In my latest R Street Institute blog post, “Mapping the AI Policy Landscape Circa 2023: Seven Major Fault Lines,” I discuss the big issues confronting artificial intelligence and machine learning in the coming year and beyond. I note that the AI regulatory proposals are multiplying fast and coming in two general varieties: broad-based and targeted. Broad-based algorithmic regulation would address the use of these technologies in a holistic fashion across many sectors and concerns. By contrast, targeted algorithmic regulation looks to address specific AI applications or concerns. In the short-term, it is more likely that targeted or “sectoral” regulatory proposals have a chance of being implemented.

I go on to identify seven major issues of concern that will drive these policy proposals. They include:

1) Privacy and Data Collection

2) Bias and Discrimination

3) Free Speech and Disinformation

4) Kids’ Safety

5) Physical Safety and Cybersecurity

6) Industrial Policy and Workforce Issues

7) National Security and Law Enforcement Issues

Of course, each of these issues includes many sub-issues and nuanced concerns. But I also noted that “this list only scratches the surface in terms of the universe of AI policy issues.” Algorithmic policy considerations are now being discussed in many other fields, including education, insurance, financial services, energy markets, intellectual property, retail and trade, and more. I’ll be rolling out a new series of essays examining all these issues throughout the year.

But, as I note in concluding my new essay, the danger of over-reach exists with early regulatory efforts:

AI risks deserve serious attention, but an equally serious risk exists that an avalanche of fear-driven regulatory proposals will suffocate different life-enriching algorithmic innovations. There is a compelling interest in ensuring that AI innovations are developed and made widely available to society. Policymakers should not assume that important algorithmic innovations will just magically come about; our nation must get its innovation culture right if we hope to create a better, more prosperous future.

America needs a flexible governance approach for algorithmic systems that avoids heavy-handed, top-down controls as a first-order solution. “There is no use worrying about the future if we cannot even invent it first,” I conclude.

Additional Reading

• Adam Thierer, “Artificial Intelligence Primer: Definitions, Benefits & Policy Challenges,” Medium, December 2, 2022.
• Neil Chilson & Adam Thierer, “The Coming Onslaught of ‘Algorithmic Fairness’ Regulations,” Regulatory Transparency Project of the Federalist Society, November 2, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “We Really Need To ‘Have a Conversation’ About AI … or Do We?” Discourse, October 6, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “How the Embedding of AI Ethics Works in Practice & How It Can Be Improved,” Medium, September 22, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “No Goldilocks Formula for Content Moderation in Social Media or the Metaverse, But Algorithms Still Help,” Medium, September 13, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “AI Eats the World: Preparing for the Computational Revolution and the Policy Debates Ahead,” Medium, September 10, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “‘Running Code and Rough Consensus’ for AI: Polycentric Governance in the Algorithmic Age,” Medium, September 1, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “AI Governance ‘on the Ground’ vs ‘on the Books,’” Medium, August 19, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Why the Future of AI Will Not Be Invented in Europe,” Technology Liberation Front, August 1, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Existential Risks & Global Governance Issues around AI & Robotics,” [DRAFT CHAPTER, July 2022].
• Adam Thierer, “How Science Fiction Dystopianism Shapes the Debate over AI & Robotics,” Discourse, July 26, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Why is the US Following the EU’s Lead on Artificial Intelligence Regulation?” The Hill, July 21, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Algorithmic Auditing and AI Impact Assessments: The Need for Balance,” Medium, July 13, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “The Proper Governance Default for AI,” Medium, May 26, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “What I Learned about the Power of AI at the Cleveland Clinic,” Medium, May 6, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium, American Enterprise Institute (April 2022).

My colleague Wayne Brough and I recently went on the “Kibbe on Liberty” show to discuss how to discuss the state of free speech on the internet. We explained how censorship is a Big Government problem, not a Big Tech problem. Here’s the complete description of the show and the link to the full episode is below.

” With Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, we are in the middle of a national debate about the tension between censorship and free expression online. On the Right, many people are calling for government to rein in what they perceive as the excesses of Big Tech companies, while the Left wants the government to crack down on speech they deem dangerous. Both approaches make the same mistake of giving politicians authority over what we are allowed to say and hear. And with recent revelations about government agents leaning on social media companies to censor speech, it’s clear that when it comes to the online conversation, there’s no such thing as a purely private company.”

For more on this issues, please see: “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues.”

[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“

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,”

Over at Discourse magazine I’ve posted my latest essay on how conservatives are increasingly flirting with the idea of greatly expanding regulatory control of private speech platforms via some sort of common carriage regulation or new Fairness Doctrine for the internet. It begins:

Conservatives have traditionally viewed the administrative state with suspicion and worried about their values and policy prescriptions getting a fair shake within regulatory bureaucracies. This makes their newfound embrace of common carriage regulation and media access theory (i.e., the notion that government should act to force access to private media platforms because they provide an essential public service) somewhat confusing. Recent opinions from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as well as various comments and proposals of Sen. Josh Hawley and former President Trump signal a remarkable openness to greater administrative control of private speech platforms. Given the takedown actions some large tech companies have employed recently against some conservative leaders and viewpoints, the frustration of many on the right is understandable. But why would conservatives think they are going to get a better shake from state-regulated monopolists than they would from today’s constellation of players or, more importantly, from a future market with other players and platforms?

I continue on to explain why conservatives should be skeptical of the administrative state being their friend when it comes to the control of free speech. I end by reminding conservatives what President Ronald Reagan said in his 1987 veto of legislation 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.”

Read more at Discourse, and down below you will find several other recent essays I’ve written on the topic.

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

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.

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.

I have been covering telecom and Internet policy for almost 30 years now. During much of that time – which included a nine year stint at the Heritage Foundation — I have interacted with conservatives on various policy issues and often worked very closely with them to advance certain reforms.

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. President Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, have been increasingly critical of both traditional media and new tech companies in various public statements and suggested an openness to increased regulation. The President has gone after old and new media outlets alike, while Sen. Cruz (along with others like Sen. Lindsay Graham) has suggested during congressional hearings that increased oversight of social media platforms is needed, including potential antitrust action.

Meanwhile, during his short time in office, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has become one of the most vocal Internet critics on the Right. In a shockingly-worded USA Today editorial in late May, Hawley said, “social media wastes our time and resources” and is “a field of little productive value” that have only “given us an addiction economy.” He even referred to these sites as “parasites” and blamed them for a long list of social problems, leading him to suggest that, “we’d be better off if Facebook disappeared” along with various other sites and services.

Hawley’s moral panic over social media has now bubbled over into a regulatory crusade that would unleash federal bureaucrats on the Internet in an attempt to dictate “fair” speech on the Internet. He has introduced an astonishing piece of legislation aimed at undoing the liability protections that Internet providers rely upon to provide open platforms for speech and commerce. If Hawley’s absurdly misnamed new “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” is implemented, it would essentially combine the core elements of the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality to create a massive new regulatory regime for the Internet.

The bill would gut the immunities Internet companies enjoy under 47 USC 230 (“Section 230”) of the Communications Decency Act. Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara University School of Law has described Section 230 as the “best Internet law” and “a big part of the reason why the Internet has been such a massive success.” Indeed, as I pointed out in a Forbes column on the occasion of its 15^th anniversary, Section 230 is “the foundation of our Internet freedoms” because it gives online intermediaries generous leeway to determine what content and commerce travels over their systems without the fear that they will be overwhelmed by lawsuits if other parties object to some of that content.

The Hawley bill would overturn this important legal framework for Internet freedom and instead replace it with a new “permissioned” approach. In true “Mother-May-I” style, Internet companies would need to apply for an “immunity certification” from the FTC, which would undertake investigations to determine if the petitioning platform satisfied a “requirement of politically unbiased content moderation.”

The vague language of the measure is an open invitation to massive political abuse. The entirety of the bill hinges upon the ability of Federal Trade Commission officials to define and enforce “political neutrality” online. Let’s consider what this will mean in practice.

Under the bill, the FTC must evaluate whether platforms have engaged in “politically biased moderation,” which is defined as moderation practices that are supposedly, “designed to negatively affect” or “disproportionately restricts or promote access to … a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint.” As Blake Reid of the University of Colorado Law School rightly asks, “How, exactly, is the FTC supposed to figure out what the baseline is for ‘disproportionately restricting or promoting’? How much access or availability to information about political parties, candidates, or viewpoints is enough, or not enough, or too much?”

There is no Goldilocks formula for getting things just right when it comes to content moderation. It’s a trial-and-error process that is nightmarishly difficult because of the endless eye-of-the-beholder problems associated with constructing acceptable use policies for large speech platforms. We struggled with the same issues in the broadcast and cable era, but they have been magnified a million-fold in the era of the global Internet with the endless tsunami of new content that hits our screens and devices every day. “Do we want less moderation?” asks Sec, 230 guru Jeff Kosseff. “I think we need to look at that question hard.  Because we’re seeing two competing criticisms of Section 230,” he notes. “Some argue that there is too much moderation, others argue that there is not enough.”

The Hawley bill seems to imagine that a handful of FTC officials will magically be able to strike the right balance through regulatory investigations. That’s a pipe dream, of course, but let’s imagine for a moment that regulators could somehow sort through all the content on message boards, tweets, video clips, live streams, gaming sites, and whatever else, and then somehow figure out what constituted a violation of “political neutrality” in any given context. That would actually be a horrible result because let’s be perfectly clear about what that would really be: It would be a censorship board. By empowering unelected bureaucrats to make decisions about what constitutes “neutral” or “fair” speech, the Hawley measure would, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown of Reason summarizes, “put Washington in charge of Internet speech.” Or, as Sen. Ron Wyden argues more bluntly, the bill “will turn the federal government into Speech Police.” “Perhaps a more accurate title for this bill would be ‘Creating Internet Censorship Act,'” Eric Goldman is forced to conclude.

The measure is creating other strange bedfellows. You won’t see Berin Szoka of TechFreedom and Harold Feld of Public Knowledge ever agreeing on much, but they both quickly and correctly labelled Hawley’s bill a “Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.” That is quite right, and much like the old Fairness Doctrine, Hawley’s new Internet speech control regime would be open to endless political shenanigans as parties, policymakers, companies, and the various complainants line up to have their various political beefs heard and acted upon. “That’s the kind of thing Republicans said was unconstitutional (and subject to FCC agency capture and political manipulation) for decades,” says Daphne Keller of the Stanford Center for Internet & Society. Moreover, during the Net Neutrality holy wars, GOP conservatives endlessly blasted the notion that bureaucrats should be determining what constitute “neutrality” online because it, too, would result in abuses of the regulatory process. Yet, Sen. Hawley’s bill would now mandate that exact same thing.

What is even worse is that, as law professor Josh Blackman observes, “the bill also makes it exceedingly difficult to obtain a certification” because applicants need a supermajority of 4 of the 5 FTC Commissioners. This is public choice fiasco waiting to happen. Anyone who has studied the long, sordid history of broadcast radio and television licensing understands the danger associated with politicizing certification processes. The lawyers and lobbyists in the DC “swamp” will benefit from all the petitioning and paperwork, but it is not clear how creating a regulatory certification regime for Internet speech really benefits the general public (or even conservatives, for that matter).

Former FTC Commissioner Josh Wright identifies another obvious problem with the Hawley Bill: it “offers the choice of death by bureaucratic board or the plaintiffs’ bar.” That’s because by weakening Sec. 230’s protections, Hawley’s bill could open the floodgates to waves of frivolous legal claims in the courts if companies can’t get (or lose) certification. The irony of that result, of course, is that this bill could become a massive gift to the tort bar that Republicans love to hate!

Of course, if the law ever gets to court, it might be ruled unconstitutional. “The terms ‘politically biased’ and ‘moderation’ would have vagueness and overbreadth problems, as they can chill protected speech,” Josh Blackman argues. So it could, perhaps, be thrown out like earlier online censorship efforts. But a lot of harm could be done—both to online speech and competition—in the years leading up to a final determination about the law’s constitutionality by higher courts.

What is most outrageous about all this is that the core rationale behind Hawley’s effort—the idea that conservatives are somehow uniquely disadvantaged by large social media platforms—is utterly preposterous. In May, the Trump Administration launched a “tech bias” portal which “asked Americans to share their stories of suspected political bias.” The portal is already closed and it is unclear what, if anything, will come out of this effort. But this move and Hawley’s proposal point to the broader trend of conservatives getting more comfortable asking Big Government to redress imaginary grievances about supposed “bias” or “exclusion.”

In reality, today’s social media tools and platforms have been the greatest thing that ever happened to conservatives. Mr. Trump owes his presidency to his unparalleled ability to directly reach his audience through Twitter and other platforms. As recently as June 12, President Trump tweeted, “The Fake News has never been more dishonest than it is today. Thank goodness we can fight back on Social Media.” Well, there you have it!

Beyond the President, one need only peruse any social media site for a few minutes to find an endless stream of conservative perspectives on display. This isn’t exclusion; it’s amplification on steroids. Conservatives have more soapboxes to stand on and preach than ever before in the history of this nation.

Finally, if they were true to their philosophical priors, then conservatives also would not be insisting that they have any sort of “right” to be on any platform. These are private platforms, after all, and it is outrageous to suggest that conservatives (or any other person or group) are entitled to have a spot on any other them.

Some conservatives are fond of ridiculing liberals for being “snowflakes” when it comes to other free speech matters, such as free speech on college campuses. Many times they are right. But one has to ask who the real snowflakes are when conservative lawmakers are calling on regulatory bureaucracies to reorder speech on private platform based on the mythical fear of not getting “fair” treatment. One also cannot help but wonder if those conservatives have thought through how this new Internet regulatory regime will play out once a more liberal administration takes back the reins of power. Conservatives will only have themselves to blame when the Speech Police come for them.

Addendum: Several folks have pointed out another irony associated with Hawley’s bill is that it would greatly expand the powers of the administrative state, which conservatives already (correctly) feel has too much broad, unaccountable power. I should have said more on that point, but here’s a nice comment from David French of National Review, which alludes to that problem and then ties it back to my closing argument above: i.e., that this proposal will come back to haunt conservatives in the long-run:

when coercion locks in — especially when that coercion is tied to constitutionally suspect broad and vague policies that delegate immense powers to the federal government — conservatives should sound the alarm. One of the best ways to evaluate the merits of legislation is to ask yourself whether the bill would still seem wise if the power you give the government were to end up in the hands of your political opponents. Is Hawley striking a blow for freedom if he ends up handing oversight of Facebook’s political content to Bernie Sanders? I think not.

Additional thoughts on the Hawley bill:

Josh Wright

Daphne Keller

Blake Reid

TechFreedom

Josh Blackman

Sen. Ron Wyden

Jeff Kosseff

Eric Goldman

CCIA

NetChoice

Internet Association

David French at National Review

John Samples

There has been an increasing outcry recently from conservatives that social media is conspiring to silence their voices.  Leading voices including President Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz have started calling for legislative or regulatory actions to correct this perceived “bias”. But these calls for fairness miss the importance of allowing such services to develop their own terms and for users to determine what services to use and the benefit that such services have been to conservatives.

Social media is becoming a part of our everyday lives and recent events have only increased our general awareness of this fact. More than half of American adults login to Facebook on a daily basis. As a result, some policymakers have argued that such sites are the new public square. In general, the First Amendment strictly limits what the government can do to limit speakers in public spaces and requires that such limits be applied equally to different points of view. At the same time, private entities are generally allowed to set terms regarding what speech may or may not be allowed on their own platforms.

The argument that modern day websites are the new public square and must maintain a neutral view point was recently rejected in a lawsuit between PraegerU and YouTube. Praeger believed that its conservative viewpoint was being silenced by YouTube decision to place many of its videos in “restricted mode.” In this case, the court found that YouTube was still acting as a private service rather than one filling a typical government role. Other cases have similarly asserted that Internet intermediaries have First Amendment rights to reject or limit ads or content as part of their own rights to speak or not speak. Conservatives have long been proponents of property rights, freedom of association, and free markets. But now, faced with platforms choosing to exercise their rights, rather than defend those values and compete in the market some “conservatives” are arguing for legislation or utilizing litigation to bully the marketplace of ideas into giving them a louder microphone. In fact, part of the purpose behind creating the liability immunity (known as Section 230) for such services was the principle that a variety of platforms would emerge with different standards and new and diverse communities could be created and evolve to serve different audiences.

A similar idea of a need for equal content was previously used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and known as “the fairness doctrine”. This doctrine required equal access for groups or individuals wanting to express opposing views on public issues. In the 1980s Reagan era Republicans led the charge against this doctrine arguing that it violated broadcasters’ First Amendment rights and actually went against the public interest. In fact, many have pointed out that the removal of the fairness doctrine is what allowed conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh to become major political forces.  In the 2000s, when liberals suggested bringing back the fairness doctrine, conservatives were aghast and viewed it was an attack on conservative talk radio.  Even now, President Trump has used social media as a way to deliver messaging and set his political agenda in a way that has never been done before. If anything, there are lower barriers to creating a new medium on the Internet than there are on the TV or radio airwaves. As a 2016 National Review article states if conservatives are concerned with how they are being treated by existing platforms, “The goal should not be to create neutral spaces; it should be to create non-neutral spaces more attractive than existing non-neutral spaces.” In other words rather than complaining that the odds are against them and demanding “equal time”, conservatives should try to compete by building more attractive platforms that promote the content moderation ideals they believe are best. But perhaps, the problem is they realize that ultimately difficult or unpopular content moderation decisions must be faced by any platform.

Content moderation is no easy task. Even for small groups differing beliefs can quickly result in grey areas that require difficult calls by an intermediary. For social media and other Internet intermediaries, when dealing with such issue on a scale of millions and a global diversity of what is and isn’t acceptable, content moderation becomes exponentially complicated. It is unsurprising that a rate of human and machine learning errors exist in making such decisions. AI might seem like a simple solution but such filters aren’t aware of the context in many cases. For example, a Motherboard article recently pointed out the difficulty that those with last names like Weiner and Butts face when trying to register for accounts on websites with AI filters to prevent offensive language. Leaving the task of content moderation to humans is both incredibly difficult on the moderators and may result in inconsistent results due to the large volume of content that must be moderated and differing interpretations of community standards. As Jason Koebler and Joseph Cox point out in their Motherboard article on the challenge of content moderation on a global scale that Facebook is dealing with, “If you take a single case, and then think of how many more like it exist across the globe in countries that Facebook has even less historical context for, simple rules have higher and higher chances of unwanted outcomes.” It is quite clear that if we as a society can’t decide on our own definitions of things like hate speech or bullying in many cases, how we can expect a third party public or private to make such decision in a way that satisfies every perspective?

The Internet has helped the world truly create a marketplace of ideas. The barriers to entry are rather low and the medium is constantly evolving. Because of social media and the Internet more generally conservative voices are able to reach a wider audience than before. Conservatives should be careful what they wish for with calls for “fairness,” because such power could actually prevent future innovation or new platforms and extend the status quo instead.

Is code speech? That is one of the timeless questions that comes up again and again in the field of Internet law and policy. Many books and countless papers and essays have touched on this topic. Personally, I’ve always thought it was a bit silly that this is even a serious question. After all, if code isn’t speech, what the heck is it?

We humans express ourselves in many creative ways. We speak and write. We sing and dance. We paint and sculpt. And now we code. All these things are forms of human expression. Under American First Amendment jurisprudence, expression is basically synonymous with speech. We very tightly limit restrictions on speech and expression because it is a matter of personal autonomy and also because we believe that there is a profound danger of the proverbial slippery slope kicking in once we allow government officials to start censoring what they regard as offensive speech or dangerous expression.

Thus, we when creative people come up with creative thoughts and use computers and software to express them in code, that is speech. It is fundamentally no different than using a pencil and pad of paper to write a manifesto, or using a guitar and microphone to sing a protest song. The authorities might not like the resulting manifesto or protest song–in fact, they might feel quite threatened by it–but that fact also makes it clear why, in both cases, that expression is speech and that speech is worth defending. Moreover, the methods or mediums of speech production and dissemination–pencils, paper, guitars, microphones, etc.–are what Ithiel de Sola Pool referred to as “Technologies of Freedom.” They help people extend their voices and to communicate with the world, while also learning more about it.

Which brings us to the 3D printers and the code behind the open source blueprints that many people share to fabricate things with 3D printers.  Washington Post reporter Meagan Flynn was kind enough to call me last week and ask me to comment for a story she was putting together about the ongoing legal fights over 3D-printed firearms in generally and the efforts of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed in particular. Wilson is a self-described crypto-anarchist who has landed in hot water with federal and state officials for making available open source blueprints for the 3D-printed firearms freely available to the public. Federal efforts aimed at stopping Wilson and Defense Distributed haven’t worked and now state attorneys general are seeking to impose legal restrictions on him.

Flynn’s WashPo article offered an outstanding overview of everything that is happening on this front, so I won’t rehash it all here. But I wanted to reproduce my portions of her story here and just add a few more thoughts. Here’s the block of the story that mentioned my thoughts:

Adam Thierer, who specializes in the intersection of free speech and technology at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, said the debate over the computer code for the 3-D-printable guns is the same song he heard during the Crypto Wars — but more like a remix. Guns, of course, pose different risks than encryption technology. Thierer said he thinks the Defense Distributed code is almost certainly speech, but the question is whether the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to regulate it.

The problem with the states’ argument, he contended, is that it would be a “stretch” for the judge to decide that the computer code itself skirts the states’ gun laws, as those laws generally center on possession of actual guns. It would be easier for the states to regulate 3-D-printed guns themselves through new laws, he said, rather than seeking to regulate the code that creates them. “They would have to make the argument that the speech itself is essentially the device,” he said. “Nothing is stopping them from regulating firearms. But the underlying speech is not in their purview. There has to be a distinction made between the speech and the byproduct of speech.”

In our recent essay, “3D Printers, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Tech Regulation,” Andrea O’Sullivan and I offered more extensive discussion of the legal issues at play here. And in a 2016 law review article entitled, “Guns, Limbs, and Toys: What Future for 3D Printing?” my co-author Adam Marcus and I discussed several examples of how additive manufacturing and the “maker” revolution are making the governance of various emerging technologies quite challenging.

The key points my co-authors and I try to make in these articles is that:

1. These controversies aren’t going away; they are only going to expand as “evasive entrepreneurs” find new interesting ways to use 3D printers to express themselves.
2. Regardless of what is being produced with 3D printers, the code and blueprints behind them are speech and deserve protection. And under American free speech jurisprudence, such code will almost certainly win such protections from courts when legislators or regulators seek to censor or regulate them.
3. The better way to regulate 3D printing is to focus on the physical manifestations of speech/expression. That is, focus on the user and the use, not the speech behind it. As Marcus and I put it in our law review article, “the proper focus of regulation should remain on the user and uses of firearms, regardless of how they are manufactured.” The U.S. has an extensive array of federal and state firearm regulations, and they can and should continue to apply to 3D-printed weapons. Likewise, a 3D-printed prosthetic limb is still a medical device, and the Food and Drug Administration can regulate it according if it sees fit. But in neither case should the underlying speech (i.e., the code) behind such inventions be censored.

The recently enacted Stop Enabling Sex Trafficking Act (SESTA) has many problems including that it doesn’t achieve its stated purpose of stopping sex trafficking . It contains a retroactivity clause that appears facially unconstitutional , but this provision would likely be severable by courts if used as the sole basis of a legal challenge. Perhaps more concerning are the potential First Amendment violations of the law.

These concerns go far beyond the rights of websites as speakers, but to the individual users’ content generation. Promoting sex trafficking is already a crime and a lawful restraint on speech. Websites, however, have acted broadly and quickly due to concerns of their new liability under the law and as a result lawful speech has also been stifled.

Given the controversial nature of the law it seems likely that a legal challenge is forthcoming. Here are three ideas about what a First Amendment challenge to the law might look like.

SESTA and Users’ Free Speech Rights

SESTA impacts individual users’ speech rights. As Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes, the law will create a chilling effect that could result in harming the very victims it claims to protect and could lead to further marginalizing minority viewpoints.

Despite their increasing presence and role in our everyday lives, Internet intermediaries, such as social media, are not public forums, but rather private actors. The recent Praeger case in California against YouTube has reinforced this point. As a result, they may choose to limit speech or actions in accord with terms of service or other policies.  Some would argue that moderation decision made in consideration of liability by these private actors do not constitute a violation of speech rights, but rather merely a modification of existing terms of service. However, this ignores both the chilling effects of such regulations and the fact that speech that would not be a violation of terms is likely to be removed as a result of broad interpretations of SESTA.

In the landmark case Reno v. ACLU , the Supreme Court recognized the problem of censoring online speech. In striking down the parts of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) other than Section 230’s liability protection, the Court stated, “[T]he CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve.” The results of SESTA have been a swift suppression of certain speech online and not just sex trafficking.

For example, Craigslist removed its entire personal section in response to the passage of SESTA. Ads that in no way could be considered a violation of either the terms of service or sex trafficking under federal laws were removed along with any potentially violative ads. Similarly, sex workers have expressed concerns sharing client information as a way to keep one another safe would be impossible under the statute as passed. Removing all this information also makes it more difficult for individuals trying  to help identify trafficking victims and facilitate their escape to find and assist victims and investigators. All of this information is lawful speech that will be either considered illegal or effectively eliminated by unnecessary burdens intermediaries must take to protect themselves from both criminal and civil liability.

The courts have generally favored allowing to disallowing speech. While minimal limits regarding time, manner, and place have been upheld in some cases and courts have found the state may regulate obscenity, speech restrictions are generally subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored. SESTA uses broad definitions to classify what is considered sex trafficking and is likely to include both voluntary and involuntary interactions. Similarly the fact that the “participation in a venture” standard appears to set a low bar for an intermediary encourages an act first, question second behavior similar to that which has failed for the DMCA . To prevent liability under the statute, intermediaries must either increase moderation or cease moderating altogether. It is almost certain that lawful speech will regularly be caught up in such extreme moderation.

Finally, there are the concerns that chipping away at Section 230 liability opens the doors to broader Internet censorship . The Internet has been a stronghold of Free Speech where any idea can be expressed while well-intentioned laws like SESTA risk encouraging the idea that controversial or disliked speech can be censored.

Defining Intermediaries’ Editorial Control

Prior to Section 230 in Cubby v. Compuserve , the federal district court for the Southern District of New York found that Internet intermediaries act more like a distributor such as a bookstore or library than a traditional publisher. As a result, they have less control over the content created and distributed by their services than an editor or publisher would. Therefore, at common law, the intermediaries were found to have less liability for defamation or obscenity than a traditional publisher. This liability increases or decreases depending on the intermediary’s involvement with user generated content. Intermediaries who create or modify content are not acting as intermediaries and may be held liable if such content is illegal, such as sex-trafficking related content, even prior to SESTA.

The First Amendment Rights of Intermediaries

Intermediaries have free speech rights too. They may choose content to restrict or not restrict. Curation of content has been found to be protected as a form of speech for intermediaries such as search engines by several U.S. courts. In the pre-Internet Smith v. California case, the Supreme Court struck down the application of strict liability for obscene materials of a bookstore.  The court found that the lack of a knowledge requirement for criminal liability to attach was unconstitutional. SESTA requires knowledge but is vague regarding what knowledge an intermediary must have to be considered a participant in such a venture. Additionally, it gives broad power to state attorneys general to conduct investigation or take action with mere reasonable suspicion of a violation. One potential challenge would be whether the lack of a Good Samaritan clause and the vagueness regarding what constitutes knowledge in the statute violates the standards set in Smith .  Combined with the apparent protections of speech rights for intermediaries in the decisions to curate content, it may be possible for the intermediaries themselves to mount a First Amendment challenge.

Conclusion

SESTA has now become law, but it is almost certain it will face a constitutional challenge from users whose content was blocked or the intermediaries themselves on First Amendment grounds. In the past the courts have recognized the importance of maintaining free expression and a wide range of discourse online even when such content may be objectionable to many, one can only hope they would continue that line of thought if SESTA faces a First Amendment challenge.

The FCC’s transaction reviews have received substantial scholarly criticism lately. The FCC has increasingly used its license transaction reviews as an opportunity to engage in ad hoc merger reviews that substitute for formal rulemaking. FCC transaction conditions since 2000 have ranged from requiring AOL-Time Warner to make future instant messaging services interoperable, to price controls for broadband for low-income families, to mandating merging parties to donate $1 million to public safety initiatives.

In the last few months alone,

• Randy May and Seth Cooper of the Free State Foundation wrote a piece that the transaction reviews contravene rule of law norms.
• T. Randolph Beard et al. at the Phoenix Center published a research paper about how the FCC’s informal bargaining during mergers has become much more active and politically motivated in recent years.
• Derek Bambauer, law professor at the University of Arizona, published a law review article that criticized the use of informal agency actions to pressure companies to act in certain ways. These secretive pressures “cloak what is in reality state action in the guise of private choice.”

This week, in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, my colleague Christopher Koopman and I added to this recent scholarship on the FCC’s controversial transaction reviews.

We echo the argument that the FCC merger policies undermine the rule of law. Firms have no idea which policies they’ll need to comply with to receive transaction approval. We also note that the FCC is motivated to shift from formal regulation, which is time consuming and subject to judicial review, to “regulation by transaction,” which has fewer restraints on agency action. The FCC and the courts have put few meaningful limits on what can be coerced from merging firms. Many concessions from merging firms are policies that the FCC is simply unwilling to accomplish via formal rulemaking or, sometimes, is outright prohibited by law from regulating. Since a firm’s concessions in this coercive process are nominally voluntary, they typically can’t sue.

We point out, further, that the FCC has a potentially damaging legal issue on its hands. Since the agency is now extracting concessions related to content distribution and TV and radio programming, its transaction review authority may be presumptively unconstitutional and subject to facial First Amendment challenges. That means many parties can challenge the law, not simply the ones burdened by conditions (who fear FCC retaliation).

Content-neutral licensing laws, like the FCC’s transaction review authority, are presumptively unconstitutional when there’s a risk  that public officials will intimidate speakers about content. We cite for this proposition the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., a 1988 case striking down as unconstitutional a city requirement that newspapers seek a public interest determination from public officials before installing newsracks. As the Court said, for rules with a “nexus to expression,”

a facial [First Amendment] challenge lies whenever a licensing law gives a government official or agency substantial power to discriminate based on the content or viewpoint of speech by suppressing disfavored speech or disliked speakers.

The public officials in City of Lakewood hadn’t even pressured newspapers about content; the mere potential for intimidation was a constitutional violation. If the agency’s authority was challenged, the FCC would be in worse shape than the public officials in City of Lakewood. Unlike those local officials, the FCC has used licensing to pressure firms to add certain types of programming. So the law certainly has the nexus to expression that the Supreme Court requires for a facial challenge.

We highlight, for instance, the many concessions related to content in the 2010 Comcast-NBCU merger. Comcast-NBCU conceded to create children’s, public interest, and Spanish-language TV and video-on-demand programming, relinquish editorial control over Hulu programming, and spend millions of dollars on digital literacy and FDA nutritional TV public service announcements. In that merger and many others, the FCC conditioned approval on compliance with open access and net neutrality policies. As I and others have pointed out, net neutrality rules also threaten free speech rights.

We conclude with some policy recommendations to avoid a constitutional problem for the FCC, including congressional repeal of the FCC’s transaction review authority. We point out that the FCC actually has Clayton Act authority to review common carrier mergers, but the FCC refuses to use it, likely because the agency views traditional competition analysis as too constraining. In our view, unless or until the FCC promulgates predictable guidelines about what is relevant in a transaction review and stays away from content distribution issues, the FCC’s transaction review authority is vulnerable to legal challenge.

The FCC’s Open Internet Order is long and complex and the challenge to it is likewise difficult to untangle. The agency regularly engages in ad hoc rulemaking that results, per Judge Posner, in “unprincipled compromises of Rube Goldberg complexity among contending interest groups viewed merely as clamoring suppliants who have somehow to be conciliated.” The Open Internet Order is no exception and therefore faces several legal vulnerabilities.

In my view, the soft underbelly of the Order is the agency’s position that ISPs are not First Amendment speakers. While courts are generally very deferential to agencies, they are not deferential on constitutional questions. Further, the court panel (two Democrat appointees, one Republican appointee), unfortunately, was not in the carriers’ favor. The major carriers, however, have focused their arguments on whether the agency should receive deference in classifying Internet access as a telecommunications service.

That said, it’s possible the major carriers could get at least a partial win with their arguments. That likelihood is increased because Alamo Broadband and Dan Berninger raised the First Amendment problems with the Order. Given the strength of the First Amendment arguments, the Court might shy away from reaching the issue of whether ISPs are speakers. Below, some thoughts on the moments during oral arguments that surprised me and what went according to predictions.

The Unexpected

A receptive ear in Judge Williams re: the First Amendment arguments. (Good for: ISPs) The First Amendment arguments went better than I’d expected. Alamo and Berninger’s counsel, Brett Shumate, argued the First Amendment issues well and had good responses for skeptical questions. Shumate found a receptive ear in Judge Williams, who seemed to understand the serious First Amendment risks posed by the Order. Williams repeatedly brought up the fact that MetroPCS a few years ago tried to curate the Internet and provide its customers free YouTube, only to face resistance from the FCC and net neutrality activists.

The other two judges were more skeptical but Shumate corrected some misconceptions. The biggest substantive objection from Srinivasan, who sounded the most skeptical of the First Amendment arguments, was that if the Court reaches the First Amendment issues, it has determined that the FCC has reasonably classified Internet access as a common carrier service. He suggested that this means the First Amendment issues mostly disappear. No, Shumate explained. Congress and the FCC can call services whatever they want. They could declare Google Search or Twitter feeds a common carrier service tomorrow and that would have zero effect on whether filtering by Google and Twitter is protected by the First Amendment. Tatel asked whether Section 230’s liability protections suggest ISPs are common carriers and Shumate corrected that misconception, a subject I have written on before.

A major FCC concession that ISPs have to option to change their offerings and escape common carrier regulation. (Good for: ISPs) Title II advocates are spinning the terse First Amendment exchanges as a victory. I’m not convinced. The reason the arguments didn’t generate more heat was because the FCC lawyer made a huge concession at the outset: ISPs that choose to filter the Internet are not covered by the Open Internet Order.

FCC lawyer: “If [ISPs] want to curate the Internet…that would drop them out of the definition of Broadband Internet Access Service.” Judge Williams: “They have that option under the Order?” FCC lawyer: “Absolutely, your Honor. …If they filter the Internet and don’t provide access to all or substantially all endpoints, then they drop out of the definition of [BIAS] and the rules don’t apply to them.”

This admission seriously undermines the purposes of the Order. The FCC is stating outright that ISPs have the option to filter and to avoid the rules. That seems to mean that Comcast’s Stream Internet protocol television service, where it is curating streaming TV programs, is not covered by the rules. If Facebook’s Free Basics or a similar service launched in the US giving free, limited access to the Web, that is not covered by the Order. Finally, this means that the many broadband packages that offer family-friendly filtering are outside of the FCC’s rules. It’s not clear how much remains to be regulated since all ISPs reserve the right to filter content and each filters at least some content.

Judge Tatel directing most questioning. (Good for: wash) Many view Judge Tatel as the “swing vote” but I was surprised at the relative quiet from Williams and Srinivasan. Tatel was the most inquisitive, by my listening. He was much more skeptical of some of the FCC’s arguments regarding interconnection than I expected but also more skeptical of the First Amendment arguments than I expected.

Little discussion of Chevron Step 0. (Good for: FCC) Many on the free-market side wanted to make this case about Chevron Step 0 and the notion that Title II is too economically and socially significant to warrant deference. Unfortunately, at oral argument there was very little discussion of Chevron Step 0.

The Expected

Focus on agency discretion. (Good for: FCC) The judges generally seem to see this as a straightforward Chevron case and the questions focused on Chevron Step 1, whether there is ambiguity in the statute about “offering telecommunications” for the FCC to interpret. As expected, the FCC did fairly well in their arguments because these technical issues are very hard to untangle.

On Chevron Step 2, whether the reinterpretation of “telecommunications service” to include Internet access was reasonable, the US Telecom attorney was strong. He leaned heavily on the fact that in Section 230, which amends the Communications Act, Congress announces a national policy that the Internet and specifically Internet access services, should remain “unfettered by Federal regulation.” That would seem to preclude the FCC from using, at the very least, its most powerful regulatory weapon–common carriage–against Internet access providers. Even if “telecommunications service” is ambiguous, he stated, it was unreasonable to include Internet access in that definition.

Focus on whether mobile broadband can be properly classified under Title II. (Benefit: ISPs) As many commentators have noted, the idea that the traditional phone network and the mobile broadband network can be classified as the same interconnected network is far-fetched. Each judge seemed very skeptical of the FCC’s argument and Tatel suggested there was a lack of adequate notice.

Srinivasan pointed out that striking down the wireless rules and maintaining the wireline rules would mean that using the same tablet in different areas of your house would lead to different regulatory treatment, depending on whether you’re on the cellular broadband network or Wifi. Title II supporters think this is pretty clever gotcha but communications law already abounds with seemingly absurd FCC- and court-created legal distinctions. (The FCC invents its own absurd distinction and offers vastly different regulatory treatment for DNS operated by an ISP v. DNS operated by literally anyone else.)

Conclusion

Predictions about major regulatory cases are notoriously difficult. I’ve read (and made) enough predictions about big court cases to know that prognosticators almost always get it wrong. If that’s the case, at least consider one thought-provoking outcome: the rules are largely struck down because the FCC provided inadequate notice on most of the major issues of classification.

If the rules, in contrast, were sustained under Chevron and judged to have had adequate notice, the Court would likely need to confront the First Amendment issues. I don’t think Tatel and Srinivasan, especially, want to rule on these hard constitutional questions. The judges must know the Supreme Court has, as Prof. Susan Crawford says, an “absolutist approach” to the First Amendment that protects speakers of all kinds. Sustaining the rules means the FCC risks a loss on First Amendment grounds on appeal that would nearly eliminate the ability of the FCC to regulate the Internet. For that reason, and because of the notice problems, the Court may strike down the rules on notice and comment grounds, thereby preserving the ability of the FCC to take a fourth bite at the apple.

Declan McCullagh, chief political correspondent for CNET and former Washington bureau chief for Wired News, discusses recent leaks of NSA surveillance programs. What do we know so far, and what more might be unveiled in the coming weeks? McCullagh covers legal challenges to the programs, the Patriot Act, the fourth amendment, email encryption, the media and public response, and broader implications for privacy and reform.

Download

Related Links

• Snowden: NSA snoops on U.S. phone calls without warrants, McCullagh
• Snowden: Feds can’t plug leaks by ‘murdering me’, McCullagh
• Feds: Power grid vulnerable to cyber threats, McCullagh

Are we as globalized and interconnected as we think we are? Ethan Zuckerman, director of the MIT Center for Civic Media and author of the new book, Rewire: Digital Cosmopolitans in the Age of Connection, argues that America was likely more globalized before World War I than it is today. Zuckerman discusses how we’re more focused on what’s going on in our own backyards; how this affects creativity; the role the Internet plays in making us less connected with the rest of the world; and, how we can broaden our information universe to consume a more healthy “media diet.”

Download

Related Links

• Rewire: Digital Cosmopolitans in the Age of Connection, Zuckerman
• What Ethan Zuckerman’s Rewire tells us about the internet changing our lives, Morrison
• Rewire: Rethinking Globalization in an Age of Connection Zuckerman

Free Press is holding its National Conference for Media Reform next week. The conference agenda describes the Internet as “central” to freedom of expression, which is how all mass media technologies have been described since the invention of the printing press ushered in the mass communications era. Despite recognizing that the Internet is a mass media technology, Free Press does not believe the Internet should be accorded the same constitutional protections as other mass media technologies. Like so many others, Free Press has forgotten that the dangers posed by government control of the Internet are similar to those posed by earlier mass media technologies. In a stunning reversal of the concepts embodied in the Bill of Rights, Free Press believes the executive and legislative branches of government are the source of protection for the freedom of expression. In their view, “Internet freedom means net neutrality.”

Tell that to Rodrigo Ferrari, a Chilean blogger who knows firsthand that net neutrality laws don’t protect freedom of expression on the Internet. According to a letter sent by PEN America to United States Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State John Kerry, Ferrari created what was clearly a parody Twitter account that mimicked Andronico Luksic, a wealthy Chilean businessman. PEN America alleges that, at the request of Chilean authorities, the US Departments of State and Justice pressured Twitter to release data identifying Rodrigo as the owner of the parody account and may have provided this information to Chilean authorities without a subpoena or a formal request from the court hearing the case. As a result of US government action, Twitter shut down Ferrari’s parody account, and Chilean authorities are prosecuting Ferrari for the crime of “usurpation of identity” (a form of identity theft), which could result in a prison sentence.

If net neutrality actually meant Internet freedom, Ferrari would not be facing time in prison. Though both Chile and the US have imposed net neutrality regulations, that didn’t stop government authorities in either country from conspiring to deprive Rodrigo Ferrari of his privacy and subject him to criminal prosecution for expressing his views using the Internet. In 2010, Chile became the first country to impose net neutrality regulations, including a regulation that expressly requires that Internet service providers guarantee the privacy of users. At the time, one enthusiastic blogger said, “Chile is China’s antonym in Internet world.” Another asked, “If Chile can, why can’t we?” Later that same year, the Federal Communications Commission followed the Chilean example by imposing net neutrality regulations on Internet service providers in the US, shortly before the European Union rejected net neutrality rules as “unnecessary” and potentially harmful to innovation and investment.

Why didn’t Chilean and US net neutrality regulations “mean” Internet freedom for Ferrari? Because net neutrality regulations don’t restrain government authorities and are not  intended to protect consumers in any event. Net neutrality regulations are designed to maximize the access of content providers to consumers and consumer information that can be used to sell advertisements. That is why the net neutrality regulations adopted in Chile and the US apply only to “Internet service providers” (i.e., the companies that provide residential Internet connections). Twitter is not currently considered an “Internet service provider,” which means it can “block” whatever expression it wants.

To be clear, though I don’t support the actions of US authorities as alleged by PEN America, I’m not advocating that net neutrality regulations be extended to Twitter or other content providers. Ironically, however, neither is Free Press or any other net neutrality advocate. They support government restrictions applicable only to network operators despite evidence that Internet content is being “blocked” by content providers for commercial reasons. Net neutrality advocates also oppose First Amendment protection for Internet service providers despite evidence that the US government is using the Internet in a way that could chill our freedom of expression.

The asymmetrical approach to Internet regulation supported by net neutrality advocates may have succeeded in distorting the economics of the Internet marketplace, but the evidence indicates it has done nothing to enhance “Internet freedom.” Just ask Rodrigo Ferrari.

Susan W. Brenner, associate dean and professor of law at the University of Dayton School of Law,  discusses her new paper published in the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology entitled “Cyber-threats and the Limits of Bureaucratic Control.”

Brenner argues that the approach the United States, like other countries, uses to control threats in real-space is ill-suited for controlling cyberthreats. She explains that because this approach evolved to deal with threat activity in a physical environment, it is predicated on a bureaucratic organizations. This is not an effective way of approaching cyber-threat control, she argues. 

Brenner also explains why congressional efforts at cybersecurity legislation are flawed and why U.S. authorities persist in pursuing antiquated strategies that cannot provide an effective cyberthreats defense system. She outlines an alternative approach to the task of protecting the country from cyberthreats, and approach that is predicated on older, more fluid threat control strategies.

Download

Related Links

• Cyber-Threats and the Limits of Bureaucratic Control, Brenner
• Cybercrime and the Law, Brenner
• Cyberwar: you lack imagination, Brenner
• Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction, Brenner

Is geek culture sexist? Joseph Reagle, Assistant Professor of Communications Studies at Northeastern University and author of a new paper entitled, “Free as in Sexist? Free culture and the gender gap,” returns to Surprisingly Free to address geek feminism and the technology gender gap.

According to Reagle, only 1% of the free software community and 9% of Wikipedia editors are female, which he sees as emblematic of structural problems in the geek community. While he does not believe that being a geek or a nerd is in any way synonymous with being a sexist, he concludes that three things that he otherwise loves—geekiness, openness, and the rhetoric and ideology of freedom–are part of the problem inasmuch as they allow informal cliques to arise, dominate the discussion, and squeeze out minority views. Reagle also comments on a unintentional androcentricity he has observed even amongst free software community heroes, highlighting the ways in which this behavior can be alienating to women and prevents geek culture from growing beyond its traditional base.

Reagle prescribes a 3-step solution to sexism in geek culture: talking about gender; challenging and expanding what it means to be a geek; and not allowing the rhetoric of freedom to be used as an excuse for bad behavior.

Reagle further supports efforts to form female-only subcultures within the geek community, which opponents argue goes against the free software value of openness. Instead of the balkanization of their movement that opponents fear, these closed-group discussions actually strengthen geek culture at large, according to Reagle.

Download

Related Links

• “Free as in Sexist? Free culture and the gender gap”, Reagle
• Geek Feminism, blog
• Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog, blog
• Geek Feminism Wiki, Wikia

Gabriella Coleman, the Wolfe Chair in Scientific and Technological Literacy in the Art History and Communication Studies Department at McGill University, discusses her new book, “Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking,” which has been released under a Creative Commons license.

Coleman, whose background is in anthropology, shares the results of her cultural survey of free and open source software (F/OSS) developers, the majority of whom, she found, shared similar backgrounds and world views. Among these similarities were an early introduction to technology and a passion for civil liberties, specifically free speech.

Coleman explains the ethics behind hackers’ devotion to F/OSS, the social codes that guide its production, and the political struggles through which hackers question the scope and direction of copyright and patent law. She also discusses the tension between the overtly political free software movement and the “politically agnostic” open source movement, as well as what the future of the hacker movement may look like.

Download

Related Links

• Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking, by Coleman
• Hacker Politics and Publics. Public Culture, by Coleman
• Hackers. The Johns Hopkins Encyclopedia of Digital Textuality. Forthcoming, 2012, by Coleman

Three rings for the broadcast-kings filling the sky,
Seven for the cable-lords in their head-end halls,
Nine for the telco-men doomed to die,
One for the White House to make its calls
On Capitol Hill where the powers lie,
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them,
One ring to bring them all and without the Court bind them,
On Capitol Hill where the powers lie.

Myths resonate because they illustrate existential truths. In J.R.R. Tolkien’s mythical tale, the Lord of the Rings, the evil Lord Sauron imbued an otherwise very ordinary ring – the “One Ring”– with an extraordinary power: It could influence thought. When Sauron wore the One Ring, he could control the lords of the free peoples of Middle Earth through lesser “rings of power” he helped create. The extraordinary power of the One Ring was also its weakness: It eventually corrupted all who wore it, even those with good intentions. This duality is the central truth in Tolkien’s tale.

It is also central to current debates about freedom of expression and the Internet.

Since the invention of the printing press, those who control the means of mass communication have had the ability to influence thought. The printing press enabled the rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information for the first time in history, including ideas that challenged the status quo (e.g., sedition and heresy). Governments viewed this new technology as a threat and responded by establishing control over the machinery of the printing press through state monopolies, press licenses, and special taxation.

“The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”

The Framers knew that freedom of expression is the foundation of freedom. They also recognized that governments could control thought by controlling the printing press, and included a clause in the First Amendment prohibiting government interference with the “freedom of the press.” Though this clause was aimed at the printing press, its protection is not limited to the mass communications media of the Eighteenth Century. The courts have held that the First Amendment encompasses new mass media technologies, including broadcast television and cable.

Several public interest groups, academics, and pundits across the political spectrum nevertheless argue that the latest mass communications technology – the Internet – does not merit protection from government interference on First Amendment grounds. They assert that neither the dissemination of speech by Internet service providers (ISPs) nor the results of Internet search engines (e.g., Google) are entitled to First Amendment protection. They fear that Internet companies will use the First Amendment to justify the exercise of editorial control over the free expression of their consumers.

Others (including the Competitive Enterprise Institute) argue that the First Amendment applies to bothISPs and search engines. They believe a government with unrestrained control over the means of mass communications has the incentive and the ability to use that power to control the thoughts of its people, which inevitably leads to authoritarianism. They point to Internet censorship by China, Syria, and other authoritarian governments as current proof of this principle.

Both sides in the Internet debate raise legitimate concerns. I suspect many consumers do not want ISPs and search engines to exercise unfettered control over the Internet. I suspect that just as many consumers do not want government to exercise unfettered control over the Internet either. How can we resolve these dual concerns?

The free peoples of Middle Earth struggled with a similar duality at the Council of Elrond, where they decided what should be done with the One Ring. “Why not use this ring?” wondered Boromir, a bold hero who had long fought the forces of Sauron and believed the ring could save his people. Aragorn, a cautious but no less valiant hero, abruptly answered that no one on the Council could safely wield it. When Elrond suggested that the ring must be destroyed, mutual distrust drove the Council to chaos. Order was restored only when Frodo, a hobbit with no armies to command and no physical power, volunteered for the dangerous task of destroying the ring.

The judicial branch is our Frodo. It has no armies to command and no physical power. It must rely on the willingness of others to abide by its decisions and their strength to enforce them. Like the peoples of Middle Earth who relied on Frodo, we rely on the courts to protect us from abuse of government power because the judicial branch is the least threatening to our liberty.

This is as true today as it was when the Constitution was signed. Changes in technology do not change the balance of power among our branches of government. As we have in the earlier eras of the printing press, broadcast television, and cable, we must trust the courts to apply the First Amendment to mass communications in the Internet era.

Providing ISPs and search engines with First Amendment rights would prevent dangerous and unnecessary government interference with the Internet while permitting the government to protect Internet consumers within Constitutional bounds. Although some advocates imply otherwise, application of the First Amendment to Internet companies would not preclude the government from regulating the Internet. The courts uphold regulations that limit freedom of expression so long as they are narrowly tailored to advance a compelling or substantial government interest.

We have always trusted the courts to balance the right to freedom of expression with other rights and governmental interests, and there is no reason to believe they cannot appropriately balance competing concerns involving the Internet. If the courts cannot be trusted with this task, no one can.

Would you pay good money for accurate predictions about important events, such as election results or military campaigns? Not if the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has its way. It recently took enforcement action against overseas prediction markets run by InTrade and TEN. The alleged offense? Allowing Americans to trade on claims about future events.

The blunt version: If you want to put your money where your mouth is, the CFTC wants to shut you up.

A prediction market allows its participants to buy and sell claims payable upon the occurrence of some future event, such as an election or Supreme Court opinion. Because they align incentives with accuracy and tap the wisdom of crowds, prediction markets offer useful information about future events. InTrade, for instance, accurately called the recent U.S. presidential vote in all but one state.

As far as the CFTC is concerned, people buying and selling claims about political futures deserve the same treatment as people buying and selling claims about pork futures: Heavy regulations, enforcement actions, and bans. Co-authors Josh Blackman, Miriam A. Cherry, and I described in this recent op-ed why the CFTC’s animosity to prediction markets threatens the First Amendment.

The CFTC has already managed to scare would-be entrepreneurs away from trying to run real-money prediction markets in the U.S. Now it threatens overseas markets. With luck, the Internet will render the CFTC’s censorship futile, saving the marketplace in ideas from the politics of ignorance.

Why take chances, though? I suggest two policies to protect prediction markets and the honest talk they host. First, the CFTC should implement the policies described in the jointly authored Comment on CFTC Concept Release on the Appropriate Regulatory Treatment of Event Contracts, July 6, 2008. (Aside to CFTC: Your web-based copy appears to have disappeared. Ask me for a copy.)

Second, real-money public prediction markets should make clear that they fall outside the CFTC’s jurisdiction by deploying notices, setting up independent contractor relations with traders, and dealing in negotiable conditional notes. For details, see these papers starting with this one.

[Aside to Jerry and Adam: per my promise.]

[Crossposted at Technology Liberation Front, and Agoraphilia.]

Tom W. Bell, professor of law at Chapman University and author of the concluding essay in Copyright Unbalanced, a new book edited by Surprisingly Free’s own Jerry Brito, discusses the ways in which copyright has evolved over time and why reform is vital.

Bell differentiates copyright from other types of property, arguing that conflating the two terms causes great confusion amongst laypeople and, over time, corrodes the value placed in tangible property rights. According to Bell, copyright is a privilege created by statute that doesn’t exist in a state of nature and is not recognized by common law.

As a special type of economic good, copyright must be treated differently than tangible property rights, according to Bell, who outlines five proposals for copyright reform.

While Bell is not opposed to copyright, he argues that copyright enforcement has gone too far, and lawmakers should structure policies to lead us towards a world in which we conceivably do without it.

Download

Related Links

• Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess, by Brito, et al
• Intellectual Privilege: A Libertarian View of Copyright, Bell
• Copyright Duration and the Mickey Mouse Curve, Tech Liberation Front

Perry Keller, Senior Lecturer at the Dickson Poon School of Law at King’s College London, and author of the recently released paper “Sovereignty and Liberty in the Internet Era,” discusses how the internet affects the relationship between the state and the media. According to Keller, media has played a formative role in the development of the modern state and, as it evolves, the way in which the state governs must change as well. However, that does not mean that there is a one-size-fits-all solution. In fact, as Keller demonstrates using real-world examples in the U.S., U.K., E.U., and China, the ways in which new media is governed can differ radically based upon the local legal and cultural environment.

Download

Related Links

• Sovereignty and Liberty in the Internet Era, by Keller
• European and International Media Law: Liberal Democracy, Trade and the New Media, by Keller
• Media Law in Britain, by Keller

I have always found it strange that the ACLU speaks with two voices when it comes to user empowerment as a response to government regulation of the Internet. That is, when responding to government efforts to regulate the Internet for online safety or speech purposes, the ACLU stresses personal responsibility and user empowerment as the first-order response. But as soon as the conversation switches to online advertising and data collection, the ACLU suggests that people are basically sheep who can’t possibly look out for themselves and, therefore, increased Internet regulation is essential. They’re not the only ones adopting this paradoxical position. In previous essays I’ve highlighted how both EFF and CDT do the same thing. But let me focus here on ACLU.

Writing today on the ACLU “Free Future” blog, ACLU senior policy analyst Jay Stanley cites a new paper that he says proves “the absurdity of the position that individuals who desire privacy must attempt to win a technological arms race with the multi-billion dollar internet-advertising industry.” The new study Stanley cites says that “advertisers are making it impossible to avoid online tracking” and that it isn’t paternalistic for government to intervene and regulate if the goal is to enhance user privacy choices. Stanley wholeheartedly agrees. In this and other posts, he and other ACLU analysts have endorsed greater government action to address this perceived threat on the grounds that, in essence, user empowerment cannot work when it comes to online privacy.

Again, this represents a very different position from the one that ACLU has staked out and brilliantly defended over the past 15 years when it comes to user empowerment as the proper and practical response to government regulation of objectionable online speech and pornography. For those not familiar, beginning in the mid-1990s, lawmakers started pursuing a number of new forms of Internet regulation — direct censorship and mandatory age verification were the primary methods of control — aimed at curbing objectionable online speech. In case after case, the ACLU rose up to rightly defend our online liberties against such government encroachment. (I was proud to have worked closely with many former ACLU officials in these battles.) Most notably, the ACLU pushed back against the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA) and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998 (COPA) and they won landmark decisions for us in the process.

In those and other cases, the ACLU playbook wasn’t just solely focused on a pure First Amendment defense. In other words, they didn’t just say ‘Well, First Amendment values are at stake here, and so all you parents, prudes, and policymakers should just get over your obsession with eradicating online porn.” No, what really won the day for us in these cases was the user empowerment angle. The ACLU rightly noted (and proved in court) that many “less-restrictive means” — filters, monitoring tools, ratings, labels, user education, media literacy, etc. — were available to the public and that those tools and strategies provided compelling alternatives to government regulation. Thus, paternalistic government regulation should yield to those alternatives and the public (namely, parents) should be expected to take responsibility and use those less-restrictive means to protect themselves and their kids. That is the proper approach for a society that cherishes free speech, personal responsibility, and a citizenry with diverse tastes and values.

Not only did the ACLU get courts to agree with this, but the logic of user empowerment as a trump to speech controls became so compelling to justices that in some cases they actually went beyond what free speech advocates had asked or expected, even in non-Internet related decisions. For example, in United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group  (2000), the Court struck down a law that required cable companies to “fully scramble” video signals transmitted over their networks if those signals included any sexually explicit content. Echoing its earlier holding in Reno v. ACLU , the Court found that less restrictive means were available to parents looking to block those potentially objectionable signals in the home. Specifically, the Court argued that:

[T]argeted blocking [by parents] enables the government to support parental authority without affecting the First Amendment interests of speakers and willing listeners—listeners for whom, if the speech is unpopular or indecent, the privacy of their own homes may be the optimal place of receipt. Simply put, targeted blocking is less restrictive than banning, and the Government cannot ban speech if targeted blocking is a feasible and effective means of furthering its compelling interests.

More importantly, the Court held that:

It is no response that voluntary blocking requires a consumer to take action, or may be inconvenient, or may not go perfectly every time. A court should not assume a plausible, less restrictive alternative would be ineffective; and a court should not presume parents, given full information, will fail to act.

The Court endorsed that same logic for video games in the landmark 2011 decision in Brown v. EMA, which struck down a California that prohibited the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors.

As I noted in my old book on Parental Controls & Online Child Protection , this is an extraordinarily high bar that the Supreme Court has set for policymakers wishing to regulate modern media content or online expression. Not only is it clear that the Court is increasingly unlikely to allow the extension of analog-era content regulations to new media outlets and technologies, but it appears likely that judges will apply much stricter constitutional scrutiny to all efforts to regulate speech and media providers in the future. And we really have to thank the ACLU for getting this user empowerment revolution started because, make no doubt about it, it was that hook that ushered in this amazing jurisprudential revolution — for the Internet, for video games, for new media, for everything.

Sadly, however, the ACLU is now abandoning the user empowerment approach, at least as it pertains to digital privacy regulation.

In Stanley’s latest piece as well as many other ACLU statements on privacy issues, we hear almost nothing about the importance of keeping the Net free of unnecessary regulation or that government regulation should yield to user empowerment. Instead, we are told that citizens cannot be expected to look out for themselves in this way, or that they can’t possibly hope to “win the arms race” against online advertisers. I think that is utter nonsense. The fact of the matter is that it is far, far harder to win “the arms race” against online porn and objectionable speech using user empowerment tools than it is to defeat online advertising or “tracking.”   There exists a very broad array of privacy-enhancing user empowerment tools and strategies today that can help privacy-sensitive individuals attain greater protection. Here’s a big filing I submitted to the Federal Trade Commission documenting just some of what is on the market today. (See Sec. VI). But here’s just a short list of things users can do or install to better enhance their online privacy:

• adjust your browser’s privacy settings to clear out and block the cookies most online ad networks use and utilize private browsing or “incognito” modes to surf the Web more privately;
• download tools to help you manage cookies, blocking web scripts, and so on.  Some of the more notable ones include: Ghostery, NoScript, Cookie Monster, Better Privacy, Track Me Not, and the Targeted Advertising Cookie Opt-Out or “TACO” (all for Firefox); No More Cookies (for Internet Explorer); Disconnect (for Chrome); AdSweep (for Chrome and Opera); CCleaner (for PCs); and Flush (for Mac).
• download AdBlockPlus and block almost all online advertising on most websites, and thus the data collection performed by online cookies. (It remains the most-downloaded add-on for both the Firefox and Chrome web browsers)
• use “ad preference managers” from major search companies. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! all offer easy to use opt-out tools and educational webpages that clearly explain to consumers how digital advertising works. Meanwhile, DuckDuckGo offers as alternative search experience that blocks data collection altogether.

Again, this list just scratches the surface. New empowerment solutions like these are are constantly turning up. And many other tools and strategies exist that users can tap. See this excellent recent article by Kashmir Hill of Forbes, “10 Incredibly Simple Things You Should Be Doing To Protect Your Privacy.”

Now, let me be clear: These solutions aren’t perfect. There are no silver bullets or simple fixes when it comes protecting our privacy online. But the exact same thing has always been true for objectionable online content. I find that by using tools and strategies such as those listed above, however, you can eliminate most online advertising and data collection from your digital life. By contrast, as good as online safety tools are, a lot more gets through. That’s because what counts as “objectionable content” is notoriously subjective and, therefore, no tool or strategy can ever work perfectly. “Good enough” seems to be the standard we have to accept here. Again, the same can be said for privacy controls, but it is my contention that, relatively speaking, they actually do a better job if you are willing to live with some inconveniences (as can be the case if you are constantly clearing out your cookies and blocking all scripts, some of which may be important for site functionality). But those are trade-offs you need to accept if you want to ensure all ads are blocked or no data is collected. (Of course, once again, the exact same thing is has always been true for objectionable online content. It can be a huge inconvenience for parents and guardians to try to deal with online porn and objectionable content using all those user empowerment tools and strategies, no matter how good they are). Regardless, my argument here is that, contrary to what many advocates of privacy regulation claim, privacy empowerment tools and strategies can be remarkably effective at screening out almost all online advertising and greatly limiting any collection of personal data.

I can imagine that one response to what I have said here is that, regardless of how well the respective classes of user empowerment tools work, privacy “harms” are more serious and deserve greater government scrutiny and regulation than objectionable online speech/content. But that’s a subjective squabble we’ll never be able to definitively answer. Plenty of people would argue the opposite: that exposure to online porn and objectionable speech will do more harm to minors and society than any amount of online advertising or data collection ever would. Personally, I think both harms are grotesquely inflated “technopanics,” as I noted in this 80-page paper on the topic.

I can anticipate another response that goes like this: “Well, what’s wrong with the government doing a little paternalistic nudging if it’s focused on better empowering users?” First, let’s be clear that groups like ACLU, EFF, and CDT did not adopt that position for objectionable online speech/content. And with good reason. They understood that if we invite the government to come in and create and/or mandate the empowerment tools to be used to address the problem, it could serve as a Trojan Horse that policymakers could later use to expand their influence over speech and speech platforms. But why, then, would the same concern not apply to efforts by the government to mandate certain privacy tools or controls? Such a move would serve as the same sort of open-ended invite to the government to come in and meddle more with online networks.

I suspect what this all comes down to is the artificial distinction between speech rights and economic liberties that the ACLU and other groups have made through the years.  If the regulatory proposals are more about speech regulation, then the ACLU and others will say that personal responsibility and user empowerment represent the proper first-order response. But if we are talking about something perceived to be economic regulation (like advertising regulation), then the standard seems to change and all the talk of personal responsibility and user empowerment go right out the window. (Of course, this is just the classic distinction between “civil libertarians” and actual libertarians manifesting itself in a different way. While the two groups share a mutual distrust of government regulation of speech and social affairs, the civil libertarians distrust free markets and invite regulation of them there whereas the actual libertarians do not.)

But let’s ignore all these other issues and ask a different question: What about the precedent ACLU is setting here by saying user empowerment is hopeless when it comes to privacy? It goes without saying that more than a few social conservatives and regulatory-minded child safety organizations may be listening! Don’t be surprised if those folks throw the ACLU’s words back at them next time controls on speech and expression are being contemplated. They will argue that if people are sheep when it comes to protecting their privacy, then they must also be sheep when it comes to protecting themselves and their families from porn and other objectionable things online.

To me, the consistent and principled position here is this: Personal responsibility and user empowerment should be the first-order solution for all these issues. Governments should only intervene when clear harm can be demonstrated and user empowerment truly proves ineffective as a solution. Conjectural fears must not drive Internet regulation. While there are many legitimate online safety privacy concerns out there, we can find better, less-restrictive ways of dealing with them than by inviting greater government controls for cyberspace.

As budget deficits have increased, public investment in our nation’s infrastructure has declined. In just the last four yours, the “United States has fallen sharply in the World Economic Forum’s ranking of national infrastructure systems,” from 6th in 2007-2008 to 16th in 2011-2012. Our roads, bridges, rail networks, and ports are all straining to handle demand, but due to budget concerns, lawmakers have little interest in increased funding.

In contrast to the gloomy forecast for public infrastructure funding, private investment in our communications networks has been a bright spot in the economy. The Progressive Policy Institute released a report this month ranking U.S.-based companies by their U.S. capital spending in 2011. Who ranked number one and number two on this report? AT&T and Verizon. Both companies invested significantly more in U.S. infrastructure than any other U.S. company. AT&T alone invested more in the U.S. ($20.1 billion) than the 3rd and 4th ranked companies combined: Exxon Mobile ($11.7 billion) and Wal-Mart ($8.2 billion). AT&T and Verizon together invested $36.3 billion in our future. The Progressive Policy Institute calls these companies “Investment Heroes” for believing in American progress.

Susan Crawford, a “radicalized” professor at Harvard Law School, apparently believes our private investment heroes are “terrible for American consumers.” In her view, the government should own and control the Internet as a public utility, just like our decaying public roadways. She believes the Internet should be part of the government’s “collective responsibility” to modern society.

Although her economics are erroneous (more on that in a moment), her willingness to trust the government with control of our primary means of communications is even more astonishing. Since the invention of the printing press in the 15th Century, governments have attempted to control freedom of speech, beginning with laws establishing controls over printers. Even with the best intentions, allowing the government to own and control our Internet networks would chill our freedom of expression, at the very minimum, and could result in warrantless wiretapping or even government content blocking. Given the rapid migration of our information society from print to electronic media, Crawford’s proposal for government wholesale control over the Internet would be tantamount to wholesale government control of the press.

If you believe that’s unthinkable, think again. According to Google, U.S. government agency requests to hand over user data have increased 76 percent since the end of 2009. Google complied with only 93 percent of user data requests by intelligence agencies and law enforcement last year. If the government controlled Google’s servers, however, it wouldn’t need Google’s permission for the other 7 percent of user data requests. The government would have direct control over all user data and Internet content, including online news.

Crawford is wrong on the economic issues as well. She is best known for her view that cable is a de facto “monopoly.” A monopoly exists when a single enterprise is the sole supplier of a particular product or service, and it’s obvious that cable isn’t the only supplier of broadband access or subscription video services. The majority of consumers (78 percent) have access to more than one fixed broadband provider (whether wired or wireless) and 81.7 percent of consumers have access to three or more mobile broadband providers as well, facts she dismisses through narrative storytelling rather than data.

She maintains that mobile broadband cannot compete with cable, even though PC Magazine’s June 2012 mobile tests revealed that AT&T’s 4G LTE network is delivering average download speeds of 13.71 Mbps. That’s more than fast enough to support the delivery of high-definition video and actually exceeds the speed limit for web browsing. According to an FCC report released this month, the time needed to load a webpage stops decreasing at about 10 Mbps. The FCC says, “For these high speed tiers, consumers are unlikely to experience much if any improvement in basic web browsing from increased speed–i.e., moving from a 10 Mbps broadband offering to a 25 Mbps offering.”

The biggest barrier to competition between mobile providers and cable is a lack of mobile broadband spectrum, the availability of which is artificially limited by – guess who? – the government. Given that the government is responsible for inhibiting the competitiveness of wireless networks, I hardly think government ownership and control of the Internet is the answer to broadband competition.

Ironically, after blogging her belief that cable is a monopoly, Crawford’s very next blog post extolled Google’s deployment of a new fiber broadband network in Kansas City. She described the move as “very smart” and “very disruptive.”

I’m confused. If Crawford recognizes that new fiber entry is smart and disruptive, why is she advocating for government control of the Internet rather than policies that would promote more private investment in all-IP technologies? Because, by her own admission, she is a “radical” who believes in “collective responsibility” for our means of communications. Competition has nothing to do with it.

I thought Todd Zywicki, a senior scholar with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, did a nice job on Judge Napolitano’s “Freedom Watch” show addressing the contentious question of whether government should be regulating food advertising in order to somehow make American kids healthier. Todd pointed out how the advertising guidelines currently being developed are anything but “voluntary” and noted that there are many causes of childhood obesity. Watch the clip here:

Importantly, Todd also notes that there are First Amendment issues in play here. Commercial free speech is not completely without constitutional protection, as I noted in my recent Charleston Law Review article on “Advertising, Commercial Speech & First Amendment Parity.”

Finally, as we always note here about regulation generally — especially restrictions on advertising — there is no free lunch (excuse the pun in this case!). Advertising has traditionally been the great subsidizer of media and information in America. It has also kept competitors on their toes and kept prices in check.  These benefits are lost when we regulate advertising. So, while some nanny state-ers would like to convince us that they simply have the best interests of our kids in mind, the reality is that the regulations they favor will likely drive up costs for families and limit their choices of both products and media platforms, both of which are subsidized by advertising.

A Politician Reacting to an Attack Ad

I’ve never understood why so many people whine about “negative attack ads” during political campaign season. To me, attack ads are just about the only interesting thing that comes out of the early campaign / caucus period. Attack ads are usually chock-full of useful information about candidates and their positions and they typically provoke or even demand a response from the politician being attacked. They also attract increased media scrutiny and broader societal deliberation about a candidate and his or her views.

More importantly, these attack ads and the responses they provoke are far, far more substantive than the typical campaign ad puffery we see and hear. Most campaign ads are packed with absurd banalities ensuring us that the candidate running the ad loves their spouse, children, country, and God.  Well, of course they do!  Enough of that silly crap. It’s meaningless drivel. Give us more attack ads, I say! They are a healthy part of deliberative democracy and our free speech tradition.

Anyway, political scientist John G. Geer has made a far more eloquent case for attack ads and documented their use and importance throughout American history in his book, In Defense of Negativity: Attack Ads in Presidential Campaigns. Here’s the link to a Cato event featuring him and an excerpt from the event is embedded below.

The National Transportation Safety Board recommended yesterday that states ban all non-emergency use of portable electronic devices while driving, except for devices that assist the driver in driving (such as GPS). The recommendation followed the NTSB’s investigation of a tragic accident in Missouri triggered by a driver who was texting.

Personally I don’t see how someone can pay attention to the road while texting. (I’m having a hard enough time paying attention to a conference presentation while I’m typing this!) But the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendation is a classic example of regulatory overreach based on anecdote.  The NTSB wants to use one tired driver’s indefensible and extreme texting (which led to horrific results) as an excuse to ban all use of portable electronic devices while driving – including hands-free phone conversations.  Before states act on this recommendation, they should carefully examine systematic evidence – not just anecdotes — to determine whether different uses of handheld devices pose different risks. They should also consider whether bans on some uses would expose drivers to risks greater than the risk the ban would prevent.

Yes, we pretty much have. That’s the inescapable conclusion following the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic First Amendment decision in Brown v. EMA back in June, which struck down a California law governing the sale of “violent video games” to minors.  By a 7-2 margin, the court held that video games have First Amendment protections on par with books, film, music and other forms of entertainment.

The folks over at ALEC asked me to explore what happens next and what steps state and local lawmakers can take in a post-Brown world if they wish to address concerns about video game content. My essay appears in the Nov/Dec Inside ALEC newsletter. You can read the entire thing here or via the Scribd embed I have placed down below the fold.

I argue that, going forward, this ruling will force state and local governments to change their approach to regulating all modern media content. Education and awareness-building efforts will be the more fruitful alternative since censorship has now been largely foreclosed.

Game Over for Video Game Censorship – Adam Thierer INSIDE ALEC [November 2011]

Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released its long-awaited proposed revisions to the Children’s Online Privacy Protection rule (the “COPPA Rule”). Below I offer a few brief thoughts on the draft document. My remarks assume a basic level of knowledge about COPPA so that I don’t have to spend pages explaining the intricacies of this complex law and regulatory regime. If you need background on the COPPA law and rule, please check out this paper by Berin Szoka and me: “COPPA 2.0: The New Battle over Privacy, Age Verification, Online Safety & Free Speech.”

Dodging the COPA / Mandatory Age Verification Bullet

The most important takeaway from yesterday’s proposal involves something the FTC chose not to do: They agency very wisely decided to ignore some requests to extend the coverage of COPPA’s regulatory provisions from children under 13 all the way up to teens up to 18.  An effort to expand COPPA’s “verifiable parental consent” requirements to all teens would have raised thorny First Amendment issues as well as a host of practical enforcement concerns.  In essence, it would have required Internet-wide age verification of children and adults in order to ensure that everyone was exactly who they claimed to be online. We already had an epic decade-long legal battle over that issue when the constitutionality of the Children’s Online Protection Act (COPA), another 1998 law sometimes confused with COPPA, was tested many times over and always found to be in violation of the First Amendment.

Regardless, the FTC didn’t go there yesterday, so this concern is off the table for now. The agency deserves credit for avoiding this constitutional thicket.

Why Eliminate “Email Plus” Verification?

The FTC proposes the elimination of the current “e-mail plus” method of obtaining veritable parental consent. Under the COPPA rule’s so-called sliding scale approach, sites:

may obtain verifiable parental consent through an email from the parent, so long as the email is coupled with an additional step.  Such additional steps have included: obtaining a postal address or telephone number from the parent and confirming the parent’s consent by letter or telephone call, or sending a delayed confirmatory email to the parent after receiving consent.  The purpose of the additional step is to provide greater assurance that the person providing consent is, in fact, the parent.  This consent method is often called “email plus.”

The FTC says that “email plus has outlived its usefulness and should no longer be a recognized approach to parental consent.” That’s crazy. A great number of sites and service that live under COPPA use this method to stay in compliance with the law. This pulls the rug out from under them and creates major short-term marketplace uncertainty.

So, why has the agency done this? It’s not really because email plus has “has outlived its usefulness,” rather, it’s because the agency believes that “continued reliance on email plus has inhibited the development of more reliable methods of obtaining verifiable parental consent.  In fact, the Commission notes that few, if any, new methods for obtaining parental consent have emerged since the sliding scale was last extended in 2006.” [p. 68]

That’s a very interesting observation. But while I agree that few new parental consent methods have been introduced over the past five years, the FTC has not offered any conclusive evidence here that the existence of “email plus” is to blame. The fact of the matter is that online verification is hard, even the parental consent variety. In a different context, banks are still just having people pump in 4-digit PINs at ATMs after a few decades of debit cards being on the market. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the PIN# approach has stifled other forms of authentication, rather, it’s still just the most simple and efficient way of doing things. The same is true of “email plus” in the COPPA context. Yet, the FTC is upending the process in the name of kickstarting innovation in the authentication space. It’s an interesting gamble, but has the agency thought through the consequences of failure?

Importantly, sites and services that cater to children have also been focusing on putting other safety procedures and practices into place during this period. It’s not like parental notification is the end of the online safety story. As I have always noted in all my work on COPPA, it is not what happens before getting in the door that counts. It is what happens after kids get inside that really counts. The FTC ignores that distinction here and just keeps insisting that we can find better ways to perfect “verifiable parental consent” mechanisms.

All this begs the question: Just what is it that the FTC is looking for that would be superior to “email plus”? For the reasons noted above, they obviously cannot force full-blown online age verification on the Internet. But does the agency want a more rigid, second-best verification system perhaps with a possible government role in the formal authentication process? They might. Read on..

So, What’s This about Bringing Government IDs Into the Process?

The FTC makes another interesting proposal on the bottom of pg. 63 when it is discussing other mechanisms for obtaining verifiable parental consent. After rejecting SMS text messages and electronic “sign and send” methods for various reasons, the agency continues on to propose the following:

The Commission also proposes allowing operators to collect a form of government issued identification – such as a driver’s license, or a segment of the parent’s social security number – from the parent, and to verify the parent’s identity by checking this identification against databases of such information, provided that the parent’s identification is deleted by the operator from its records promptly after such verification is complete.

In one sense, this isn’t at all surprising. Our government already engages in some official credentialing activities, so why not use the ones that we’ve already required to get to help out with COPPA enforcement?  How one answers that question depends on your disposition toward large government databases and the purposes to which they might be put. If you are inherently distrustful of government aggregating and cross-referencing massive amounts of data about the citizenry, the idea of using driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers for yet another thing in this world will make you a bit nervous. It certainly makes me a bit paranoid, but mostly because of what I think might come next. If the FTC gets people accustomed to the idea of using “official” forms of identification to authorize online activities, that could be a slippery slope to something far more troubling. It may just start with just driver’s licenses and the last four digits of your Social Security numbers, but that might not be where it ends. Why not throw some biometric identifiers in the mix? Let’s have kids get retinal scans as the schoolhouse door at the beginning of each school year and then make mom and dad get one too so that we can match the whole gang up next time junior wants to visit Club Penguin! [By the way, who in government collects all this info and gets to use it?]

Moreover, if the FTC is now getting rid of the “email plus” verification process and dismissing text messages and electronic “sign and send” methods as alternative, then one could argue that–at least indirectly, if not intentionally–the FTC is starting to tip the market in favor of government solutions to online credentialing.

Perhaps I’m being a bit paranoid here. But when I was serving on the Harvard Berkman Center online child safety task force a few years ago, I saw all sorts of online verification schemes pitched to us, some of which would have government requiring biometric identifiers or other types of digital tokens be utilized in an effort satisfy some amorphous online authentication requirements. I’m not saying that’s where this particular FTC is taking us, but they’re at least opening the door to more “official” government credentialing efforts in the future with this proposal.

Video Conferencing as a Verification Method? Really?

Just as an aside, I must say that I find one of the few new verification methods the FTC endorses–“having a parent connect to trained personnel via video-conference”–to be a bit surprising. (Seriously, did the lobbyists at Skype sneak this proposal in there?!)  The agency states:

The Commission agrees that now commonly-available technologies such as electronic scans and video conferencing are functionally equivalent to the written and oral methods of parental consent originally recognized by the Commission in 1999.  Therefore, the Commission proposes to recognize these two methods in the proposed Rule.

A couple of people on Twitter yesterday pointed out how unlikely it is that video conferencing could be a scalable, workable solution to obtaining verifiable parental consent. Of course, to be fair, this is not the only consent mechanism the agency is suggesting, so I suppose FTC officials would say it’s just an additional verification method from which sites can choose.

But what I have a hard time imagining is that any parent would want to sit down in front of a webcam, fire up Skype (or whatever other video conferencing service they prefer), and start a video chat with some random bloke who works for an online site or service. A lot of parents will find that annoying; potentially even a bit creepy!

More practically, smaller sites probably just don’t have the manpower or resources to make this solution work. Making people available at all hours to get on a video chat with a parent so that their kid can get on the site is just not going to be a workable verification solution for anyone except the largest online sites and services.

Do Data Deletion Requirements Foreshadow a Push for “Eraser Button” / “Right to be Forgotten”?

On pg. 78, the FTC proposes adding a new data retention and deletion provision to the COPPA regulatory regime:

The proposed provision states that operators shall retain children’s personal information for only as long as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose for which the information was collected.  In addition, it states that an operator must delete such information by taking reasonable measures to protect against unauthorized access to, or use of, the information in connection with its deletion.

In one sense this is commendable. It really would be wise for more online sites and services–especially those who handle kids info–to consider purging unneeded data more frequently. It helps minimize the potential for data security breaches and other problems.

That being said, I have to wonder how this proposal plays into the emerging debate over mandatory online “eraser buttons” and what the Europeans call “the right to be forgotten.” I recently released a Mercatus Center working paper (“Kids, Privacy, Free Speech & the Internet: Finding The Right Balance”), which examined these notions in greater detail. Simply put, an Internet “eraser button” is challenged by practical realities and principled concerns. It’s unclear how to even enforce such a notion. Moreover, if it could be enforced, it would raise profound free speech issues since it is tantamount to digital censorship and specifically threatens press freedoms. And the economic costs of such a mandate — especially on smaller operators — could be quite significant. See my recent Forbes essay for a discussion of those problems.

Again, the FTC is not proposing a formal “eraser button” in its latest COPPA revision. But by pushing for additional steps to be taken on the data deletion front, the agency might encourage more congressional interest in this topic. Reps. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Joe Barton (R-Texas) have already included an eraser button proposal in their “Do Not Track Kids Act of 2011.” It will be interesting to see what happens next on this front.  Free speech and privacy rights are on a major collision course here if steps to encourage data deletion become formalized as law or regulatory proposals.

Conclusion

There’s much, much more in the FTC draft to consider that I’m going to hold judgment on for now. For example, plenty has already been said by others regarding the FTC’s proposal to update the definition of “personal information” to include geolocation information and certain types of persistent identifiers used for functions other than the website’s internal operations, such as tracking cookies used for behavioral advertising.  That’s going to lead to all sorts of heartburn for a wide variety of online sites and service providers. It’s also going to complicate the wireless world as geolocation services expand and become a more ubiquitous part of our mobile digital experiences. But, again, I’m going to hold off on saying more on that for now.

In closing, the broader, more important questions that need to be asked are:

• Will these new proposed amendments and expanded regulatory requirements really do anything to make kids safer or their information more secure?
• Has the FTC even attempted to conduct a rough cost-benefit analysis of these new regulations?
• Have the specific burdens these new rules might impose on smaller operators even been considered?
• Correspondingly, will expanded COPPA regulations discourage new innovations that could offer kids and parents more rewarding online experiences?
• And, finally, will the new rules have an impact on the online cost equation by forcing various sites and services to charge higher prices–or charge prices for services that were previously free?

The Commission gives some lip service to these concerns toward the end of the document when it notes on page 94:

While the Rule’s compliance obligations apply equally to all entities subject to the Rule, it is unclear whether the economic burden on small entities will be the same as or greater than the burden on other entities.  That determination would depend upon a particular entity’s compliance costs, some of which may be largely fixed for all entities (e.g., website programming) and others variable (e.g., Safe Harbor participation), and the entity’s income or profit from operation of the website itself (e.g., membership fees) or related sources (e.g., revenue from marketing to children through the site).  As explained in the Paperwork Reduction Act section, in order to comply with the rule’s requirements, website operators will require the professional skills of legal (lawyers or similar professionals) and technical (e.g., computer programmers) personnel.  As explained earlier, the Commission staff estimates that there are approximately 2,000 website or online services that would qualify as operators under the proposed Rule, and that approximately 80% of such operators would qualify as small entities under the SBA’s Small Business Size standards.  The Commission invites comment and information on these issues.

It’ll be interesting to see what sort of feedback the FTC gets on that point. What I hope the agency and others understand is that questions like these are not just about the future of online business interests. Rather, these questions cut to the core of whether the public– including children–will be served with more and better digital innovations in the future. As we’ve noted countless times before here, there is no free lunch. Regulation–even well-intentioned regulation like COPPA–is not a costless exercise. There are profound trade-offs for online content and culture that must always be considered.

Additional Resources / Reading:

• FTC press release announcing new COPPA revisions
• the new proposed amendments [122 pages]
• summary of revisions by IT Law Group
• summary of revisions by Information Law Group
• Fulbright & Jaworski- “Think the FTC’s Proposed Changes to the Children’s Online Privacy Rule Don’t Affect Your Company? Think Again!”
• analysis from Emma Llanso of CDT
• comments on proposed changes from COPPA expert Izzy Neis
• “COPPA: What happens when a generation ignores a law?” – by Robert Niles
• “How will the FTC’s new digital privacy rules impact developers?” by Jason Ankeny
• “Proposed COPPA Rules: A Mobile Perspective” – by Cooley LLP
• my recent paper on potential dangers of COPPA expansion & mandatory “eraser button”
• my paper with Berin Szoka, “COPPA 2.0: The New Battle over Privacy, Age Verification, Online Safety & Free Speech“

My latest Mercatus Center white paper is entitled “Kids, Privacy, Free Speech & the Internet: Finding The Right Balance.” From the intro:

Concerns about children’s privacy are an important part of [the ongoing privacy debate]. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 (COPPA) already mandates certain online-privacy protections for children under the age of 13. The goal of COPPA was to enhance parents’ involvement in their children’s online activities and better safeguard kids’ personal information online. The FTC is currently considering an expansion of COPPA, and lawmakers in the House of Representatives introduced legislation that would expand COPPA and apply additional FIPPS regulations to teenagers. Some state-based measures also propose expanding COPPA While well-intentioned, efforts to expand privacy regulation along these lines would cause a number of unintended consequences of both a legal and economic nature. In particular, expanding COPPA raises thorny issues about online free speech and anonymity. Ironically, it might also require that more information about individuals be collected to enforce the law’s parental-consent provisions. There are better ways to protect the privacy of children online than imposing burdensome new regulatory mandates on the Internet and online consumers. Education, empowerment, and targeted enforcement of unfair and deceptive practice policies represent the better way forward.

The paper can be downloaded on SSRN, Scribd, or directly from the Mercatus website at the link above.