://techliberation.com/2020/01/07/the-top-10-most-read-posts-of-2019/#respond Tue, 07 Jan 2020 19:18:54 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76646

Technopanics, Progress Studies, AI, spectrum, and privacy were hot topics at the Technology Liberation Front in the past year. Below are the most popular posts from 2019.

Glancing at our site metrics over the past 10 years, the biggest topics in the 2010s were technopanics, Bitcoin, net neutrality, the sharing economy, and broadband policy. Looking forward at the 2020s, I’ll hazard some predictions about what will be significant debates at the TLF: technopanics and antitrust, AVs, drones, and the future of work. I suspect that technology and federalism will be long-running issues in the next decade, particularly for drones, privacy, AVs, antitrust, and healthcare tech.

Enjoy 2019’s top 10, and Happy New Year.

10. 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics by Adam Thierer

I have a confession: I’m 50 years old and still completely in love with video games.

As a child of the 1970s, I straddled the divide between the old and new worlds of gaming. I was (and remain) obsessed with board and card games, which my family played avidly. But then Atari’s home version of “Pong” landed in 1976. The console had rudimentary graphics and controls, and just one game to play, but it was a revelation. After my uncle bought Pong for my cousins, our families and neighbors would gather round his tiny 20-inch television to watch two electronic paddles and a little dot move around the screen.

9. The Limits of AI in Predicting Human Action by Anne Hobson and Walter Stover

Let’s assume for a second that AIs could possess not only all relevant information about an individual, but also that individual’s knowledge. Even if companies somehow could gather this knowledge, it would only be a snapshot at a moment in time. Infinite converging factors can affect one’s next decision to not purchase a soda, even if your past purchase history suggests you will. Maybe you went to the store that day with a stomach ache. Maybe your doctor just warned you about the perils of high fructose corn syrup so you forgo your purchase. Maybe an AI-driven price raise causes you to react by finding an alternative seller.

In other words, when you interact with the market—for instance, going to the store to buy groceries—you are participating in a discovery process about your own preferences or willingness to pay.

8. Free-market spectrum policy and the C Band by Brent Skorup

A few years ago I would have definitely favored speed and the secondary market plan. I still lean towards that approach but I’m a little more on the fence after reading Richard Epstein’s work and others’ about the “public trust doctrine.” This is a traditional governance principle that requires public actors to receive fair value when disposing of public property. It prevents public institutions from giving discounted public property to friends and cronies. Clearly, cronyism isn’t the case here and FCC can’t undo what FCCs did generations ago in giving away spectrum. I think the need for speedy deployment trumps the windfall issue here, but it’s a closer call for me than in the past.

One proposal that hasn’t been contemplated with the C Band but might have merit is an overlay auction with a deadline. With such an auction, the FCC gives incumbent users a deadline to vacate a band (say, 5 years). The FCC then auctions flexible-use licenses in the band. The FCC receives the auction revenues and the winning bidders are allowed to deploy services immediately in the “white spaces” unoccupied by the incumbents. The winning bidders are allowed to pay the incumbents to move out before the deadline.

7. STELAR Expiration Warranted by Hance Haney

The retransmission fees were purposely set low to help the emerging satellite carriers get established in the marketplace when innovation in satellite technology still had a long way to go. Today the carriers are thriving business enterprises, and there is no need for them to continue receiving subsidies. Broadcasters, on the other hand, face unprecedented competition for advertising revenue that historically covered the entire cost of content production.

Today a broadcaster receives 28 cents per subscriber per month when a satellite carrier retransmits their local television signal. But the fair market value of that signal is actually $2.50, according to one estimate.

6. What is Progress Studies? by Adam Thierer

How do we shift cultural and political attitudes about innovation and progress in a more positive direction? Collison and Cowen explicitly state that the goal of Progress Studies transcends “mere comprehension” in that it should also look to “identify effective progress-increasing interventions and the extent to which they are adopted by universities, funding agencies, philanthropists, entrepreneurs, policy makers, and other institutions.”

But fostering social and political attitudes conducive to innovation is really more art than science. Specifically, it is the art of persuasion. Science can help us amass the facts proving the importance of innovation and progress to human improvement. Communicating those facts and ensuring that they infuse culture, institutions, and public policy is more challenging.

5. How Do You Value Data? A Reply To Jaron Lanier’s Op-Ed In The NYT by Will Rinehart

All of this is to say that there is no one single way to estimate the value of data.

As for the Lanier piece, here are some other things to consider:

A market for data already exists. It just doesn’t include a set of participants that Jaron wants to include, which are platform users.    

Will users want to be data entrepreneurs, looking for the best value for their data? Probably not. At best, they will hire an intermediary to do this, which is basically the job of the platforms already.

An underlying assumption is that the value of data is greater than the value advertisers are willing to pay for a slice of your attention. I’m not sure I agree with that.

Finally, how exactly do you write these kinds of laws?

4. Explaining the California Privacy Rights and Enforcement Act of 2020 by Ian Adams

As released, the initiative is equal parts privacy extremism and cynical-politics. Substantively, some will find elements to applaud in the CPREA, between prohibitions on the use of behavioral advertising and reputational risk assessment (all of which are deserving of their own critiques), but the operational structure of the CPREA is nothing short of disastrous. Here are some of the worst bits:

3. Best Practices for Public Policy Analysts by Adam Thierer

So, for whatever it’s worth, here are a few ideas about how to improve your content and your own brand as a public policy analyst. The first list is just some general tips I’ve learned from others after 25 years in the world of public policy. Following that, I have also included a separate set of notes I use for presentations focused specifically on how to prepare effective editorials and legislative testimony. There are many common recommendations on both lists, but I thought I would just post them both here together.

2. An Epic Moral Panic Over Social Media by Adam Thierer

Strangely, many elites, politicians, and parents forget that they, too, were once kids and that their generation was probably also considered hopelessly lost in the “vast wasteland” of whatever the popular technology or content of the day was. The Pessimists Archive podcast has documented dozens of examples of this reoccurring phenomenon. Each generation makes it through the panic du jour, only to turn around and start lambasting newer media or technologies that they worry might be rotting their kids to the core. While these panics come and go, the real danger is that they sometimes result in concrete policy actions that censor content or eliminate choices that the public enjoys. Such regulatory actions can also discourage the emergence of new choices.

1. How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality by Adam Thierer

If I divided my time in Tech Policy Land into two big chunks of time, I’d say the biggest tech-related policy issue for conservatives during the first 15 years I was in the business (roughly 1990 – 2005) was preventing the resurrection of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. And the biggest issue during the second 15-year period (roughly 2005 – present) was stopping the imposition of “Net neutrality” mandates on the Internet. In both cases, conservatives vociferously blasted the notion that unelected government bureaucrats should sit in judgment of what constituted “fairness” in media or “neutrality” online.

Many conservatives are suddenly changing their tune, however.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/01/07/the-top-10-most-read-posts-of-2019/feed/ 0 76646 San Francisco, Entrepreneurs & the Cost of Doing Business https://techliberation.com/2019/10/24/san-francisco-entrepreneurs-the-cost-of-doing-business/ https://techliberation.com/2019/10/24/san-francisco-entrepreneurs-the-cost-of-doing-business/#respond Thu, 24 Oct 2019 20:26:19 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76624

2019 Doing Business North America Report CoverOne of the keys to improving the standard of living for citizens is to make sure it isn’t too difficult for them to form new businesses or find good jobs. Unfortunately, some governments make that process harder than it should be. San Francisco serves as a prime example. An important new report just out from Arizona State University proves that.

“Doing Business North America,” is a wide-ranging comparison of six types of business regulations in Canada, Mexico and the United States. The almost 200-page report was released by the Center for the Study of Economic Liberty, a joint endeavor of the W. P. Carey School of Business and the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership. The effort was spearheaded by my old colleague Stephen Slivinski and a team of other scholars and students at the Center.

The report is a major undertaking that examines how 115 North American cities rank overall, as measured by six categories: starting a business, employing workers, getting electricity, registering property, paying taxes, and resolving insolvency. Among all U.S. cities, San Francisco ranks dead last with a score of 59.04 out of a 100. Of the 115 cities evaluated in Canada, Mexico, and the U.S., San Fran ranked 77th. By comparison, Oklahoma City ranked first in overall ease of doing business with a score of 85.22.

Shockingly, things appear ready to get a lot worse for the citizens of San Francisco. In my latest column for the American Institute for Economic Research, I discuss the city’s newly proposed Office of Emerging Technology.  This new bureaucracy, which would be within the city’s public works department, would impose a new permitting system on anyone looking to launch new technologies that might somehow use public rights-of-way, such as sidewalks and roads. Innovators who fail to pursue and receive the appropriate permission slips will face civil and criminal penalties.

As I note in my column, this new permitting office “would discourage entrepreneurial efforts, consumer choice, and new employment opportunities,” because:

Whenever bureaucrats are in charge of an innovation-by-permission-slip regime, a line will form to get permits on the best terms possible. Whoever is the most clever and well-connected will get access first. Scrappy start-ups won’t have the resources to play the lobbying game or navigate the costly and complicated permitting system. Innovation will suffer.

Citizens respond to incentives and when laws and regulations raise the cost of doing business it stifles the entrepreneurial spirit. The problem with our ever-expanding “permission society,” as Goldwater Institute attorney Timothy Sandefur describes it in his latest book, is that “when told that they will have to undergo expensive and time-consuming permit processes before being allowed to pursue a new idea, many simply give up without trying.”

Or, they relocate. As I note in my column,

Innovation arbitrage is a phenomenon that the city should be worried about. It refers to the movement of ideas, innovations, or operations to jurisdictions that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity. Innovation arbitrage is becoming easier in the Internet Age than it was in the past. Many cities and states are experiencing an outflow of talent because of onerous policy regimes that prioritize red tape and vague notions of the public interest over worker opportunities and consumer choice. If San Fran’s new anti-innovation office is established, it wouldn’t be surprising to see many firms and individuals relocate to areas with greater freedom to experiment.

It may already be happening for other reasons. For example, Stripe, one of the world’s most valuable startups, is apparently considering moving out of the city. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “The payments processing company, valued at $35 billion, is considering moving about 10 miles away to South San Francisco, said two people familiar with the company’s potential plans.” Apparently, Stripe is considering the move due largely to the lack of available office space and the seeming unwillingness of the City to address chronic office and housing shortages.

So, if you add together burdensome permitting processes, high costs of housing and office space, and high taxes (with new ones being proposed all the time), you get a recipe for economic stagnation and a lowered standard of living for your citizenry. What makes this particularly sad in San Francisco’s case is that the city is, at once, brimming with entrepreneurial potential but also chock full of serious social problems. Economic opportunity can be part of the solution to some of those problems, but opportunities of entrepreneurial dynamism won’t happen so long as the city makes it so costly to form new businesses and pursue new jobs. Hopefully, San Francisco and other cities learn this lesson and relax burdens to innovation and new business formation.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2019/10/24/san-francisco-entrepreneurs-the-cost-of-doing-business/feed/ 0 76624 The Entrepreneurial State, Some Brief Comments https://techliberation.com/2019/10/16/the-entrepreneurial-state-some-brief-comments/ https://techliberation.com/2019/10/16/the-entrepreneurial-state-some-brief-comments/#respond Wed, 16 Oct 2019 14:16:50 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76620

Economist Mariana Mazzucato has a full spread in the Wired UK humbling suggesting that she “has a plan to fix capitalism.” The plan is an outgrowth of her 2013 book The Entrepreneurial State , which contends that government involvement in research and development (R&D), loans, and other business subsidies are the true drivers of innovation, not the private sector. Her plan is simple: governments need to do better on funding innovation.  

It goes without saying that the government is massively involved in innovation and for good reason. Open any introductory economics text and you’re likely to see an argument for why. Private actors are short sighted and often fail to plan for the long term by investing in R&D that will lead to technological progress. Basic research also might lead to advances or products outside of the company’s niche. Knowing that they won’t be able to capture all of the gains from research, private entities will choose a lower level of investment than is optimal, leading to a market failure. Governments solve this market failure by allocating resources to expanding scientific and technological knowledge.    

While Mazzucato might be finding an audience with policy makers in the UK and doers in Silicon Valley, innovation economists are a little more wary of her state first theory of innovation. Here are some things worth considering when reading her work:

  1. Innovation and invention are distinct concepts. Bringing a product to market (innovation) involves very different skill sets than ideation (invention). In the 1950s and 1960s, large companies were deeply involved in basic research, but today, businesses have shifted toward their competitive advantage, which lies in supply chain management, marketing, and customer acquisition. As I noted in 2014 of this change: “Increasingly, however, firms are becoming flexible assemblies, connecting skills, capacities, and funding from sources around the world. In this regard, US firms continue to dominate in business model and process innovation.”
  2. A key chapter in this book dissected all of the patents that went into the iPhone. It is unclear if Mazzucato has a theory as to why Apple, not Nokia, RIM or Motorola, became the innovator in the smartphone space. All had access to the same government supported patents, but it was Apple that sparked the revolution. Apple practically commercialized an idea that had been out there for some time. 
  3. Mazzucato’s work aims to bash the Great Man Theory of Innovation, which is needed, but puts in its place the Great State Theory of Innovation. As Artir explains in beautiful detail: “The State was one more actor, like IBM, Bell Labs, Sony, Goodenough, Brody, or Lechner.” 
  4. Mazzucato chides companies for appropriating so much of the total value of government investment, but as William Nordhaus calculated, innovators only capture 2.2 percent of the total surplus . Consumers are the real beneficiaries.
  5. Is Mazzucato sampling on the dependent variable ?     

There is a lot more out there if you want to read up. For starters, I would check out:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2019/10/16/the-entrepreneurial-state-some-brief-comments/feed/ 0 76620 Locast and deteriorating TV laws https://techliberation.com/2019/10/15/locast-and-deteriorating-tv-laws/ https://techliberation.com/2019/10/15/locast-and-deteriorating-tv-laws/#respond Tue, 15 Oct 2019 18:55:54 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76616

In the US there is a tangle of communications laws that were added over decades by Congress as–one-by-one–broadcast, cable, and satellite technologies transformed the TV marketplace. The primary TV laws are from 1976, 1984, and 1992, though Congress creates minor patches when the marketplace changes and commercial negotiations start to unravel.

Congress, to its great credit, largely has left alone Internet-based TV (namely, IPTV and vMVPDs) which has created a novel “problem”–too much TV. Internet-based TV, however, for years has put stress on the kludge-y legacy legal system we have, particularly the impenetrable mix of communications and copyright laws that regulates broadcast TV distribution.

Internet-based TV does two things–it undermines the current system with regulatory arbitrage but also shows how tons of diverse TV programming can be distributed to millions of households without Congress (and the FCC and the Copyright Office) injecting politics into the TV marketplace.

Locast TV is the latest Internet-based TV distributor to threaten to unravel parts the current system. In July, broadcast programmers sued Locast (its founder, David Goodfriend) and in September, Locast filed its own suit against the broadcast programmers.

A portion of US TV regulations.

Many readers will remember the 2014 Aereo decision from the Supreme Court. Much like Aereo, Locast TV captures free broadcast TV signals in the markets it operates and transmits the programming via the Internet to viewers in that market. That said, Locast isn’t Aereo.

Aereo’s position was that it could relay broadcast signals without paying broadcasters because it wasn’t a “cable company” (a critical category in copyright law). The majority of the Supreme Court disagreed; Aereo closed up shop.

Locast has a different position: it says it can relay broadcast signals without paying because it is a nonprofit.

It’s a plausible argument. Federal copyright law has a carveout allowing “nonprofit organizations” to relay broadcast signals without payment so long as the nonprofit operates “without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage.”

The broadcasters are focusing on this latter provision, that any nonprofit taking advantage of the carveout mustn’t have commercial purpose. David Goodfriend, the Locast founder, is a lawyer and professor who, apparently, sought to abide by the law. However, the broadcasters argue, his past employment and commercial ties to pay-TV companies mean that the nonprofit is operating for commercial advantage.

It’s hard to say how a court will rule. Assuming a court takes up the major issues, judges will have to decide what “indirect commercial advantage” means. That’s a fact-intensive inquiry. The broadcasters will likely search for hot docs or other evidence that Locast is not a “real” nonprofit. Whatever the facts are, Locast’s arbitrage of the existing regulations is one that could be replicated.

Nobody likes the existing legacy TV regulation system: Broadcasters dislike being subject to compulsory licenses; Cable and satellite operators dislike being forced to carry some broadcast TV and to pay for a bizarre “retransmission” right. Copyright holders are largely sidelined in these artificial commercial negotiations. Wholesale reform–so that programming negotiations look more like the free-market world of Netflix and Hulu programming–would mean every party has give up something they like improve the overall system.

The Internet’s effect on traditional providers’ market share has been modest to date, but hopefully Congress will anticipate the changing marketplace before regulatory distortions become intolerable.

Additional reading: Adam Thierer & Brent Skorup, Video Marketplace Regulation: A Primer on the History of Television Regulation and Current Legislative Proposals (2014).

]]> https://techliberation.com/2019/10/15/locast-and-deteriorating-tv-laws/feed/ 0 76616 15 Years of the Tech Liberation Front: The Greatest Hits https://techliberation.com/2019/08/15/15-years-of-the-tech-liberation-front-the-greatest-hits/ https://techliberation.com/2019/08/15/15-years-of-the-tech-liberation-front-the-greatest-hits/#respond Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:34:51 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76579

The Technology Liberation Front just marked its 15th year in existence. That’s a long time in the blogosphere. (I’ve only been writing at TLF since 2012 so I’m still the new guy.)

Everything from Bitcoin to net neutrality to long-form pieces about technology and society were featured and debated here years before these topics hit the political mainstream.

Thank you to our contributors and our regular readers. Here are the most-read tech policy posts from TLF in the past 15 years (I’ve omitted some popular but non-tech policy posts).

No. 15: Bitcoin is going mainstream. Here is why cypherpunks shouldn’t worry. by Jerry Brito, October 2013

Today is a bit of a banner day for Bitcoin. It was five years ago today that Bitcoin was first described in a paper by Satoshi Nakamoto. And today the New York Times has finally run a profile of the cryptocurrency in its “paper of record” pages. In addition, TIME’s cover story this week is about the “deep web” and how Tor and Bitcoin facilitate it.

The fact is that Bitcoin is inching its way into the mainstream.

No. 14: Is fiber to the home (FTTH) the network of the future, or are there competing technologies? by Roslyn Layton, August 2013

There is no doubt that FTTH is a cool technology, but the love of a particular technology should not blind one to look at the economics.  After some brief background, this blog post will investigate fiber from three perspectives (1) the bandwidth requirements of web applications (2) cost of deployment and (3) substitutes and alternatives. Finally it discusses the notion of fiber as future proof.

No. 13: So You Want to Be an Internet Policy Analyst? by Adam Thierer, December 2012

Each year I am contacted by dozens of people who are looking to break into the field of information technology policy as a think tank analyst, a research fellow at an academic institution, or even as an activist. Some of the people who contact me I already know; most of them I don’t. Some are free-marketeers, but a surprising number of them are independent analysts or even activist-minded Lefties. Some of them are students; others are current professionals looking to change fields (usually because they are stuck in boring job that doesn’t let them channel their intellectual energies in a positive way). Some are lawyers; others are economists, and a growing number are computer science or engineering grads. In sum, it’s a crazy assortment of inquiries I get from people, unified only by their shared desire to move into this exciting field of public policy.

. . . Unfortunately, there’s only so much time in the day and I am sometimes not able to get back to all of them. I always feel bad about that, so, this essay is an effort to gather my thoughts and advice and put it all one place . . . .

No. 12: Violent Video Games & Youth Violence: What Does Real-World Evidence Suggest? by Adam Thierer, February 2010

So, how can we determine whether watching depictions of violence will turn us all into killing machines, rapists, robbers, or just plain ol’ desensitized thugs? Well, how about looking at the real world! Whatever lab experiments might suggest, the evidence of a link between depictions of violence in media and the real-world equivalent just does not show up in the data. The FBI produces ongoing Crime in the United States reports that document violent crimes trends. Here’s what the data tells us about overall violent crime, forcible rape, and juvenile violent crime rates over the past two decades: They have all fallen. Perhaps most impressively, the juvenile crime rate has fallen an astonishing 36% since 1995 (and the juvenile murder rate has plummeted by 62%).

No. 11: Wedding Phtography and Copyright Release by Tim Lee, September 2008

I’m getting married next Spring, and I’m currently negotiating the contract with our photographer. The photography business is weird because even though customers typically pay hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars up front to have photos taken at their weddings, the copyright in the photographs is typically retained by the photographer, and customers have to go hat in hand to the photographer and pay still more money for the privilege of getting copies of their photographs.

This seems absurd to us . . . .

No. 10: Why would anyone use Bitcoin when PayPal or Visa work perfectly well? by Jerry Brito, December 2013

A common question among smart Bitcoin skeptics is, “Why would one use Bitcoin when you can use dollars or euros, which are more common and more widely accepted?” It’s a fair question, and one I’ve tried to answer by pointing out that if Bitcoin were just a currency (except new and untested), then yes, there would be little reason why one should prefer it to dollars. The fact, however, is that Bitcoin is more than money, as I recently explained in Reason. Bitcoin is better thought of as a payments system, or as a distributed ledger, that (for technical reasons) happens to use a new currency called the bitcoin as the unit of account. As Tim Lee has pointed out, Bitcoin is therefore a platform for innovation, and it is this potential that makes it so valuable.

No. 9: The Hidden Benefactor: How Advertising Informs, Educates & Benefits Consumers by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, February 2010

Advertising is increasingly under attack in Washington. . . . This regulatory tsunami could not come at a worse time, of course, since an attack on advertising is tantamount to an attack on media itself, and media is at a critical point of technological change. As we have pointed out repeatedly, the vast majority of media and content in this country is supported by commercial advertising in one way or another-particularly in the era of “free” content and services.

No. 8: Reverse Engineering and Innovation: Some Examples by Tim Lee, June 2006

Reverse engineering the CSS encryption scheme, by itself, isn’t an especially innovative activity. However, what I think Prof. Picker is missing is how important such reverse engineering can be as a pre-condition for subsequent innovation. To illustrate the point, I’d like to offer three examples of companies or open source projects that have forcibly opened a company’s closed architecture, and trace how these have enabled subsequent innovation . . . .

No. 7: Are You An Internet Optimist or Pessimist? The Great Debate over Technology’s Impact on Society by Adam Thierer, January 2010

The cycle goes something like this. A new technology appears. Those who fear the sweeping changes brought about by this technology see a sky that is about to fall. These “techno-pessimists” predict the death of the old order (which, ironically, is often a previous generation’s hotly-debated technology that others wanted slowed or stopped). Embracing this new technology, they fear, will result in the overthrow of traditions, beliefs, values, institutions, business models, and much else they hold sacred.

The pollyannas, by contrast, look out at the unfolding landscape and see mostly rainbows in the air. Theirs is a rose-colored world in which the technological revolution du jour is seen as improving the general lot of mankind and bringing about a better order. If something has to give, then the old ways be damned! For such “techno-optimists,” progress means some norms and institutions must adapt—perhaps even disappear—for society to continue its march forward.

No. 6: Copyright Duration and the Mickey Mouse Curve by Tom Bell, August 2009

Given the rough-and-tumble of real world lawmaking, does the rhetoric of “delicate balancing” merit any place in copyright jurisprudence? The Copyright Act does reflect compromises struck between the various parties that lobby congress and the administration for changes to federal law. A truce among special interests does not and cannot delicately balance all the interests affected by copyright law, however. Not even poetry can license the metaphor, which aggravates copyright’s public choice affliction by endowing the legislative process with more legitimacy than it deserves. To claim that copyright policy strikes a “delicate balance” commits not only legal fiction; it aids and abets a statutory tragedy.

No. 5: Cyber-Libertarianism: The Case for Real Internet Freedom by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, August 2009

Generally speaking, the cyber-libertarian’s motto is “Live & Let Live” and “Hands Off the Internet!” The cyber-libertarian aims to minimize the scope of state coercion in solving social and economic problems and looks instead to voluntary solutions and mutual consent-based arrangements.

Cyber-libertarians believe true “Internet freedom” is freedom from state action; not freedom for the State to reorder our affairs to supposedly make certain people or groups better off or to improve some amorphous “public interest”—an all-to convenient facade behind which unaccountable elites can impose their will on the rest of us.

No. 4: Here’s why the Obama FCC Internet regulations don’t protect net neutrality by Brent Skorup, July 2017

It’s becoming clearer why, for six years out of eight, Obama’s appointed FCC chairmen resisted regulating the Internet with Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. Chairman Wheeler famously did not want to go that legal route. It was only after President Obama and the White House called on the FCC in late 2014 to use Title II that Chairman Wheeler relented. If anything, the hastily-drafted 2015 Open Internet rules provide a new incentive to ISPs to curate the Internet in ways they didn’t want to before.

No. 3: 10 Years Ago Today… (Thinking About Technological Progress) by Adam Thierer, February 2009

As I am getting ready to watch the Super Bowl tonight on my amazing 100-inch screen via a Sanyo high-def projector that only cost me $1,600 bucks on eBay, I started thinking back about how much things have evolved (technologically-speaking) over just the past decade. I thought to myself, what sort of technology did I have at my disposal exactly 10 years ago today, on February 1st, 1999? Here’s the miserable snapshot I came up with . . . .

No. 2: Regulatory Capture: What the Experts Have Found by Adam Thierer, December 2010

While capture theory cannot explain all regulatory policies or developments, it does provide an explanation for the actions of political actors with dismaying regularity. Because regulatory capture theory conflicts mightily with romanticized notions of “independent” regulatory agencies or “scientific” bureaucracy, it often evokes a visceral reaction and a fair bit of denialism. . . . Yet, countless studies have shown that regulatory capture has been at work in various arenas: transportation and telecommunications; energy and environmental policy; farming and financial services; and many others.

No. 1: Defining “Technology” by Adam Thierer, April 2014

I spend a lot of time reading books and essays about technology; more specifically, books and essays about technology history and criticism. Yet, I am often struck by how few of the authors of these works even bother defining what they mean by “technology.” . . . Anyway, for what it’s worth, I figured I would create this post to list some of the more interesting definitions of “technology” that I have uncovered in my own research.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2019/08/15/15-years-of-the-tech-liberation-front-the-greatest-hits/feed/ 0 76579