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 :

• “Should All Kids Under 18 Be Banned from Social Media?”
• “Why Do We Always Sell the Next Generation Short?”
• “The APA’s Welcome New Statement on Video Game Violence“
• “Video Games and Moral Panic“
• Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods, 4th Edition.
• “Technopanics and the Great Social Networking Scare“
• “More on Monkey See-Monkey Do Theories about Media Violence & Real-World Crime“
• “Video Games, Media Violence & the Cathartic Effect Hypothesis.”)
• “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues“
• “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“

• “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age,” Catholic University Law School, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007): 431-482.
• Testimony at FCC’s Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era”, March 3, 2010.
• “FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment in the Information Age,”

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.

Eric Posner is one of these smart skeptics. Writing in Slate in April he rejected Bitcoin as a “fantasy” because he felt it didn’t make sense as a currency. Since then it’s been pointed out to him that Bitcoin is more than a currency, and today at the New Republic he asks the question, “Why would you use Bitcoin when you can use PayPal or Visa, which are more common and widely accepted?”

He answers his own question, in part, by acknowledging that Bitcoin is censorship-resistant. As he puts it, “If you live in a country with capital controls, you can avoid those[.]” So right there, it seems to me, is one good reason why one might want to use Bitcoin instead of PayPal or Visa. Another smart skeptic, Tyler Cowen, acknowledges this as well, even if only to suggest that the price of bitcoins will fall “if/when China fully liberalizes capital flows[.]”

Another reason why one would use Bitcoin instead of PayPal or Visa is that it’s cheaper. Posner disputes this, arguing that Bitcoin’s historic volatility makes it risky to hold Bitcoins, necessitating hedging, and therefore making it no less costly than traditional payments systems. (Cowen was one of the first to make this argument.) But this is not true.

First of all, I would argue that there’s nothing inherent in Bitcoin that makes it necessarily as volatile as it has been; its volatility to date comes largely from the fact that it’s thinly traded. If its adoption continues apace, and its infrastructure continues to be developed, there’s no reason to think it will forever be as volatile as it has been to date. But that’s conjecture. More to the point is the proof that’s in the pudding: There are tens of thousands of merchants accepting bitcoins for payment today (and growing), and the number of transactions accepted by those merchants has been exploding as well, setting a record on Black Friday. Can it be that even with the necessary hedging, Bitcoin is cheaper?

At least for some types of transactions I think the answer is unquestionably yes. Take international remittances, which is a $500 billion industry. Sending money to Kenya using Western Union MoneyGram or some other traditional money transmitter costs around five to ten percent of the amount being sent, and can take days for the deposit to take place. A new startup, BitPesa, is looking to charge only three percent, and to carry out transfers virtually instantaneously. So hedging costs would have to be more than five to ten percent to make this not worthwhile. It’s an empirical question, but it seems to me the fact that so many are jumping in helps give us a hint as to the answer. Perhaps we can look to Bitpay’s 1% fee as a market estimate of the cost of hedging.

Well then, so far I count two things that Bitcoin can do that traditional payments systems cannot: it is censorship resistant and it is cheaper. Oh, wait. I actually mentioned another one: it’s faster. Traditional wire transfers can take days or even weeks to clear, while Bitcoin takes minutes. And yet there’s more.

As Eli Dourado just pointed out in a previous post, built into Bitcoin is a facility for decentralized arbitration. Essentially, Bitcoin allows for transactions that require two out of three signatures to verify a transaction, thus allowing payer and payee to turn to an arbitrator if there is a dispute about whether the payment should go through. Paypal and credit card companies essentially provide this service today, but as Eli points out, decentralized arbitration would likely be cheaper and would certainly enjoy much more competition. That’s four things Bitcoin can do that traditional payments networks cannot, but let me quickly add a fifth. There’s no reason that the arbitrator must be a human; using Bitcoin’s scripting language the arbitrator can be a trusted automated source of information that on a regular basis broadcasts facts such as the price of gold, or price of stocks, or sports scores. Make that data stream your arbitrator and, voila, you have a decentralized predictions market. (Ed Felten at Princeton is working on executing the concept.)

One more before I sign off and go drink with the rest of the Tech Liberation gang at our 15th Alcohol Liberation Front this evening, to which you’re all invited. Bitcoin allows for microtransactions in a way that’s never before been possible. First of all, because bitcoin transactions can be cheap, you can send incredibly small amounts (say five cents or half a cent) that would be cost-prohibitive using traditional payments systems. There’s a start-up called BitWall that essentially allows publishers to easily charge tiny amounts for their content. Now, believe me, I know all the arguments for and against micropayments for content. My only point is that Bitcoin has the potential to further reduce the friction of such payments. But that’s not the exciting part. More interesting are really, really small microtransactions.

Bitcoin transactions are cheap, but you wouldn’t think they’re cheap enough that you could conduct hundreds per second. But the thing is, you can, using the micropayments channels feature of the Bitcoin protocol. It’s not yet been widely exploited, but it’s there in the spec waiting to be. I won’t go into the technical details in this post, but essentially you transmit one large transaction to the network (you can think of this like a deposit, say of $10), then you conduct as many tiny transactions between payer and payee not broadcast to the network (therefore ‘free’), and finally you broadcast how much of the initial amount remains with each party. What this means is that you can now offer metered services based on microtransactions.

One good example of how this would be useful is Wi-Fi access, which Mike Hearn explains in this video. Today we are surrounded by wi-fi hotspots, but we can’t use them because they are password protected, in part because there’s no good way to charge for their use. When you can pay to use a wi-fi hotspot, it usually entails creating an account with the provider and then purchasing a block of time, perhaps more than you need. Now imagine if you could connect to any open hotspot, without first creating any kind of account, and paying your way by the second or the kilobyte. That’s possible today with Bitcoin, it’s just going to take some time to be implemented. And think of all the other as-yet unimagined ways that this ability to meter could be put to use!

That’s six ways to answer the question, “Why would you use Bitcoin when you can use PayPal or Visa.” There are more. Hearn discusses a bunch in the video. These are all very real in the sense that they are all technically possible today, but certainly speculative in that there remain regulatory and market hurdles ahead. I can certainly understand why some would be skeptical of Bitcoin’s long-term success (I for one am not certain of it), but I really hope we can get to the point were that skepticism is based on more than misunderstandings about what Bitcoin is or what it can and cannot do.

Just a quick reminder to join us this Wednesday night (Dec. 4) for the next “Alcohol Liberation Front” happy hour featuring many Tech Liberation Front contributors and friends. The happy hour will be held at Churchkey (1337 14th St., NW) at 6 p.m.  Churchkey is one of the very best beer bars not just in D.C. but in all of America.  If you’ve never been there before, you are in for a real treat.

In addition to mixing and mingling with the witty and wacky TLF crew, we have a special surprise for attendees: Our guests will be given an early preview of our prototype TLF drone! Our Advanced Robotics Division here at the TLF has been hard at work on the “FreedomCopter” and we look forward to showing guests how we plan to use it coming years to spread the good word of tech liberty!  We plan on doing special fly-bys during the evening and buzzing past EPIC and CDT headquarters to have our autonomous agent inquire about our general freedom to tinker, innovate, and gather information freely. We look forward to their response.

No word yet if our Advanced Robotics Division will have the new driverless “TLF-Mobiles” ready in time to give inebriated guests a free ride home, but we will do our best.

Hope to see you on Wednesday night.

It’s been way too long since the Tech Liberation Front hosted an IRL meetup, more than a year in fact, so we’re looking to make amends next week. You’re invited to the 15th Alcohol Liberation Front happy hour, which we’ll hold at Churchkey on 14th Street at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, December 4th.

Lots of us from the TLF gang will be there, including quite a few of our out-of-town contributors. So please come by and have a beer with us, and bring a friend!

It was my honor today to be a panelist at a Hill event on “Apps, Ads, Kids & COPPA: Implications of the FTC’s Additional Proposed Revisions,” which was co-sponsored by the Family Online Safety Institute and the Association for Competitive Technology. It was a free-wheeling discussion, but I prepared some talking points for the event that I thought I would share here for anyone interested in my views about the Federal Trade Commission’s latest proposed revisions to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).

________

The Commission deserves credit for very wisely ignoring calls by some to extend the coverage of COPPA’s regulatory provisions from children under 13 all the way up to teens up to 18.

• that would have been a constitutional and technical enforcement nightmare. But the FTC realized that long ago and abandoned any thought of doing that. So that is a huge win since we won’t be revisiting the COPA age verification wars.
• That being said, each tweak or expansion of COPPA, the FTC opens the door a bit wider to a discussion of some sort age verification or age stratification scheme for the Internet.
• And we know from recent AG activity (recall old MySpace age verification battle) and Hill activity (i.e. Markey-Barton bill) that there remains an appetite for doing something more to age-segment Internet populations

But challenging compliance issues remain with expanded COPPA regulations.

• How do third parties accurately determine whether a site where they place a cookie or serve an ad is “directed at children” or “likely to attract an audience that included a disproportionately large percentage of children under age 13”
• Let’s be clear about what is happening here:  = the redefinition of terms we see the agency undertaking here will result in an expansion of liability via regulatory relabeling
• there certainly is an incremental benefit associated with tweaks to the COPPA rule that strengthen its privacy protections, but it is equally true that there are corresponding incremental costs…

With each tweak or expansion of COPPA, the FTC potentially increased regulatory compliance costs, which could impact market structure, innovation, and consumers options and costs.

• FTC estimates that approximately 85-90% of operators potentially subject to the COPPA rule qualify as small entities; up from prior estimate of 80%.
• “Rule may entail some added cost burden to operators, including those that qualify as small entities.” (p. 28) Specifically, “operators will each spend approximately 60 hours” complying with the disclosure requirements of the rule (p. 32), although the agency doesn’t offer much of any explanation for how it came up with that number and, despite hearing from several  commenters that compliance hours were being underestimated by the agency, the FTC says it won’t revise that estimate upward.
• Regardless, the agency at least acknowledges that a real burden exists and, if it is true that these burdens will expand because of the latest revisions to the rule, then competition and innovation could suffer
• We should want to foster an online ecosystem where small entrepreneurs can thrive and compete against giants like Disney and Viacom
• They can comply with these expanded regulatory compliance costs, but not everyone else can, esp. to the little guys
• Which means fewer options for both parents and kids
• Or, it could also mean that we start seeing prices go up where none currently exist.

Still not clear to me what the actual harm is here that we are trying to address, nor is it clear to me how these new rules really do much on the ground to make kids safer online.

• Parental notification is not the end of the online safety story.
• Indeed, when it comes to online safety, it is not what happens before kids get in the door that counts, it’s what happens after kids get inside that really matters.

The Constructive Alternative: Education, Self-Regulation, Codes of Conduct & Best Practices

• When sites create digital communities and invite kids in, I think we can all agree that we want them to be well-lit online neighborhoods where they can interact safely
• A major recent report on parental attitudes about COPPA revealed that what the vast majority of parents want—and this certainly includes me—is helpful tips and advice about what sort of sites and services are appropriate for their kids at a particular age.
• And parents also want some assurances that those online communities take some simple, common sensical steps to keep their digital worlds and applications safe.

• This is why the ongoing dialog about best practices for these sites is so important. Specifically, what is most needed are:
  • Smart ground rules for acceptable behavior;
  • Clear standards for what will not be tolerated; and,
  • Limitations on certain types of functionality and data collection.

• Ex: Everloop’s “3 Cs of Conduct”
  • “BE COOL: Everloop is a safe, fun place for everyone…so no swearing, cheating, bullying or general bad behavior allowed. If you do any of that, we might have to boot you from the loop.”
  • “BE CLEAN: Everloop is not about drugs, alcohol, sex, race or any inappropriate stuff like that. We will block offensive posts.”
  • “BE CONFIDENTIAL: Play safe on Everloop — don’t share your real name, address, phone number, email or passwords with anybody.”

• Ex: Club Penguin = limits functionality within a well-protected walled garden; with outstanding moderation

• But let’s be clear: Even with those sorts of sensible ground rules and best practices in place, a lot of kid-oriented sites and apps are still going collect some data and serve up some ads.

• I know many of you have heard me say it a million times before and are probably getting a little tired of it, but I am going to go ahead and say it again (and with passion): There really is no free lunch! Trade-offs are inescapable in these matters.

• Perhaps in a perfect world we’d have:
  • An infinite number of highly innovative sites
  • That never collected any data or served any ads
  • But yet were still free of charge to parents and kids

• But that is pure fantasy-land talk.

• Yet, what I fear most about the constant expansion of the COPPA regulatory regime is that some people get caught up in that sort of a fairytale and ask us to pretend that no such trade-offs exist.  In other words, some seem to believe that we can have something for nothing.

• Before we go further with more extensive Internet regulation, therefore, I hope we think hard about those trade-offs and about the more constructive steps we might take to encourage education, self-regulation, and best practices for sites that cater to kids and not get caught up in a technopanic about the supposed threat of kids seeing a few ads and having a little data collected about them.

• Because, in most cases, those fears are being greatly overblown while the wondrous benefits we currently enjoy thanks to advertising are being greatly discounted or ignored.

Over the weekend, Janet Morrissey of The New York Times posted an excellent article on the U.S. government’s continuing crackdown on Internet gambling. (“Poker Inc. to Uncle Sam: Shut Up and Deal“) Ironically, her article arrives on the same week during which PBS aired the terrific new Ken Burns and Lynn Novick documentary on the history of alcohol prohibition in the United States. It’s a highly-recommended look at the utter hypocrisy and futility of prohibiting a product that millions of people find enjoyable. If there’s a simple moral to the story of Prohibition, it’s that you can’t repress human nature–not for long, at least, and not without serious unintended consequences. Which is why Morrissey of the Times notes:

And so the poker world now finds itself in a situation many liken to Prohibition. America didn’t stop drinking when the government outlawed alcoholic beverages in 1919. And, in this Internet age, it won’t be easy to prevent people from gambling online, whatever the government says. “It’s a game of whack-a-mole,” says Behnam Dayanim, an expert on online gambling and a partner at the Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider law firm. “They’ve whacked three very large moles, but over time, more moles will pop up.”

Exactly right (except that it should be “whac” not “whack”! There’s no K in whac-a-mole.)  It reminds me of the paper that my blogging colleague Tom Bell penned back in 1999 for the Cato Institute with its perfect title: “Internet Gambling: Popular, Inexorable, and (Eventually) Legal.” As Tom noted back then:

Consumer demand and lost tax revenue will create enormous political pressure for legalization, which we should welcome if only for its beneficial policy impacts on network development and its consumer benefits. We should also welcome it for a more basic reason: as the Founders recognized, our rights to peaceably dispose of our property include the right to gamble, online or off.

Again, you can’t hold back human nature and the effort of millions to pursue happiness as they see fit. It was true of alcohol and it will be true of online gambling–eventually.

And although it represents the worst argument for legalization, Tom was right about the tax revenue benefits as a primary factor leading to legalization. As Morrissey notes in her Times piece:

Uncle Sam is leaving a lot of money on the table. Over 10 years, legal online gambling could generate $42 billion in tax revenue, according to the Congressional Committee on Taxation. An estimated 1.8 million Americans played online poker last year, and some make a living at it. Because of the legal issues in the United States, online card rooms typically base their computer servers elsewhere, in places like Costa Rica or, in the case of Full Tilt, in the Channel Islands.

It was the same story back during alcohol prohibition, of course. All the “money left on the table” was snatched up by foreign governments and organized crime, who were all too happy to satisfy the thirst Americans had. Some State governments have already realized this and are taking steps to partially legalize online gambling and get in on the action, as Morrissey reports:

Oddly enough, Internet gambling is already legal in the nation’s capital. Earlier this year, the District of Columbia became the first jurisdiction in the United States to legalize it. Officials there said they hoped the move would bring in $13 million to $14 million a year in tax revenue. But Washington may only be the start. Several bills now working their way through the House of Representatives would give online poker the run of the country.

Again, as Bell’s paper argued, it’s popular, inexorable, and it will eventually be fully legal. We just have to be patient while some lawmakers play through this latest silly experiment in legislating morality.

If you’re in DC this week, join Kevin Bankston from EFF, myself, fellow TLFers Berin Szoka, Geoff Manne, and Larry Downes, starting at 5:30pm at Johnny’s Half Shell, 400 North Capitol St NW. This event is being co-hosted by TLF and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Please RSVP on Facebook so we have an idea how many people are attending. Attendees must be 21 or older. Space is limited.

And ALF 15 is already in the works. We’re planning to do it in conjunction with Digital Capital Week on November 8th. Stay tuned for more details!

[The following essay is a guest post from Dan Rothschild, Managing Director of the State and Local Policy Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.]

As cell phone ownership has tripled in the United States over the last decade, policymakers have increasingly seen mobile devices as a cash cow. In some states, consumers now pay as much as a quarter of their cell phone bills in taxes. And while state revenues are beginning to tick back up from their low point during the recession, Medicaid costs are fast on their tails. So it’s likely that over the coming years, states will be looking to find taxes to hike or new taxes to create — all without calling them tax hikes, of course.

Policy makers may be tempted to hike taxes on cell phones, or to create (or “equalize”) taxes on untaxed (or “under taxed”) parts of wireless telephony, such as cell phone data plans or e-readers with cellular connections. As I argue in a recent issue of Mercatus on Policy, this is a bad idea for a number of reasons.

First, it’s bad economics. Having special taxes on cell phone violates the well-established principle of tax neutrality, which holds that taxes should treat all economic activities similarly. The purpose of taxes is to raise funds for necessary government services; when taxes treat different activities unequally, it distorts consumer behavior. Empirical evidence suggests that, at the margin, consumer spending on wireless service is elastic. This makes it a particularly poor choice for excise taxation.

There are two economic justifications for a tax that singles out a particular good or service for a higher tax: if it’s something that policymakers deem “sinful” (a so-called “sin tax”), or if it causes negative externalities that the tax corrects (a Pigouvian tax). In both of these cases, policymakers enact these taxes explicitly to discourage the use of the object of the tax; think cigarettes and alcohol. Neither of these rationales apply to cell phones, and (hopefully) no policymaker believes it’s a worthy policy to reduce consumer access to this technology. Nobody seriously argues that cell phones are sinful, nor that cell phones create net negative externalities.

Second, it runs counter to a number of other policy goals. On the national level, politicians are tripping over themselves to extoll the virtues of broadband internet access and its almost magical effects on everything from health outcomes to urban entrepreneurship. But taxing wireless service, which is frequently bundled with wireless broadband, runs counter to that goal (as would any attempts to “equalize” taxes between the voice and data sections of a bill by applying voice tariffs to data services). Similarly, the FCC’s universal service fund is meant to, inter alia, support telephone access in low-income and rural households. The most efficient way to increase take-up of telephony in these households is to lower the price rather than relying on notoriously inefficient subsidies.

Third, it’s a regressive tax. In all likelihood, cell phones are taxed at a higher rate because not so long ago they were seen as toys of the wealthy. This is obviously no longer the case. The marginal consumers today are largely lower-income, and high taxes keep them from adopting technologies.

On the federal level, the Wireless Tax Fairness Act would prohibit states and localities from “imposing a new discriminatory tax on cell phone services, providers, or property.” This is probably a step in the right direction, though it still leaves (from my reading) loopholes for states. For instance, states could argue that they are not imposing a new tax if they applied the same taxes on wireless voice products to wireless data products. This could allow them to easily slap monthly fees on Kindles, iPads, and other devices that use cellular networks. In many ways, this would be more pernicious than raising taxes on voice products.

The bottom line is that taxes on cell phones are inefficient, inequitable, and run counter to other public policies. They likely cost more in lost consumer welfare than they collect in revenues. There’s no reason for them, and states looking to improve their tax structure could do well by eliminating them altogether.

Read the whole thing here.

If you’re in for the State of the Net conference this week (or happen to live here), join us for a happy hour among tech policy peeps Tuesday afternoon at 6pm at Johnny’s Half Shell (400 N Capitol St).

We’ll also toast the launch of TechFreedom, the new digital policy think tank we’re launching Wednesday with a half-day symposium for TechFreedom’s first publication: The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet.

RSVP on Facebook here! (We need an accurate headcount.)

If you happen to be in Vegas today (Thursday, 1/6) for the Consumer Electronics Show (or gambling or… whatever else floats your boat), join myself and fellow TLFers Larry Downes and Wayne Crews for an impromptu “Alcohol Liberation Front” happy hour starting about 5pm at Parasol Up bar at the Wynn Hotel (3131 Las Vegas Blvd).

If you’re walking over from the Convention Center (where I’ll be till 4 for the Tech Policy Summit), it’s just 1.1 miles along the strip (directions). I’ll tweet (@BerinSzoka) exactly where we wind up in the bar, or you can ask for the TLF gang at the door or email me (bszoka techfreedom org).

TPS ends at 4pm and there are other event starting at 6, so I figure we’ll just wind up there in the 5-6/6:30 range.

RSVP on Facebook & see who’s coming!

Since joining the ranks of the unemployed, a number of folks have sent kind notes wishing me well and asking what’s next for me.  Well, now that I finally have the time to pursue my lifelong dream, I’m pleased to announce my new venture: The Sin Think Tank.  The mission of the Sin Think Tank will be to promote prurient interests, gun play, gambling, unhealthy eating, and alcohol and tobacco appreciation.  Some of our positions or programs will include:

• The Bob Guccione Fellow in Cultural Studies
• The Joe Camel Chair in Environmental Analysis
• The Smith & Wesson Institute for Peace
• The Jack Daniels Center for Spirited Discussion
• The Center for Gambling Promotion
• The Dunkin Donuts Nutrition & Nourishment Initiative (aka, the “Feed the World” initiative)
• The Hunter S. Thompson Foundation for Free Living & High Times

Our official headquarters — a unique edifice constructed entirely from stacks of Benjamins stuck together with trans fats and extra-sugary kids’ gum — will eventually be located in Las Vegas, Nevada, of course.  Job benefits are excellent, especially our Mixed Martial Arts day care center for the kiddies.

Resumes are welcome but personal interviews are preferred and will take place at Gilbert’s Indoor Gun Range or at The Brickskeller while applicants are expected to sample 2% of every beer in stock during one sitting.

I welcome ideas for other positions and centers.  [The Sin Think Tank is an Equal Opportunity Offender Employer.]

As I mentioned earlier, I’m attending the pii2010 conference (privacy, identity & innovation) this week in Seattle (18-19)! If you’re at the conference or in the area, I hope you’ll join me and my fellow TLFers Larry Downes and Carl Gipson for an “Alcohol Liberation Front” happy hour (cash bar) after the conference ends tomorrow, Wednesday the 18th at Kells Irish Pub at 1916 Post Alley–just a short walk from the Bell Harbor International Conference Center, where the conference will take place (Google maps walking directions). The conference reception wraps up at 7:30, so we’ll mosey on over to Kells by 7:45 for drinks and food.

Just look for the TLF sticker when you get there (or the conference badges)! Carl, Larry and I should all be there. Please RSVP on Facebook if you’re coming!

If you’re as fascinated as I am by the interplay of privacy, identity and innovation, I hope to see you at the pii2010 conference in Seattle, August 17-19! Organized by the folks who’ve put on the top-notch Tech Policy Summit since 2003, and co-sponsored by The Progress & Freedom Foundation (among others), this event offers a truly unique perspective on privacy—not just another policy food fight, but a true roll-up-our-sleeves, in-depth seminar on what to do about privacy, especially through technological innovation.

I’ll be on the “pii & Digital Advertising: Navigating the Regulatory Landscape” panel on the 18th at 10am, giving my usual talk about the need to be careful about the trade-offs inherent in privacy regulation. Check out the detailed agenda here.

TLFers Larry Downes and Carl Gipson will also be attending, so we’re planning a long-overdue “Alcohol Liberation Front” happy hour after the conference on August 18—details to be announced soon.

Check out the discussion around the #pii2010 hashtag on Twitter. And register today! Mid-August is supposed to be paradise in Seattle, and the week of the conference also happens to be Seattle GeekWeek, so there are a bunch of other events worth checking out in town before and after the pii2010 conference.

David Leonhardt of The New York Times penned an interesting essay a few days ago entitled, “Do Video Games Equal Less Crime?” reflecting upon the same FBI crime data I wrote about earlier this week, which showed rapid drops in violent crime last year (on top of years of steady declines).  Crimes of all sorts plummeted last year despite the serious economic recession we find ourselves in.  Downturns in the economy are typically followed by upticks in crime. Not so this time.  Which leads Leonhardt to wonder if perhaps exposure to violent media (especially violent video games) could have played a positive role in tempering criminal activity in some fashion:

Video games can not only provide hours of entertainment. They can also give people — especially young men, who play more than their fair share of video games and commit more than their fair share of crimes — an outlet for frustration that doesn’t involve actual violence. Video games obviously have many unfortunate side effects. They can promote obsessive, antisocial behavior and can make violent situations seem ordinary. But might video games also have an upside? I’m willing to consider the idea.

Go Back to the Greeks

What Leonhardt is suggesting here goes by the name “cathartic effect hypothesis” and debates have raged over it for centuries.  Seriously, the fight goes all the way back to the great Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. And, as with everything else, Aristotle had it right! Well, at least in my opinion he did, but I am a rabid Aristotealian.  While Plato thought the media of his day (poetry, plays & music) had a deleterious impact on culture and humanity, Aristotle took a very different view. Indeed, most historians believe it was Aristotle who first used the term katharsis when discussing the importance of Greek tragedies, which often contained violent overtones and action. He suggested that these tragedies helped the audience, “through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions.” (See Part IV of Aristotle’s Poetics,) Aristotle spoke highly of tragedies that used provocative or titillating storytelling to its fullest effect:

Tragedy is an imitation not only of a complete action, but of events inspiring fear or pity. Such an effect is best produced when the events come on us by surprise; and the effect is heightened when, at the same time, they follow as cause and effect. The tragic wonder will then be greater than if they happened of themselves or by accident; for even coincidences are most striking when they have an air of design. We may instance the statue of Mitys at Argos, which fell upon his murderer while he was a spectator at a festival, and killed him. Such events seem not to be due to mere chance. Plots, therefore, constructed on these principles are necessarily the best.

Of “Tragic Wonder” & Balanced Passions

Again, what Aristotle believed was important about such tales was precisely that they help give rise to a heightened sense of “tragic wonder” that helped us purge away or balance out similar passions brewing in the human psyche. [For a broader discussion of the catharsis debate from Plato and Aristotle on down to the modern “media effects” psychologists and social scientists, see Marjorie Heins’s brilliant 2001 book, Not in Front of the Children: ‘Indecency,’ Censorship and the Innocence of Youth, p. 228-253.]

One might just as easily apply this thinking to many of the most popular video games children play today, including those with violent overtones. That’s exactly what Gerald Jones does in his book Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, and Make-Believe Violence:

One of the functions of stories and games is to help children rehearse for what they’ll be in later life. Anthropologists and psychologists who study play, however, have shown that there are many other functions as well—one of which is to enable children to pretend to be just what they know they’ll never be. Exploring, in a safe and controlled context, what is impossible or too dangerous or forbidden to them is a crucial tool in accepting the limits of reality. Playing with rage is a valuable way to reduce its power. Being evil and destructive in imagination is a vital compensation for the wildness we all have to surrender on our way to being good people.

Judge Richard Posner used similar logic when penning the 7th Circuit’s 2001 decision in American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, which struck down an Indianapolis ordinance prohibiting anyone who operated more than five arcade games on their premises from allowing an unaccompanied minor to play games that would be considered “harmful to minors.” In the Kendrick decision, Posner noted that “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it.”

Don’t Be the Boy in the (Intellectual) Bubble

Posner’s opinion for the court was a blistering tour-de-force that included a review of violence in literature throughout history. “Self-defense, protection of others, dread of the ‘undead,’ fighting against overwhelming odds—these are all age-old themes of literature, and ones particularly appealing to the young,” he noted. “To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it,” he argued. “People are unlikely to become well-functioning, independent-minded adults and responsible citizens if they are raised in an intellectual bubble.” This is a different sort of construction of cathartic effect hypothesis. In essence, Posner is explaining how exposure to violently-themed media helps to gradually assimilate us into the realities of the world around us.

Such thinking will undoubtedly remain controversial—perhaps even outlandish—to some. But the history of art and entertainment has always been filled with its share of controversies in terms of its impact on culture and society. Indeed, one generation’s trash often becomes a subsequent generation’s treasure. Sculptures, paintings and works of literature widely condemned in one period were often praised—even consider mainstream—in the next.  As The Economist magazine editorialized in the summer of 2005: “Novels were once considered too low-brow for university literature courses, but eventually the disapproving professors retired. Waltz music and dancing were condemned in the 19^th century; all that was thought to be ‘intoxicating’ and ‘depraved’, and the music was outlawed in some places. Today it is hard to imagine what the fuss was about. And rock and roll was thought to encourage violence, promiscuity and Satanism; but today even grannies listen buy Coldplay albums.” I’ve written more about such “moral panics” here in the past.

Humans Adapt

Here is the important point: somehow we get through it. We learn to assimilate culture into our lives that previous generations feared or loathed. As the late University of North Carolina journalism professor Margaret A. Blanchard once noted: “[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.” And Thomas Hine, author of The Rise and Fall of the American Teenager, argues that: “We seem to have moved, without skipping a beat, from blaming our parents for the ills of society to blaming our children. We want them to embody virtues we only rarely practice. We want them to eschew habits we’ve never managed to break.”

If you subscribe to the cathartic effect school of thinking, however, you typically do no fear social or technological change as much because you realize that human adapt. We learn to cope with cultural or technological changes, and in many cases we are actually made better off as a species because of those changes.

Can It Be Proven One Way or the Other?

But is there any hard evidence to prove or disprove the cathartic effect hypothesis? The problem is, as I have noted here before repeatedly, we must never forget the first iron law of statistical analysis: Correlation does not necessarily equal causation. Whether we are talking about those artificial lab experiments or the real-world data sets, we cannot lose sight of the fact that just because B follows A it does not mean A caused B. That is particularly the case when it comes to human behavior, which is complex and ever-changing.

That being said, I’ve also suggested that, at some point, a consistent trend in real-world crime data must suggest that at least the opposite is not the case. Thus, when it comes to the supposed relationship between violent media and real-world violence, I have to believe that if there was anything to the thesis that a correlation exists, we would have to see it manifest itself at some point in crime statistics. But we have now experienced roughly 15 years of steady drops in all categories of criminal activity, especially juvenile violence, while at the same time witnessing a fairly steady increase in exposure to video games and violently-theme media in general.

Incidentally, Leonhardt’s New York Times article cites a recent study by Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna that appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in May 2009 entitled, “Does Movie Violence Increase Violent Crime?” which tried to use some hard data to evaluate the cathartic effect hypothesis. Dahl and DellaVigna found that:

exposure to violent movies has three main effects on violent crime: (i) it significantly reduces violent crime in the evening on the day of exposure; (ii) by an even larger percent, it reduces violent crime during the night hours following exposure; (iii) it has no significant impact in the days and weeks following the exposure. We interpret the first finding as voluntary incapacitation: potential criminals that choose to attend the movie theater forego other activities that have higher crime rates. As simple as this finding is, it has been neglected in the literature, despite its quantitative importance. We interpret the second finding as substitution away from a night of more volatile activities, in particular, a reduction in alcohol consumption. The third finding implies that the same-day impact on crime is not offset by intertemporal substitution of crime. An important component of these interpretations is the sorting of more violent individuals into violent movie attendance. These findings appear to contradict evidence from laboratory experiments that document an increase in violent  behavior following exposure to movie violence.

Of course, it’s just one study, so I’m not ready to rest my entire case upon it (or even dozens of other studies like it).  But I do think they’re on to something.

NPR notes that we’re approaching a major milestone in the history of man’s relationship with machines:

Nearly 200 years ago, workers in England took up arms against technology. Weavers protested the advent of mechanized looms with violence. Named for weaver Ned Lud, the Luddites feared machines would make hand weaving extinct. The people of Huddersfield are rising up again, but this time to commemorate the city’s 19th century weavers.

According to this history of the Luddite movement, the 199th anniversary of the movement’s beginnings passed just last week:

The first incident during the years of the most intense Luddite activity, 1811-13, was the 11 March 1811 attack upon wide knitting frames in a shop in the Nottinghamshire village of Arnold, following a peaceful gathering of framework knitters near the Exchange Hall at Nottingham. In the preceding month, framework knitters, also called stockingers, had broken into shops and removed jack wires from wide knitting frames, rendering them useless without inflicting great violence upon the owners or incurring risk to the stockingers themselves; the 11 March attack was the first in which frames were actually smashed and the name “Ludd” was used. The grievances consisted, first, of the use of wide stocking frames to produce large amounts of cheap, shoddy stocking material that was cut and sewn into stockings rather than completely fashioned (knit in one piece without seams) and, second, of the employment of “colts,” workers who had not completed the seven-year apprenticeship required by law.

In other words, a bunch of hooligans—the ancestors of today’s stereotypically rude, drunk and violent English soccer fans, no doubt—started smashing machines because—horror of horrors!—the machines were producing less expensive textiles and could be operated by cheaper, less-skilled workers outside the hooligans’ guild. That, in essence, is the history of technology and its discontents: Innovation produces gains in productivity that raise the overall standard of living by bringing down prices for consumers, but workers in outmoded industries try to obstruct progress because it renders their unproductive jobs obsolete. Tim Lee noted this back in 2006 regarding the supposed need for tech workers to unionize.

Frederic Bastiat, the great French economist, put it best in his satirical 1845 “PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.” Bastiat anticipated the arguments against “Free!” by proposing that the legislature ban unfair competition from that pioneer of unfair competition, which “dumps” its product on the market for nothing, ruining hard-working producers of lighting products… yup, you guessed it: the Sun!

A new front in the fight between techno-optimists and Luddites has opened in the debate over the Internet. Check out Adam’s great essay: Are You An Internet Optimist or Pessimist? The Great Debate over Technology’s Impact on Society.

On Friday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a new Notice of Inquiry entitled, “Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape” (MB Docket No. 09-194).  The purpose of this investigation is to:

seek information on the extent to which children are using electronic media today, the benefits and risks these technologies bring for children, and the ways in which parents, teachers, and children can help reap the benefits while minimizing the risks. (p. 2)… Our goal with this NOI is to gather data and recommend-ations from experts, industry, and parents that will enable us to identify actions that all stakeholders can take to enable parents and children to navigate this promising electronic media landscape safely and successfully. (p. 3)

This Notice builds on the FCC’s August 31st Report to Congress (“Implementation of the Child Safe Viewing Act; Examination of Parental Control Technologies for Video or Audio Programming”) that was required pursuant to the “Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007,” which Congress passed last year and President Bush signed last December. The goal of that bill and the FCC’s proceeding (MB Docket No. 09-26) was to study “advanced blocking technologies” that “may be appropriate across a wide variety of distribution platforms, including wired, wireless, and Internet platforms.” [I filed 150+ pages worth of comments in that proceeding, and here’s my analysis of why the bill and the FCC’s proceedings are worth monitoring. In previous posts here, I also listed all the major filings and reply comments that were submitted to the FCC in the matter.]

While the FCC’s new Notice outlines several positive impacts that media use may have for children, it then goes on to itemize a variety of concerns about media exposure:

While we recognize that electronic media technologies offer these potential benefits to children, we also explore the risks of harm that media use presents. As discussed below, these risks include (i) exposure to exploitative advertising; (ii) exposure to inappropriate content (such as offensive language, sexual content, violence, or hate speech); (iii) impact on health (for example, childhood obesity, tobacco use, sexual behavior, or drug and alcohol use); (iv) impact on behavior (in particular, exposure to violence leading to aggressive behavior); (v) harassment and bullying; (vi) sexual predation; (vii) fraud and scams; (viii) failure to distinguish between who can and who cannot be trusted when sharing information; and (ix) compromised privacy. We seek comment on these risks, whether parents, teachers, and children are aware of them, and what can be done to protect children from them.

It’s not really clear to me where the FCC finds the jurisdictional authority to investigate some of these things (hate speech? bullying?), but let’s not worry about that here. The question a lot of folks — especially those with strong First Amendment leanings — will be asking is: Where is the FCC heading with this in terms of new speech controls or content regulation?

In my earlier work on the “Child Safe Viewing Act,” I worried that the bill and resulting FCC investigation might be the beginning of “convergence-era content regulation.” I was pleasantly surprised, however, with the FCC’s final Report to Congress about the Child Safe Viewing Act, which did a very nice job highlighting the amazing diversity of parental control tools and methods on the market today.  That being said, the proceeding noted that “no single parental control technology available today works across all media platforms” and might have left the impression in minds of some critics that it was somehow possible to create a “universal” parental control or rating mechanism to deal with content across platforms.

Not only is it highly unlikely that such a silver-bullet solution is possible, but it’s unclear that it is even desirable.  I spent some time addressing this issue in my big filing to the FCC earlier this year.  If you jump to pg. 98 of my filing, you will find a section on “The Perils of Mandatory Controls, Restrictive Defaults or ‘Universal’ Ratings.” In it I argue:

the search for technological silver?bullet solutions and “universal” ratings or controls represents a quixotic, Holy Grail?like quest. Simply stated, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. There are no simple solutions or quick fixes to concerns about objectionable media content or online child safety. Only a “layered” approach—involving many tools, methods, and strategies—can get the job done right. And technological blocking controls are probably the least important part of that mix. Education and mentoring are far more important. Moreover…  any move to force “universal,” top?down solutions could destroy future innovation in this space. [There are] unforeseen downsides to mandating controls and defaults as well as efforts to create universal rating or labeling schemes.

Again, to be clear, the FCC’s final report to Congress did not recommend any such thing, and the agency is to be commended for that.  But, at the end of the Child Safe Viewing Act report to Congress, the agency also noted that another Notice of Inquiry would dig a little deeper into possible solutions, and now here it is.  But it still remains unclear where the FCC might take this in terms of concrete steps. I was pleased to see a strong focus on the importance of education and media literacy in the agency’s latest notice, so that’s very good news. But there’s also plenty of hand-wringing about the supposed negative impacts of media throughout the report, which leads one to believe that the agency isn’t going to just settle for education-based solutions.

Importantly, there’s also a lot of talk about the supposed dangers of advertising to children in the new Notice:

Exposure to excessive and exploitative advertisements is a significant risk children face from electronic media. Advertisements of particular concern for children include: (i) those that promote products specifically to children; (ii) those that promote unhealthy food, thereby contributing to childhood obesity, and (iii) those that contain inappropriate content, such as offensive language, sexual content, and

This is actually one area where the FCC does have a little jurisdictional authority under the Children’s Television Act of 1990. But I don’t see how the agency can read that statute, which was intended for broadcast television, too broadly.  Regardless, if I had to bet on one thing we are certain to see come out of this proceeding, I’d say some expanded advertising restrictions are in the works.  But, again, the agency’s limited jurisdiction makes it hard for me to understand where they plan to go with this or how it would pass muster in the courts once challenged.

Anyway, stay tuned. Comments in the matter are due to the FCC by late December.  Meanwhile, one wonders how long it will be before Sen. Rockefeller and others up on Capitol Hill start to engage more on content-related issues.  They’ve been fairly silent so far this year.  In light of Sen. Rockefeller’s past efforts on this front, it seems likely he’ll eventually engage in this debate — and likely in a very pro-regulatory fashion.

Please join us tonight for a very special Alcohol Liberation Front happy hour at Rocket Bar, 714 7th ST (7th & G) right across from the Chinatown/Verizon Center metro (Red/Green/Yellow) in D.C., 6:30-8:30ish.

Please join us as we celebrate, commiserate and plan for the next five years of fighting the good cyber-libertarian fight. We’ll even through in a free TLF laptop sticker! Just RSVP on Facebook!

Just a reminder, we’re meeting at the Science Club on Tuesday, July 14 for one of our semi-regular happy hours: 1136 19th St NW, Washington DC from 5:30-8 pm. The club will be offering happy hour drink specials.

We’ll celebrate the Digital Revolution (while also denouncing the scourge of centralizing, totalitarian Digital Jacobinism).  All those interested in technology, the freedom of technology and technologies of freedom are welcome.

RSVP on Facebook today!

Come join us for one of our semi-regular happy hours as we celebrate the Digital Revolution (while also denouncing the scourge of centralizing, totalitarian Digital Jacobinism).

All those interested in technology, the freedom of technology and technologies of freedom are welcome.  We’ll be at the Science Club at 1136 19th St NW, Washington DC from 5:30-8 pm.

RSVP on Facebook today!

If you’re from New Jersey and you like to drink wine — or just feel strongly that government shouldn’t be protecting alcohol distributors at the expense of competition and consumers — go to the UncorkNJ website and send a letter to your local representative in the General Assembly. New Jerseyans are barred from buying wine over the Web, and having it shipped to their home. The time to disintermediate is now!

I’m delighted to welcome to the TLF my colleague Adam Marcus, Research Fellow & Senior Technologist at The Progress & Freedom Foundation.  Adam’s already written a few posts here on the TLF about edge caching and cloud computing—cross-posted over the last few months by Adam Thierer and me.  He also appeared on TechPolicy Weekly 38 to discuss  “The Google Kerfuffle — Edge Caching & Net Neutrality.”

Adam (a/k/a “Marcus”) brings an exceptional technological sophistication to bear on policy issues.  He’s already been a real asset to our work at PFF as a sort of “technical ombudsman,” helping us delve into the nitty-gritty details behind the debates.  I hope he’ll play somewhat the same role here on the TLF:  keeping us honest and checking our facts.  

But he’s not just another geek:  With a J.D. from Santa Clara University and an MA in Communications, Culture & Technology from Georgetown University, Adam has lots to say about the legal and policy issues covered by the TLF.

I hope you all enjoy getting to know him—whether through the blog or in person at our semi-regular Alcohol Liberation Fronts—as much as I have.

The Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF), which was formed a year ago to study online safety concerns and technologies, today issued its final report to the U.S. Attorneys General who authorized its creation. It was a great honor for me to serve as a member of the ISTTF and I believe this Task Force and its report represent a major step forward in the discussion about online child safety in this country.

The ISTTF was very ably chaired by John Palfrey, co-director of Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and I just want to express my profound thanks here to John and his team at Harvard for doing a great job herding cats and overseeing a very challenging process. I encourage everyone to examine the full ISTTF report and all the submissions, presentations, and academic literature that we collected. [It’s all here.] It was a comprehensive undertaking that left no stone unturned.

Importantly, the ISTTF convened (1) a Research Advisory Board (RAB),which brought together some of the best and brightest academic researchers in the field of child safety and child development and (2) a Technical Advisory Board (TAB), which included some of America’s leading technologists, who reviewed child safety technologies submitted to the ISTTF. I strongly recommend you closely examine the RAB literature review and TAB assessment of technologies because those reports provide very detailed assessments of the issues. They both represent amazing achievements in their respective arenas.

There are a couple of key takeaways from the ISTTF’s research and final 278-page report that I want to highlight here. Most importantly, like past blue-ribbon commissions that have studied this issue, the ISTTF has generally concluded there is no silver-bullet technical solution to online child safety concerns. The better way forward is a “layered approach” to online child protection. Here’s how we put it on page 6 of the final report:

The Task Force remains optimistic about the development of technologies to enhance protections for minors online and to support institutions and individuals involved in protecting minors, but cautions against overreliance on technology in isolation or on a single technological approach. Technology can play a helpful role, but there is no one technological solution or specific combination of technological solutions to the problem of online safety for minors. Instead, a combination of technologies, in concert with parental oversight, education, social services, law enforcement, and sound policies by social network sites and service providers may assist in addressing specific problems that minors face online. All stakeholders must continue to work in a cooperative and collaborative manner, sharing information and ideas to achieve the common goal of making the Internet as safe as possible for minors.

In sum, education and empowerment are the real keys to keeping kids safer online. We all need to work harder to mentor our children and help them develop the skills and good old fashion common sense to make smart decisions online. Technical tools can supplement — but can never supplant — education, parental guidance, and better mentoring.

Still, this was a task force that primarily came about after state attorneys general (AGs) had been incessantly pressuring social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook to adopt age verification technologies as a solution to online child safety concerns. Specifically, fears about online predators — driven largely by the moral panic whipped up by shows like NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” — prompted calls for mandatory age verification for social networking sites.

So, what did the final ISTTF report have to say about mandatory age verification. Answer: Probably not as much as the AGs were hoping for, and what we did say they may not like to hear.

First, the ISTTF’s Research Advisory Board conclusively proved the primary online safety issue today is peer-on-peer cyber-harassment, not adult predation. Mandatory age verification would do nothing to stop cyberbullying. Indeed, the lack of adult supervision may even exacerbate the problem.

Second, after reviewing various age verification solutions, the ISTTF’s Technical Advisory Board concluded:

Age verification and identity authentication technologies are appealing in concept but challenged in terms of effectiveness. Any system that relies on remote verification of information has potential for inaccuracies. For example, on the user side, it is never certain that the person attempting to verify an identity is using their own actual identity or someone else’s. Any system that relies on public records has a better likelihood of accurately verifying an adult than a minor due to extant records. Any system that focuses on third-party in-person verification would require significant political backing and social acceptance. Additionally, any central repository of this type of personal information would raise significant privacy concerns and security issues.

As a result, our final report concluded that:

The Task Force does not believe that the Attorneys General should endorse any one technology or set of technologies to protect minors online. Instead, the Attorneys General should continue to work collaboratively with all stakeholders in pursuing a multifaceted approach to enhance safety for minors online.

Then, on pages 28-31, we go into more detail about age verification, finding that:

[Age verification] approaches are less effective in the child safety context — in other words, at creating safe environments for minors — than in the context of completing financial transactions or regulating purchases, especially to the extent that identity authentication and age verification focus solely upon adults. The reasons for this include the fact that in the commercial and financial contexts, an adult typically wants to verify his or her identity correctly in order to purchase a product or get access to records. Moreover, when adults purchase regulated items (such as alcohol or tobacco) online, in some cases a second form of age verification occurs when the item is delivered.

The identity authentication and age verification solutions that authenticate or verify only adults could be and are already sometimes used to reduce minors’ access to adult-only sites. Because they do not authenticate or verify minors, however, they cannot be used to create environments for minors that require authentication or verification prior to access. To the extent that an adult nonetheless uses his or her own verifiable information when accessing an environment intended only for minors, these technologies could enhance the ability of Internet service providers and social network sites to exclude that adult. Of course, it seems unlikely that an adult with nefarious purposes would proceed in this manner. Thus, while these types of identity authentication and age verification technologies may be helpful for other purposes, they do not appear to offer substantial help in protecting minors from sexual solicitation.

And there’s far more detail following this passage from the final report, so please read that section for additional discussion.

Again, some AGs may not like to hear all this but these were near-consensus findings of the Task Force. And, if anything, the Task Force probably did not far enough to show why mandatory age verification will not work and how age verification will actually make kids less safe online. In my final statement to the Task Force, this is what I spent my time focusing on. I outlined the dangers of age verification as well as 10 questions about age verification that the AGs must answer if they persist in this pursuit of a technological Holy Grail. I have embedded my entire expanded final statement down below as a Scribd document, but here are the key reasons I believe mandatory age verification represents a dangerous solution to online child safety concerns:

Again, although the Task Force didn’t go quite as far as I would have liked in terms of making clear the dangers associated with mandatory age verification, I think our final report reflects the general skepticism among Task Force members about taking that path or relying too heavily on any single, silver-bullet technical approach to online child safety concerns. Again, this is real progress; a sensible step forward in the discussion about keeping our kids safe online.

I hope policymakers will take a close look at our conclusions and recommendations and take them seriously. We need to stop wasting so much time searching for silver bullets and start getting more serious about how to better mentor our kids so that they can be good — and safe — digital citizens. Education, not regulation, is the key.

Below I have linked to some background essays about the Internet Safety Technical Task Force as well as additional thoughts by fellow task force members or reporters. I’ll add to it as I see new things in coming days.

Additional thoughts / articles about the ISTTF:

• ISTTF director John Palfrey discusses the report on this short podcast with Larry Magid as well as this longer one from the Berkman Center
• ISTTF co-director danah boyd comments on the report on her blog
• ISTTF member Larry Magid of ConnectSafely.org: “Net Threat to Minors Less Than Feared,” CNet News.com
• ISTTF member Anne Collier of Net Family News: “Key Crossroads for Net Safety“
• ISTTF member Stephen Balkam of FOSI featured on an NPR podcast about our work
• ISTTF member John Morris of CDT: “Deconstructing Reaction to Net Safety Task Force Report“
• ISTTF member Marsali Hancock, President of iKeepSafe blog essay about the task force
• AGs respond to report in interview with Emily Steel of the Wall Street Journal: “The Case for Age Verification“
• New York Times article by Brad Stone: “Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown“
• Wall Street Journal article by Emily Steel: “No Easy Answer for Protecting Kids Online“
• Associated Press story by Anick Jesdanun: “Panel: Technology Alone Can’t Protect Kids Online“
• Chronicle of Higher Education Wired Campus blog entry by Tracy Mitrano, “Report Weighs the Benefits and Risks of Social Networks,”
• PC World article by Jaikumar Vijayan: “Study Accused of Exaggerating Kids Online Safety“
• PC World blog post by Jaikumar Vijayan: “Are Internet Child Safety Concerns Overblown or Understated?”

Background info:

• an old blog entry of mine about the formation of the task force
• an old paper of mine about the agreement between MySpace and AGs that led to the formation of the ISTTF
• an essay of mine from the ISTTF’s mid-point: “Age Verification Debate Continues; Schools Now at Center of Discussion“
• my big white paper on the dangers of mandatory age verification
• my book: “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods”
• my final ISTTF statement, which is also embedded below as a Scribd document…

WASHINGTON – November 4 /TLF News Service/ — The recently announced Alcohol Liberation Front event, Thursday, November 6 from 5:30pm on at Gazuza (1629 Connecticut Ave NW), has already roiled the social media world, but organizers pledge to carry on despite the ALF 7 controversies.

“I ain’t a quitter. People ask me to quit. ‘Stop Tweeting – it’s hurting my eyes,’ they say,” said someone other than Brooke Oberwetter, ALF 7 organizer. “But I ain’t a quitter. I’m keepin’ on keepin’ on. ‘Keepin’ on keepin’ on’? Did I just invent that! Better Tweet it!”

Trading on shares of privately-held Facebook remained suspended on the major markets today after it was revealed that the platform doesn’t permit the names of events to be changed. A typo rendering ALF 7 as ALF 6 on the Facebook event page threatens to bring down the social networking giant.

“Facebook won’t let me change the event name,” roared an enraged Berin Szoka on the Facebook page announcing the event. “I pledge to do everything in my power to destroy Facebook,” he didn’t say.

Meanwhile, one pageview of the Facebook event page displayed an ad that caught TLFer Jim Harper as an outrageous effront to the law of trademark. The image at right, displayed exclusively here on TLF and anywhere someone deems it appropriate, shows a screenshot of an ad that may violate Apple’s rights in the iPod trademark.

“It’s not outrageous. Don’t say that. I just think that calling a shaver the ‘iPod of shaving’ has the potential to cause consumer confusion as to the source of the shaver by suggesting that it’s an Apple product. There are so many mistaken allegations about trademark law – this could be a real trademark violation, and it’s worth pointing out.”

Asked if he would be an expert witness in any case brought by Apple, Harper replied, “You’re not funny, you know. You’re writing this yourself, by yourself, and not interviewing anybody. Oh yeah. You’re being ‘meta’ or something. Whatever. How stupid.”

“Sourpuss” Harper will be one of the attendees at the Alcohol Liberation Front event, Thursday, November 6 from 5:30pm on at Gazuza (1629 Connecticut Ave NW).

As Adam noted last week, he’ll be debating Jonathan Zittrain, author of The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It, at the New America Foundation this Thursday afternoon at 3:30.  Since it seems like a number of TLF readers and contributors will be attending, we’ve decided to piggyback off the event and continue the discussion afterwards with Alcohol Liberation Front 6.  After the NAF panel is over, we’ll be headed to Gazuza (1629 Connecticut Ave, NW), probably arriving shortly after 5:30 or so.  JZ, Adam, and some of the TLF gang will be joining us, and we hope you will too.

WHAT: Alcohol Liberation Front 7 WHEN: Thursday, November 6 from 5:30pm on WHERE: Gazuza (1629 Connecticut Ave NW) WHO: Adam Thierer, Jonathan Zittrain, TLFers, and you!  See who else is coming at our Facebook event page.

(Special thanks to one-time TLF contributor and libertarian folk hero Brooke Oberwetter for organizing this event.)

And so the series continues.  The Washington Post reports that the Department of Justice has just released “a scathing report” finding that over a 5-year period the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “lost dozens of weapons and hundreds of laptops that contained sensitive information.” The DOJ’s Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found that 418 laptop computers and 76 weapons were lost. According to the report:

Yesterday’s report showed that ATF, a much smaller agency than the FBI, had lost proportionately many more firearms and laptops. “It is especially troubling that that ATF’s rate of loss for weapons was nearly double that of the FBI and [Drug Enforcement Administration], and that ATF did not even know whether most of its lost, stolen, or missing laptop computers contained sensitive or classified information,” Fine wrote.  […] Many of the missing laptops contained sensitive or classified material, according to the report. ATF began installing encryption software only in May 2007. ATF did not know what information was on 398 of the 418 lost or stolen laptops. The report called the lack of such knowledge a “significant deficiency.” Of the 20 missing laptops for which information was available, ATF indicated that seven — 35 percent — held sensitive information. One missing laptop, for example, held “300-500 names with dates of birth and Social Security numbers of targets of criminal investigations, including their bank records with financial transactions.” Another held “employee evaluations, including Social Security numbers and other [personal information].” Neither laptop was encrypted.

The findings regarding lost weapons were equally troubling, if not a bit humorous:

Two weapons were subsequently used to commit crimes. In one incident, a gun stolen from the home of a special agent was fired through the window of another home. Ten firearms were “left in a public place.” One of them was left on an airplane, three in bathrooms, one in a shopping cart and two on the top of cars as ATF employees drove away. A laptop also fell off the top of a car as an agent drove off. Another weapon “fell into the water while an agent was fishing,” according to the report.

Now I know the private sector actors lose things too, but as I’ve pointed out before, if any of this happened in the private sector, trial lawyers would be salivating and lawsuits would be flying. By contrast, when the government loses personal information—information that his usually more sensitive than that which private actors collect—about the most that ever comes out of it is another report calling for “more accountability.” Few ever are actually held accountable (i.e., lose their jobs or get sued.)

As we’re wont to do this time of year, many of your humble Technology Liberation Front contributors will be attending PFF’s annual Aspen Summit next week and we think many of you will too. So, we’ve decided to hold the sixth in our series of Alcohol Liberation Front get-togethers on Tuesday, 8/19, at 9 p.m. at the Sky Bar located at the base of the Aspen Mountain. Like we did last time, we’ll also be recording our contributors (and hopefully some of you) pontificating for our podcast, Tech Policy Weekly. So drop on by and have a drink with your favorite TLF bloggers.

The TLF crowd will converge upon the MCCXXIII Club at 1223 Connecticut Ave in Washington DC from 6-9:30 this Wednesday, June 25 for Alcohol Liberation Front 5.1.  Why are we having an ALF event so soon after our last one?  And why is only minor build (.1)?

Because we’re crashing blogger and celebrity geek Robert Scoble‘s mini-convention/happy hour for the DC tech community.  We’ve been promised an open bar of some sort, though details are still sketchy.  Of the turn-out at April’s “TECH Cocktail” is any indication, this could be very well-attended and fun event.

RSVP now on EventBrite (and check out the Facebook event page) and be sure to wear your best capitalist flair.  We’ll hope to see you there as we spread the gospel of Technology Freedom to our fellow geeks.

Alcohol Liberation Front 5 is happening Monday, April 21, at 5:30 p.m., at the Science Club, 1136 19^th Street, NW, Washington D.C.  

As if the excitement of hanging around with the TLF bloggers weren’t enough, we’re making the event a fundraiser for our friend (and former co-blogger), Brooke Oberwetter.  Brooke was arrested at the Jefferson Memorial the other night – for dancing.  Or perhaps for asking why dancing wasn’t allowed. (More information is at the Free the Jefferson 1 blog.)

She needs funds to pay for legal fees, and you need an excuse to drink.  It’s a match made in heaven!

Suggested donation: $10. More is better, and we’ll be passing the plate once again after you’re sloshed.

If you can’t make it because you’re out of town, or perhaps because you find the idea of hanging out with the TLF crew absolutely revolting, you can donate to Brooke’s cause by clicking on the image below.  Otherwise, see you Monday!

Update: Note the change in venue below.

Over the last two years, our Alcohol Liberation Front happy hours have become a venerable DC institution. (See here, here, and here for reports from previous ALF events.) We’re going to have our fifth semi-annual ALF on Monday, and it promises to be our best ever, because we’ll be joined by libertarian hero Brooke Oberwetter. Most of us talk a good talk about defying the state, but on Saturday, Brooke walked the walk, getting arrested by humorless park police for silently (and soberly) dancing in honor of Thomas Jefferson’s birthday.

In addition to Brooke, we’ll be joined by the usual TLF gang, James Gattuso’s groupies, and a few interns we’ll bring along to make our turnout look more impressive. Unfortunately, Cord Blomquist has to stay home for a hot date with “Call of Duty 4.” But for the rest of us, it’ll be from 5:30-7:30 at the 18th St. Lounge Science Club on Monday, April 21. Please leave a comment if you’re planning to join us so we know to keep an eye out for you.

Don’t judge a book by its cover (or its title, for that matter). I’m usually faithful to that maxim, but I must admit that when I first saw the title and cover of “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Theft-Childhood-Surprising-Violent/dp/0743299515/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1208179493&sr=8-1″>Grand Theft Childhood: The Surprising Truth About Violent Video Games and What Parents Can Do,” I rolled my eyes and thought to myself, “here we go again.” I figured that I was in for another tedious anti-gaming screed full of myths and hysteria about games and gamers. Boy, was I wrong. Massively wrong.