freedom – Technology Liberation Front https://techliberation.com Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Thu, 03 Apr 2025 23:20:10 +0000 en-US hourly 1 6772528 Running List of My Research on AI, ML & Robotics Policy https://techliberation.com/2022/07/29/running-list-of-my-research-on-ai-ml-robotics-policy/ https://techliberation.com/2022/07/29/running-list-of-my-research-on-ai-ml-robotics-policy/#respond Fri, 29 Jul 2022 12:51:54 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77020

[last updated 4/3/2025 – Check my Medium page for latest posts]

This a running list of all the essays and reports I’ve already rolled out on the governance of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and robotics. Why have I decided to spend so much time on this issue? Because this will become the most important technological revolution of our lifetimes. Every segment of the economy will be touched in some fashion by AI, ML, robotics, and the power of computational science. It should be equally clear that public policy will be radically transformed along the way.

Eventually, all policy will involve AI policy and computational considerations. As AI “eats the world,” it eats the world of public policy along with it. The stakes here are profound for individuals, economies, and nations. As a result, AI policy will be the most important technology policy fight of the next decade, and perhaps next quarter century. Those who are passionate about the freedom to innovate need to prepare to meet the challenge as proposals to regulate AI proliferate.

There are many socio-technical concerns surrounding algorithmic systems that deserve serious consideration and appropriate governance steps to ensure that these systems are beneficial to society. However, there is an equally compelling public interest in ensuring that AI innovations are developed and made widely available to help improve human well-being across many dimensions. And that’s the case that I’ll be dedicating my life to making in coming years.

Here’s the list of what I’ve done so far. I will continue to update this as new material is released:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021 (and earlier)

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/07/29/running-list-of-my-research-on-ai-ml-robotics-policy/feed/ 0 77020 3 Questions about Progress: The Profectus Progress Roundtable https://techliberation.com/2022/06/15/3-questions-about-the-progress-the-profectus-progress-roundtable/ https://techliberation.com/2022/06/15/3-questions-about-the-progress-the-profectus-progress-roundtable/#respond Wed, 15 Jun 2022 17:10:56 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=77002

Profectus is an excellent new online magazine featuring essays and interviews on the intersection of academic literature, public policy, civilizational progress, and human flourishing. The Spring 2022 edition of the magazine features a “Progress Roundtable” in which six different scholars were asked to contribute their thoughts on three general questions:
  1. What is progress?
  2. What are the most significant barriers holding back further progress?
  3. If those challenges can be overcome, what does the world look like in 50 years?

I was honored to be asked by Clay Routledge to contribute answers to those questions alongside others, including: Steven Pinker (Harvard University), Jason Crawford (Roots of Progress), Matt Clancy (Institute for Progress), Marian Tupy (Human​Progress​.org), James Pethokoukis (AEI). I encourage you to jump over the roundtable and read all their excellent responses. I’ve included my answers down below:

What is progress?

Progress is the advancement of human health, happiness, and general well-being. Measures of well-being can be challenging, however, so we should consider a broad range of metrics, including: life expectancy, infant mortality, poverty measures, energy production/consumption, GDP, productivity, agricultural yields/nourishment, and access to various important goods, services, and conveniences. While each of these metrics may have limitations, taken together, they stand for something meaningful that represents a rough proxy for progress.

But we should always remember what progress means at a deeper level for every individual. Innovation and economic growth are important because they allow us to live lives of our own choosing and enjoy the fruits of a prosperous, pluralistic society.  Progress “is not just bigger piles of money,” as Hans Rosling once noted. “The ultimate goal is to have the freedom to do what we want.”  Accordingly, we should aim to broaden the range of opportunities available to all people to help them flourish.

What are the most significant barriers holding back further progress?

The most significant threat to continued progress is the risk of stagnation accompanying efforts to protect the status quo. As Virginia Postrel taught us in her wonderful book The Future & Its Enemies, we should reject stasis-minded thinking and instead shoot for a world of dynamism, which cherishes and protects the freedom to think and act differently.

Progress hinges upon the growth of knowledge. Knowledge comes from experience, and the most important experiences involve trial-and-error learning. Public attitudes and policies that restrict people and ideas from intermingling freely are a recipe for intellectual, social, and economic stagnation. Accordingly, when we consider public policies toward progress, we should first seek to identify and remove legal and regulatory impediments that limit risk-taking, entrepreneurialism, and technological innovation. As science writer Matt Ridley provocatively puts it, to unlock more growth and prosperity, we must first remove obstacles to “ideas having sex.”

The free movement of people and capital is essential to this process. Openness to immigration is the easiest way for a nation to expand its potential for innovation and growth. But domestic labor skills and mobility are equally important. For entrepreneurs and workers, we need to reframe the battle for progress as “the freedom to innovate” and “the right to earn a living.”

Unfortunately, many barriers exist to advancing those goals, like occupational licensing rules and permitting processes, cronyist industrial protectionist schemes, inefficient tax schemes, and many other layers of regulatory red tape. Reforming or eliminating such rules is crucial for broadening opportunities.

Finally, we need to address cultural barriers to progress. Technology and entrepreneurs often get a bad rap in the media and popular culture. Fear and pessimism dominate their narratives. We must do a better job communicating the benefits of openness to change and give people more reasons to be optimistic about a dynamic future.

If those challenges can be overcome, what does the world look like in 50 years?

I agree with Yogi Berra that “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Nonetheless, history shows we can achieve remarkable things when we get the prerequisites for progress right and let people tap into their inherent inquisitiveness and inventiveness. Moving the needle on innovation and growth even just a little will yield compounding returns to future generations. But we should dare to dream bigger and think what progress means for each person today and in the future.

A pro-progress agenda will help us lead longer lives and significantly expand our capabilities because that is what people have always desired most. Accordingly, I believe the most significant advance of the next 50 years will be a radical increase in life expectancy and dramatic improvements in our physical and mental capabilities while we are alive.

Today’s tech critics often claim that technological innovation somehow undermines our humanity. They couldn’t be more wrong. There are few things more human than acts of invention. When we take steps to address practical human needs and wants, we enrich our lives and the lives of countless others. The future will be wonderful, so long as we are free to make it so.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2022/06/15/3-questions-about-the-progress-the-profectus-progress-roundtable/feed/ 0 77002 The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues https://techliberation.com/2021/12/08/the-classical-liberal-approach-to-digital-media-free-speech-issues/ https://techliberation.com/2021/12/08/the-classical-liberal-approach-to-digital-media-free-speech-issues/#comments Wed, 08 Dec 2021 20:41:45 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76930

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Reading :

Older essays & testimony :

]]> https://techliberation.com/2021/12/08/the-classical-liberal-approach-to-digital-media-free-speech-issues/feed/ 2 76930 A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto https://techliberation.com/2020/10/17/a-good-time-to-re-read-reagans-fairness-doctrine-veto/ https://techliberation.com/2020/10/17/a-good-time-to-re-read-reagans-fairness-doctrine-veto/#comments Sat, 17 Oct 2020 22:42:42 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76816

Ronald Reagan's presidential portrait, circa 1981With many conservative policymakers and organizations taking a sudden pro-censorial turn and suggesting that government regulation of social media platforms is warranted, it’s a good time for them to re-read President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 veto of Fairness Doctrine legislation. Here’s the key line:

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.

That wisdom is just as applicable today when some conservatives suggest that government intervention is needed to address what they regardless as “bias” or “unfair” treatment on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or whatever else. Ignoring the fact that such meddling would likely violate property rights and freedom of contract — principles that most conservatives say they hold dear — efforts to empower the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, or other regulators would be hugely misguided on First Amendment grounds.

President Reagan understood that there was a better way to approach these issues that was rooted in innovation and First Amendment protections. Here’s hoping that conservatives remember his sage advice. Read his entire veto message here.

Additional Reading:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/10/17/a-good-time-to-re-read-reagans-fairness-doctrine-veto/feed/ 6 76816 The Case for Sanctuary Cities in Many Different Contexts https://techliberation.com/2020/01/02/the-case-for-sanctuary-cities-in-many-different-contexts/ https://techliberation.com/2020/01/02/the-case-for-sanctuary-cities-in-many-different-contexts/#respond Thu, 02 Jan 2020 22:09:42 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76644

[Cross-posted to Medium.]

The spread of “sanctuary cities”—local governments that resist federal laws or regulations in some fashion, and typically for strongly-held moral reasons—is one of the most interesting and controversial governance developments of recent decades. Unfortunately, the concept receives only a selective defense from people when it fits their narrow political objectives, such as sanctuary movements for immigration and gun rights.

But there is broader case to be made for sanctuaries in many different contexts as a way to encourage experiments in alternative governance models and just let people live lives of their choosing. The concept faces many challenges in practice, however, and I remain skeptical that sanctuary cities will ever scale up and become a widespread governance phenomenon. There’s just too much for federal officials to lose and they likely will crush any particular sanctuary movement that gains serious steam.

Sanctuary Cities as Political Civil Disobedience

First, let’s think about what local officials are really doing when they declare themselves a sanctuary. (Because they can be formed by city, county, or state governments, I will just use “sanctuaries” as a shorthand throughout this essay.)

Academics use the term “rule departure” when referencing “deliberate failures, often for conscientious reasons, to discharge the duties of one’s office.” [Joel Feinberg, “Civil Disobedience in the Modern World,” in Humanities in Society, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1979, p 37.] In this sense, sanctuary cities could be viewed as a type of collective civil disobedience by public officials because these governance arrangements are typically defended on moral grounds and represent an active form of resistance to policies imposed by higher-ups.

Rule departure and political civil disobedience can be carried out by individual government officials or entire governing bodies. Back in the 1970s, for example, some judges refused to convict Vietnam-era “draft dodgers,” even though laws made it clear that they were supposed to be punished. And, although it is rare, juries have sometimes nullified laws that they find unconscionable.

When a legislature engages in rule departure, it is often in opposition to federal policies that local officials feel is unfair or unethical. They may even declare themselves in a sort of open rebellion against a very specific directive and steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the policies being imposed from above. This is how modern sanctuaries developed. In my forthcoming book, Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance, I discuss a couple of prominent recent examples.

When state lawmakers refuse to enforce federal marijuana restrictions because officials in those states favor decriminalization that represents rule departure between levels of government. Similarly, in May 2018, Vermont became the first state to legalize the importation prescription drugs from Canada in an attempt to gain access to lower-priced drugs for its citizens. That policy departed from federal law, which tightly controls the importation of drugs into the US.

Rule departures by city and county governments can be even more daring and far-reaching in effect.  After the Trump Administration took office and announced more restrictive immigration policies, many mayors and local officials promptly announced that they would become sanctuary cities and not follow federal immigration reporting requirements. The number of immigration-related sanctuary cities, counties, and even entire states has grown steadily since then. [The Center for Immigration Studies keeps a running list.]

Even more controversial is the rise of the “Second Amendment sanctuary” movement that resists state or federal firearm restrictions. Virginia cities and counties have been particularly aggressive in declaring themselves gun sanctuaries, but the movement is nationwide and growing fast. Interestingly, the leaders of this movement include many local officials, including some sheriffs, who actively oppose immigration-related sanctuary cities. Conversely, most of the local officials who favor immigration sanctuaries oppose Second Amendment sanctuaries. The only thing unifying officials on either side is a commitment to engage in rule departure for moral reasons.

But here’s the question I want to explore: Why not give both these sanctuary movements (and many others) a chance, regardless of what motivates them?

A Sanctuary for Me, But Not for Thee

Of course, there are few issues that divide the Left and the Right more bitterly these days than immigration and guns, and neither side will accept the moral case for rule departure when the other side is promoting it. Stated differently, while each side will make strong moral claims in favor of rule departure for their pet issue, their defense will not extend to the underlying act of rule departure or political civil disobedience more generally.

And that’s a shame. There is a good case to be made not just for greater localized decision-making and policy experimentation, but also for letting people lives of their own choosing in different governance arrangements.

The idea that we could ever have of one single utopia has always been a silly notion for a simple reason: People are just very different. What would make more sense, the late philosopher Robert Nozick once argued, is a governance arrangement that was truly fit for a pluralistic society. In his 1974 book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick made the case for a regime in which citizens could potentially take advantage of many different utopias to better fit their preferred governance arrangements. “Utopia is a framework for utopias, a place where people are at liberty to join together voluntarily to pursue and attempt to realize their own vision of the good life in the ideal community but where no one can impose his own utopian vision upon others,” he said.

I’ve always found this “utopia of utopias” vision enormously compelling in theory but somewhat unrealistic in practice. It is appealing precisely because it rejects any effort to define utopia in a monolithic fashion. A true utopia would reject one-size-fits-all governance schemes and instead promote a framework for optimizing an individual’s ability to choose their preferred governance arrangement (hopefully among many options). “There is no reason to think that there is one community which will serve as ideal for all people,” Nozick noted, “and much reason to think that there is not.”

Indeed, it is likely that my preferred utopia is not yours. What’s my particular sanctuary look like? Adam Smith argued in 1755 that all that was needed for lifting civilization up “from the lowest barbarism” to “the highest degree of opulence” is “peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.” More recently, Emily Chamlee-Wright, president of the Institute for Humane Studies, elaborated on this vision when she identified the core elements of a good society as, “a pluralistic and tolerant society in which intellectual and economic progress are the norm, and where individuals and communities flourish in a context of openness, peaceful and voluntary cooperation, and mutual respect.”

That pretty much sums up the utopia or sanctuary I’d like to live in. More concretely, my perfect sanctuary would combine elements of all the real-world sanctuary cities described above. It would give immigrants safe haven and allow everyone to carry firearms openly while also ignoring federal marijuana restrictions and drug importation rules! Moreover, drones would zip through the air delivering goods (regardless of what the FAA said), driverless cars would occupy the roads (regardless of what the DOT said), and citizens with serious illnesses would be more free to try alternative treatments (regardless of what the FDA said).

Of course, I also appreciate that many other people would prefer to live in sanctuaries where government plays are a far more active role. Might it be possible for us all to agree to live peacefully in our separate utopias, yet also remain part of some loosely unified federation? What would help make that model work, Nozick argued, was some sort of minimal state above all the utopias that ensured peace and free movement of people, goods, and information among them. So, you pick your utopia and I’ll pick mine, but let us agree to be free to trade with each other and move to other utopias if we are not satisfied.

That remains a beautiful governance vision to me, and, if nothing else, I hope others would appreciate the potential benefits associated with experimentation in government administration. In his 1970 book, Exit, Voice and Loyalty, the economist and political theorist Albert Hirschman discussed the interplay between “voice” and “exit”—for businesses, organizations, and even governments—and argued that, “exit has an essential role to play in restoring quality performance of government, just as in any organization.”

Sanctuaries represent a form of localized collective voice (opposing specific policy choices made by higher-ups) combined with the implicit threat of some sort of exit. “The chances for voice to function effectively as a recuperation mechanism,” Hirschman argued, “are appreciably strengthened if voice is backed up by the threat of exit, whether it is made openly or whether the possibility of exit is merely well understood to be an element in the situation by all concerned.” I doubt any cities, counties, or states are going to try to completely exit the American republic over the issues that led them to form sanctuaries. Nonetheless, sanctuaries— and even the very threat to form one—can still act as a sort of relief valve that allow citizens to push back against over-zealous edicts from above, while also potentially giving citizens the chance to “shop around” for better jurisdictional governance arrangements.

Haven’t We Already Tried This?

Practically speaking, however, a utopia of utopias must have some limits or else it breaks down under the weight of endless splintering, border disputes, and even the threat of violence. As the Wall Street Journal editorial board argued in a recent essay about sanctuary cities, an atomistic patchwork of breakaway sub-governments could lead to discord and “lawlessness.” And that was in an editorial about Second Amendment sanctuary cities, which the Journal is more ideologically predisposed to favor!

But this is not a completely unfounded concern. Think about American history. Many people forget that America’s current constitution is not our nation’s first. The Articles of Confederation were formulated by the 13 original colonies as they fought for their independence from Great Britain. The Articles were a dismal failure, however, and did not even last a decade. America’s Founders abandoned the Articles because the sole governing agent—Congress—lacked any real power. It couldn’t do much to sustain itself or an army to defend the new nation, which the Articles treated as more of just a collection of territories in “a firm league of friendship with each other.”

More importantly, because states retained all the real power under the Articles, trade skirmishes broke out among them and Congress was virtually powerless to do anything about it. The so-called “league of friendship” threatened to degenerate into endless commercial and political conflicts among loosely joined state sovereigns. The situation grew intolerable and by 1789 the Articles were discarded in favor of a new Constitution that opted for a more tightly integrated union, which would guarantee some basic rights and also help ensure that commerce and people could move freely across state borders.

The durability of this framework remains a remarkable achievement and, in some ways, could be viewed as a more workable “utopia of utopias” than what the Articles of Confederation proposed. Yet, while plenty of people still play up the benefits of devolution and local control, American federalism has been increasingly neutered over the past century. The federal government came to take on more and more authority over even the most trivial parochial matters. States and localities must now beg for freedoms from federal restrictions, but they usually cave fairly quickly and fall in line with federal demands at the mere threat of federal lawmakers just denying them a few grants. Political kickbacks, it turns out, is a remarkably simple way to get subordinate bodies to fall in line and comply with top-down edicts.

Does a Broader Sanctuary Movement Have Any Hope?

Which is why it is remarkable that the sanctuary city movement is still alive at all. It might be because, as George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin has suggested, many Democrats fell back in love with federalism following the election of Donald Trump. Devolution and local control suddenly sounds a lot more appealing to many Dems when it becomes a way to resist federal restrictions on immigration and marijuana decontrol, among other issues.

It could still be the case that these sanctuary movements will be brought to heel in coming years. Current sanctuary efforts provide a good litmus test for just how much real-world policy experimentation federal officials are willing to tolerate. To the extent any particular sanctuary effort gained meaningful momentum and posed a serious challenge to federal power in some fashion, I believe it would likely be crushed eventually. While plenty of politicians provide lip service to the idea “reinventing government” and enhancing local decision-making, the reality is that if we ever had anything approximating actual entrepreneurial government administration in this country, the feds would likely move quickly to snuff it out.

If the Supreme Court took action to limit semi-rebellious efforts like these, it would also discourage future sanctuary city experiments. But it is more likely that, as suggested above, federal officials would just double-down on the “power of the purse” to intimidate state officials into complying—and then presumably force governors and state legislatures to do the dirty work of cracking down on cities and counties that won’t comply with federal demands. President Trump has already tapped this playbook to threaten immigration sanctuaries with Executive Order 13768 of January 25, 2017, which sought to “[e]nsure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds.” Lower courts have pushed back, however, and a bit of a stalemate has ensued.

If things got really ugly, one could imagine President Trump or a future Democratic president calling in the National Guard to deal with sanctuaries that really pushed the limits on immigration, guns, or anything else disfavored by the powers that be. God help us if we get to that point. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail.

A Dream Deferred

In the meantime, I will persist in making the case for sanctuaries and other forms of experimental government—including charter cities and special economic zones—more generally. I remain a bit of a dreamer and will continue to defend alternative governance visions based on the benefits associated with political decentralization, policy experimentation, and citizen choice. I continue to long for Nozick’s noble vision of, “a society in which utopian experimentation can be tried, different styles of life can be lived, and alternative visions of the good can be individually or jointly pursued.”

Alas, I am also a political realist and I recognize it is highly quixotic to believe that this governance framework will carry the day in the short-term. Selective morality will prevail instead. That is, most people will loudly proclaim the moral imperative of sanctuaries only when it fits their ideological priors, while equally vociferously decrying creative governance alternatives when they do not align with their political values. In the end, both sides will only succeed in crushing the broader dream of more decentralized communities of common interest, simply because a lot pf people just cannot tolerate giving others a little zone of freedom in this world.

And so a “utopia of utopias” will likely remain a dream deferred.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2020/01/02/the-case-for-sanctuary-cities-in-many-different-contexts/feed/ 0 76644 Q&A about Evasive Entrepreneurialism & the Freedom to Innovate https://techliberation.com/2018/09/13/qa-about-evasive-entrepreneurialism-the-freedom-to-innovate/ https://techliberation.com/2018/09/13/qa-about-evasive-entrepreneurialism-the-freedom-to-innovate/#comments Thu, 13 Sep 2018 13:02:16 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76378

Over at the Mercatus Center’s Bridge blog, Chad Reese interviewed me about my forthcoming book and continuing research on “evasive entrepreneurialism” and the freedom to innovate. I provide a quick summary of the issues and concepts that I am exploring with my colleagues currently. Those issues include:

  • free innovation
  • evasive entrepreneurialism & social entrepreneurialism
  • technological civil disobedience
  • the freedom to tinker / freedom to try / freedom to innovate
  • the right to earn a living
  • “moonshots” / deep technologies / disruptive innovation / transformative tech
  • innovation culture
  • global innovation arbitrage
  • the pacing problem & the Collingridge dilemma
  • “soft law” solutions for technological governance

You can read the entire Q&A over at The Bridge, or I have pasted it down below.

Your research and next book project are focused on “evasive entrepreneurialism” and the freedom to innovate. Tell us a bit more about this work.

Evasive entrepreneurs are innovators who don’t always conform to social or legal norms. Various scholars have documented how entrepreneurs are increasingly using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems or put pressure on lawmakers or regulators to alter policy in some fashion. Evasive entrepreneurs rely on a strategy of “permissionless innovation” in both the business world and the political arena.

Some evasive behavior could even be considered “technological civil disobedience” in the sense that many innovators behave in this fashion because they find many rules to be offensive, confusing, time-consuming, expensive, or perhaps just annoying and irrelevant. In that sense, they could also be referred to as “regulatory entrepreneurs” who push back against what Tim Sandefur labels “The Permission Society.”

My book documents “evasive” behavior of this sort and explains why it is happening with increasing regularity. I also make the normative case for embracing the freedom to innovative more generally because of the many benefits society derives from technological innovations and especially “moonshots”—game-changing, transformative technologies.

You mentioned “permissionless innovation.” That was the topic of your last book. Could you explain what that means and how it relates to your new book?

The term “permissionless innovation” is of uncertain origin but generally refers to trying new things without asking for the prior blessing of various authorities. The phrase is sometimes attributed to Grace M. Hopper, a computer scientist who was a rear admiral in the United States Navy. “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission,” she once noted famously.

In my last book, I used the term more broadly to describe a governance philosophy for a variety of emerging technologies and contrasted it with its opposite—the “precautionary principle.” Permissionless innovation, I argued, refers to the notion that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention will bring serious harm to society, innovation should be allowed to continue and problems, if any develop, can be addressed later.

By contrast, the precautionary principle generally recommends disallowing or slowing innovations until their creators can prove that new products and services are “safe,” however that is defined. The problem with making precaution the basis of all technology policy is that it means a great deal of life-enriching (and even life-saving) innovation will never come about if we base policy on hypothetical worst-case scenarios.

The tension between these visions is on display in every major technology field today—drones, driverless cars, crypocurrency, genetics, mobile medicine, 3D printing, virtual reality, the sharing economy, and many others. That’s why we have made these sectors the focus of ongoing Mercatus research.

Could you give us a few examples of how entrepreneurs behave in an “evasive” fashion or how innovators engage in technological civil disobedience?

Many scholars and tech analysts have highlighted the ways in which sharing economy innovators like Uber and Airbnb engaged in regulatory entrepreneurialism, but that’s hardly the only example. Using 3D printers and open source designs, for example, many creative people are pushing up against legal norms when they fabricate prosthetic hands for children with limb deficiencies or create their own firearms for self-defense.

One of my favorite examples is the open source, do-it-yourself Nightscout Project, a non-profit founded by parents of diabetic children. These parents came together and shared knowledge and code to create better insulin remote monitoring and delivery devices for their kids. Their motto is “WeAreNotWaiting.” Specifically, these parents got tired of waiting for the development of new “professional” devices to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which can take many years to get through the regulatory process. Through voluntary collaboration, these parents have created reliable devices that are much less expensive than those FDA-approved devices, which can cost many thousands of dollars.

When average citizens engage in this sort of “biohacking” to create better and cheaper insulin pumps or 3D-printed prosthetic limbs but do not charge anything for it, their actions are of ambiguous legality. But even if they are breaking some laws or bending some rules, it isn’t stopping them from working together to make the world a better place. That’s technological civil disobedience in a nutshell.

So evasive entrepreneurialism can be both commercial and non-commercial in character?

Yes. Abroad range of “evasive” actors exist with large commercial players on one end of the spectrum and purely non-commercial “grassroots” or “household” innovators on the other. MIT economist Eric von Hippel calls the latter activity “free innovation,” which includes things like the 3D-printed creations I already mentioned.

Social entrepreneurialism is a closely related concept. Several of my Mercatus colleagues have documented how social entrepreneurs were instrumental in helping community recovery efforts following hurricanes and other disasters. Entrepreneurs aim to create social value through innovative acts that can assist their communities, while also potentially helping them create new business opportunities later down the road.

What’s interesting about “free innovation” and social entrepreneurialism is that much of this activity happens at the boundaries of what it technically legal. These innovators just want to help others. When laws stand in the way of that, they sometimes creatively evade them to get things done. That’s clearly the case with the open source DIY insulin pumps or 3D-printed prosthetic limbs.

Another example involves drone enthusiasts who often help out in search-and-rescue missions for missing people and pets even though they could be running afoul of various aviation regulations in the process. Even something as routine as children setting up free lemonade stands without local permits serves as an example of how people can behave in an evasive fashion to serve others.

The so-called “pacing problem” figures prominently in your work. Could you explain what it is and why it is important to the future of innovation policy?

As I noted in a recent Bridge essay, the pacing problem refers to the notion that technological change increasingly outpaces the ability of laws and regulations to keep up. The power of “combinatorial innovation,” which is driven by “Moore’s Law,” fuels a constant expansion of technological capabilities. Meanwhile, citizens quickly assimilate new tools into their daily lives and then expect that even more and better tools will be delivered tomorrow.

This makes it difficult for government officials and organizations to keep policy in line with fast-moving marketplace and social developments. That is especially true because of how increasingly dysfunctional and unable to adapt many government bodies and processes have become. This is why I argue that the pacing problem is becoming the great equalizer in debates over technological governance; policymakers are being forced to rethink their approach to the regulation of many sectors and technologies. This is especially the case because the pacing problem can be exploited by evasive entrepreneurs who are looking to do an end-run around slower regulatory processes.

Will “evasive” tactics work for entrepreneurs in every context? It seems like this would be more challenging in some regulatory contexts than others, right?

Evasive techniques are obviously more likely to succeed for technologies and sectors that are “born free” as opposed to “born captive.”  Technologies that are “born free” are not confronted with old laws and regulatory regimes that require permission before new products and services are offered. For example, there is no Federal Robotics Commission, 3D Printing Safety Act, or Virtual Reality Agency. It’s obviously easier to innovate as you wish in those fields, at least currently.

If, however, you want to put a driverless car on the road or a drone in the sky, preemptive approval is required, making evasive acts far riskier. Of course, it is exactly those sectors where evasive acts are potentially most needed! Too many old sectors are immune from new entry and consumer choice due to cronyism and industrial protectionism. As we saw with the ride-sharing services and now electric scooter sharing, sometimes evasive techniques can work for a time and then give innovators more leverage at the bargaining table.

In some cases, like space policy, supersonic transportation, or new FinTech offerings, evasive strategies are largely impossible because of the stifling morass of overlapping laws and regulations. Agencies will not tolerate much (if any) departure from regulatory norms in those instances. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and FDA are particularly notorious for stifling entrepreneurial efforts.

But I am sometimes surprised to find evasive efforts happening even in those sectors. While the FAA is quite heavy-handed about strictly regulating airspace, the agency isn’t doing much to enforce its current drone registration requirements. Countless Americans fly their drones every day without a care about what the feds say. And while 23andme got a cease-and-desist order from the FDA due to their evasive efforts with home genetic test kits, the creators of many mobile medical devices and 3D-printed medical objects are currently being allowed to push up against the boundaries of legality under traditional FDA rules. The agency has bent its rules to accommodate that activity. When agencies take a pass on enforcing their own regulations, that is called “rule departure,” and it seems to be happening with greater regularity, probably due to the combined influence of both the pacing problem and evasive entrepreneurialism.

What’s at stake if policymakers push back too aggressively against evasive innovators?

Technological innovation is the fundamental driver of human well-being. When we let people experiment with new and better ways of doing things, we not only allow for the constant expansion of new goods and services, but we grow opportunities, incomes, and knowledge. This is how countries raise their overall standard of living and achieve prosperity over the long haul.

Entrepreneurs are the key to this process because by taking risks and exploring new opportunities, they continuously replenish the well of important ideas and innovations. If, therefore, we punish creative people for seeking creative solutions to hard problems—even those sometimes behaving “evasively”—we will be denied the fruits of those creative efforts. We will also be denying them the right to earn a livingand enjoy the fruits of their labors. In this sense, the freedom to innovate is closely linked with individual autonomy and self-worth and deserves greater protection. It is about being free to pursue happiness however we each see fit.

Policymakers should, therefore, give innovators greater freedom to experiment, even when those efforts prove to be highly disruptive. Moonshots may not happen unless public policy supports a culture of experimentation and risk-taking. This is also crucial to the competitive advantage of nations. Scholars from many different fields have observed how a nation’s attitudes toward entrepreneurialism create a sort of “innovation culture,” which sends signals to individuals and investors about where they should spend their time and money. Unsurprisingly, where public policy frowns upon entrepreneurial effort, you get a lot less of it. Like a plant, innovation must be nurtured to help it and the economy grow.

In today’s highly integrated global economy, you either innovate or perish thanks to the increasing prevalence of “innovation arbitrage.” This refers to the fact that ideas and innovations will often flock to those jurisdictions that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity. We see it happening today with drones, driverless cars, and genetic testing to just name three prominent examples.

Don’t you think that policymakers will bring down the regulatory hammer on evasive entrepreneurs? Should they?

Humility, patience, and flexibility are the key virtues for policymakers in this regard. If policymakers can come to appreciate the ways in which evasive entrepreneurialism can help advance economic and social opportunities, then they should consider giving innovative acts a wide berth—even when entrepreneurs are not in strict compliance with all laws and regulations.

Evasive acts are not usually undertaken to completely defy the law. Instead, they often represent the beginning of a negotiation. Many innovators have grown frustrated with public policies that block new entry or just defy common sense. Evading anti-competitive or illogical restrictions is a way to gain some degree of leverage in political negotiations. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn’t. But traditional reform avenues are often foreclosed because incumbents and other defenders of the regulatory status quo don’t like change.

Policymakers should see evasive entrepreneurialism as a signal that politics sometimes fails to serve the public when change is needed most. And once they sit down with innovators to discuss a better way of crafting policy, they need to be willing to adapt and devise more flexible governance frameworks, most of a “soft law” variety. As my colleagues and I explain in a recent law review article, soft lawrefers to a hodge-podge of informal governance tools for emerging tech, such as multistakeholder processes, industry best practices, agency guidance and consultation, and so on. Such informal governance mechanisms will need to fill the governance gap left by the gradual erosion of hard law thanks to the growth of the pacing problem and the expansion of evasive entrepreneurialism.

But what about the worst-case scenarios some fear, like the proverbial mad scientist who concocts a horrific virus in their basement? Even if they are still just hypothetical, aren’t some serious risk worth addressing preemptively?

Indeed, there are some extremely serious harms that are worth addressing preemptively, but that’s all the better reason to  not get obsessed with lesser concerns. Over-regulating entrepreneurial activity is foolish in a world where policymakers are both knowledge- and resource-constrained.

My Mercatus colleagues have documented the astonishing growth and cost of regulatory accumulation. But forget about the burden excessive regulation poses to entrepreneurs and the economy for a moment, and instead consider how all those enforcement activities divert the time and attention of regulators themselves away from bigger problems. When policymakers get lost in a convoluted compliance maze of their own making, they lose the ability to address big risks in a sensible, timely fashion. That’s why we need a new governance vision for the technological age that is more flexible and adaptive than the heavy-handed regulatory regimes of the Industrial Era.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2018/09/13/qa-about-evasive-entrepreneurialism-the-freedom-to-innovate/feed/ 2 76378 We’re All Media Marxists Now! Conservatives Move to Socialize the Soapbox https://techliberation.com/2018/08/30/were-all-media-marxists-now-conservatives-move-to-socialize-the-soapbox/ https://techliberation.com/2018/08/30/were-all-media-marxists-now-conservatives-move-to-socialize-the-soapbox/#comments Thu, 30 Aug 2018 20:30:14 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76364

Thirteen years ago I penned an essay entitled, “Your Soapbox is My Soapbox!” It was condensed from a 2005 book I had released at the same time called Media Myths. My research and writing during that period and for fifteen years prior to that was focused on the dangers associated with calls by radical Left-leaning media scholars and policy activists for a veritable regulatory revolution in the way information and communication technology (ICT) platforms were operated. They pushed this revolution using noble-sounding rhetoric like “fairness in coverage,” “right of reply,” “integrity of public debate,” “preserving the public square,” and so on. Their advocacy efforts were also accompanied by calls for a host of new regulatory controls including a “Bill of Media Rights” to grant the public a litany of new affirmative rights over media and communications providers and platforms.

But no matter how much the so-called “media access” movement sought to sugarcoat their prescriptions, in the end, what those Left-leaning scholars and advocates were calling for was sweeping state control of media and communications technologies and platforms. In essence, they wanted to socialize private soapboxes and turn them into handmaidens of the state.

Here’s the way I began my old “soapbox” essay:

Imagine you built a platform in your backyard for the purpose of informing or entertaining your friends of neighbors. Now further imagine that you are actually fairly good at what you do and manage to attract and retain a large audience. Then one day, a few hecklers come to hear you speak on your platform. They shout about how it’s unfair that you have attracted so many people to hear you speak on your soapbox and they demand access to your platform for a certain amount of time each day. They rationalize this by arguing that it is THEIR rights as listeners that are really important, not YOUR rights as a speaker or the owner of the soapbox. That sort of scenario could never happen in America, right? Sadly, it’s been the way media law has operated for several decades in this country. This twisted “media access” philosophy has been employed by federal lawmakers and numerous special interest groups to justify extensive and massively unjust regime of media regulation and speech redistributionism. And it’s still at work today.

That was 2005. What’s amazing today is that this same twisted attitude is still on display, but it is conservatives who are now the ring-leaders of the push to socialize soapboxes!

Conservatives were squarely against such soapbox socialism when I penned my earlier essay and book. During that time, they feared that the media access movement would devolve into a political witch hunt aimed at singling them out and eliminating the many new popular personalities and platforms that offered the public Right-of-center voices and viewpoints.

But it’s a new day in America and conservatives have now flipped this script and are using the media access movement playbook to call for massive state control over private media and technology platforms in the name of eradicating supposed “bias” against them and their views.

Apparently everyone’s a Media Marxist these days, beginning with President Trump! Claiming that there is some sort of grand anti-conservative conspiracy afoot, President Trump and many of his defenders are pushing for greater government control of the media and tech companies. The White House is apparently “taking a look” at the idea of regulating Google because it is part of the “fake news media.” (Over at TechDirt, Zach Graves has a thorough debunking of such nonsense.) Of course, this follows Trump’s seemingly endless jihad against older media outlets, especially large newspapers and cable news enterprises that he disfavors.

Meanwhile, a new White House “We the People” petition to “Protect Free Speech in the Digital Public Square” already has almost 40,000 signatures. “The internet is the modern public square,” the manifesto begins. It continues on to claims that “the free and open internet has become a controlled, censored space, monopolized by a few unaccountable corporations” and that “[b]y banning users from their platforms, those corporations can effectively remove politically unwelcome Americans from the public square.” It concludes with the following call to action: “The President should request that Congress pass legislation prohibiting social media platforms from banning users for First Amendment-protected speech. The power to block lawful content should be in the hands of individual users – not [Facebook’s] Mark Zuckerberg or [Twitter’s] Jack Dorsey.”

Such rhetoric and proposals are indistinguishable from what the Left-leaning media access advocates were calling for in the past.

Is “media Marxism” too strong a term to use in this regard? Well, the textbook definition of Marxism involves state control of the means of production. In the case of information platforms, control of the means of production would involve the forcible surrender of some combination of the underlying editorial control that the owners have over their speech platforms as well as potential state control of the algorithms and other technical foundations of digital platforms.

And so let’s hear from former White House strategist Steve Bannon commenting to CNN on what he thinks needs to be done next:

>> Bannon said Big Tech’s data should be seized and put in a “public trust.” Specifically, Bannon said, “I think you take [the data] away from the companies. All that data they have is put in a public trust. They can use it. And people can opt in and opt out. That trust is run by an independent board of directors. It just can’t be that [Big Tech is] the sole proprietors of this data…I think this is a public good.” Bannon added that Big Tech companies “have to be broken up” just like Teddy Roosevelt broke up the trusts.” >> Bannon attacked the executives of Facebook, Twitter and Google. “These are run by sociopaths,” he said. “These people are complete narcissists. These people ought to be controlled, they ought to be regulated.” At one point during the phone call, Bannon said, “These people are evil. There is no doubt about that.” >> Bannon said he thinks “this is going to be a massive issue” in future elections. He said he thinks it will probably take until 2020 to fully blossom as a campaign issue, explaining, “I think by the time 2020 comes along, this will be a burning issue. I think this will be one of the biggest domestic issues.” Bannon said the “#MeToo movement has brought the issue of consent front and center” and argued that “this is going to bring the issue of digital consent front and center.”

On one hand, Bannon no longer works in Trump’s White House, so perhaps it isn’t fair to say that his views and prescriptions are tantamount to the President’s views. But Bannon was saying similar things while he was in the White House with Trump and the President’s surrogates have been continuously upping their rhetoric to suggest that they are serious about moving against the ICT sector in some fashion.

So, apparently we now inhabit a Bizarro World where the Hard Right has replaced the Hard Left in the U.S. in the never-ending drama of speech control. In past decades, some conservatives favored media regulation, of course. In fact, in the heyday of the Fairness Doctrine, many leading conservative voices insisted that regulation was needed to counter supposed “liberal bias” in broadcasting. It was only when Rush Limbaugh and many other conservatives came along in the late 1980s / early 1990s and gained a significant audience on talk radio that conservative sympathy for the Fairness Doctrine completely disappeared. In fact, conservatives then became vociferous critics of the Doctrine and demanded a stake be driven through its heart. Eventually, they did just that.  But even during the time when some conservative pundits supported the Fairness Doctrine, that support was fairly limited and tepid. And you almost never heard conservatives supporting radical state control of the press as a solution to perceived bias.

Yet, here we are now with Trump and many of his allies floating proposals to treat information platforms as the equivalent of essential facilities or “public squares” which would have some sort of amorphous fiduciary obligations or “public interest” responsibilities to serve the public however politicians and bureaucrats in Washington see fit. That could entail anything from “search neutrality” to a new Fairness doctrine / right of reply mandate to a full-blown antirust breakup.

Like the Hard Left before them, the Hard Right has apparently come to view ICT platforms as just another part of the socio-political superstructure to be controlled from above to achieve their own ends. Trump and his allies have repeatedly referred to the press as the “enemy of the American people.” (His latest tweet using that phrase has already racked up almost 84,000 likes.) That’s totalitarian talk, and it softens the ground for the sort of takeover that Bannon and others desire. The “Fake News” that President Trump and his surrogates decry includes not just traditional journalism outlets but all forms of information production and dissemination. Trump wants them all to bend the knee before him. Because they won’t, apparently they are to be punished.

If Trump and his allies get their way, America would join the ranks of repressive states around the globe who seek to control speech platforms for their own ends. That sort of totalitarian impulse is repugnant to the values of a democratic republic that values open inquiry, freedom of speech and expression, press freedom, and the freedom to know about and report on the world around us.

As I concluded my earlier “soapbox” essay back in 2005:

This arrogant, elitist, anti-property, anti-freedom ethic is what drives the media access movement and makes it so morally repugnant. Freedom doesn’t begin by fettering the press with more chains, it begins by removing those that already exist and then erecting a firm wall between State and Press. The media access crowd has succeeded in breaching that wall with seven decades of misguided and unjust regulation of the press. The movement back toward a truly free press begins by understanding the error in their thinking, rejecting that reasoning, and then embracing, once again, the original vision of the First Amendment as a bulwark against government control of speech and the press.

In closing, this is a good moment for those on the moderate Left to reflect upon what they have enabled by sketching out and defending this intellectual blueprint for media control. The Left helped make the bed that Donald Trump is now getting cozy in. Many Hard Left scholars repeatedly told us that it was with the very best of intentions that they advocated more state control of the ICT sectors. There’s no bringing those radicals around to seeing the mistake they made. They will just double down on their proposals and claim that once “their team” gets back in power, all will be fine. It is utter poppycock, but they won’t care one bit.

The moderate Left, however, should be more sensible than that because they have been the great defenders of the First Amendment and freedom of speech in modern American history. And they understand that the danger of the slippery slope is very real when it comes to speech controls and how they might undermine our First Amendment heritage. When the moderate Left allows radical media theorists and regulatory advocacy groups to push extreme media control measures, however, they are creating speech control mechanisms that are very susceptible to being overtaken by their enemies and then used against them later on. And now we have a President who is doing exactly that.

It is a truly horrifying moment in the history of the American Republic. Hopefully we get through it and learn something from it.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2018/08/30/were-all-media-marxists-now-conservatives-move-to-socialize-the-soapbox/feed/ 2 76364 Celebrating 20 Years of Internet Free Speech & Free Exchange https://techliberation.com/2017/06/22/celebrating-20-years-of-internet-free-speech-free-exchange/ https://techliberation.com/2017/06/22/celebrating-20-years-of-internet-free-speech-free-exchange/#comments Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:47:15 +0000 https://techliberation.com/?p=76149

[originally published on Plaintext on June 21, 2017.]

This summer, we celebrate the 20th anniversary of two developments that gave us the modern Internet as we know it. One was a court case that guaranteed online speech would flow freely, without government prior restraints or censorship threats. The other was an official White House framework for digital markets that ensured the free movement of goods and services online.

The result of these two vital policy decisions was an unprecedented explosion of speech freedoms and commercial opportunities that we continue to enjoy the benefits of twenty years later.

While it is easy to take all this for granted today, it is worth remembering that, in the long arc of human history, no technology or medium has more rapidly expanded the range of human liberties — both speech and commercial liberties — than the Internet and digital technologies. But things could have turned out much differently if not for the crucially important policy choices the United States made for the Internet two decades ago.

First, on June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Reno v. ACLU, which struck down the Communications Decency Act’s provisions seeking to regulate online content under the old broadcast media standard. The Court concluded that there was “no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium” and rejected the congressional effort to pigeonhole this exciting new medium into the archaic censorship regimes of the past.

The Reno decision was tremendously important in protecting online speakers from the chilling effect of government “indecency” regulations. The decision also set a strong legal precedent and was cited in countless subsequent decisions involving not only online speech, but also efforts to regulate video game content.

Second, in July 1997, the Clinton Administration released The Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, a document that outlined the US government’s new policy approach toward the Internet and the emerging digital economy. The Framework was a bold vision statement that endorsed comprehensive online freedom of exchange, saying that “the private sector should lead [and] the Internet should develop as a market driven arena not a regulated industry.” The Administration rejected a restrictive regulatory regime for commercial activities and instead recommended reliance on civil society, contractual negotiations, voluntary agreements, and industry self-regulation.

To “avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce,” the vision statement recommended that “parties should be able to enter into legitimate agreements to buy and sell products and services across the Internet with minimal government involvement or intervention.” But, “[w]here governmental involvement is needed, its aim should be to support and enforce a predictable, minimalist, consistent and simple legal environment for commerce.”

Taken together, the Reno decision and the Clinton Administration’s Framework acted as a Magna Carta moment for the Internet and digital technologies. It signaled that “permissionless innovation” would become America’s governance stance toward online speech and commerce.

As I defined it in a book on the subject, permissionless innovation, “refers to the notion that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention will bring serious harm to society, innovation should be allowed to continue unabated and problems, if any develop, can be addressed later.” The primary advantage of permissionless innovation as a governance disposition is that it sends a clear green light to citizens telling them they are at liberty to pursue their own interests and passions, free from the suffocating grip of prior restraints on free speech and free exchange.

But the Reno decision and the Clinton Administration’s Framework are not the only critical policy decisions that helped enshrine permissionless innovation as the lodestar of online policy in the US. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton Administration made the decision to allow open commercialization of the Internet, which was previously just the domain of government agencies and university researchers. Even more crucially, when Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996, lawmakers made it clear that traditional analog-era communications and media regulatory regimes would generally not be applied to the Internet.

The Telecom Act also included an obscure provision known as “Section 230,” which immunized online intermediaries from onerous liability for the content and communications that traveled over their networks. Section 230 was hugely important in that it let online speech and commerce flourish without the constant threat of frivolous lawsuits looming overhead. Internet scholar David Post has argued that “it is impossible to imagine what the Internet ecosystem would look like today without [Section 230]. Virtually every successful online venture that emerged after 1996 — including all the usual suspects, viz. Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Reddit, Craigslist, YouTube, Instagram, eBay, Amazon — relies in large part (or entirely) on content provided by their users, who number in the hundreds of millions, or billions,” he notes. It is unlikely that the vibrant marketplace of online speech and commerce we enjoy today could have existed without the protections afforded by Section 230.

Finally, in 1998, another important legislative development occurred when Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which blocked all levels of government in the US from imposing discriminatory taxes on the Internet. That made it clear that the Net would not be milked as a “cash cow” the way previous communications systems had been.

So, let’s recap how policymakers generally got policy right for the Internet in the mid-1990s by enshrining permissionless innovation as the law of the land:

  • The Executive Branch set the tone for online freedom by fully privatizing the underlying network and then establishing a governance vision based upon minimal government interference with online speech and exchange.
  • The Legislative Branch generally endorsed the Clinton Administration’s vision for the Internet and digital technologies by ensuring that new policies would not be based upon the failed regulatory and tax policies of the past.
  • The Judicial Branch upheld the centrality of the First Amendment in the Information Age and made it clear that this new medium for speech would be granted the strongest protection against government encroachments on freedom of speech and expression.

The combined effect of these wise, bipartisan policy decisions was that the Net and digital tech were “born free” instead of being born into regulatory captivity. We continue to enjoy the fruits of these freedoms today as citizens here in the US and across the world take advantage of the unprecedented ability to connect and communicate to pursue their passions and interests as they see fit.

There’s still more work to be done, however. Online platforms and digital technologies continue to come under attack from regulatory activists both here and abroad. Many governments continue to push back against these online speech and commercial freedoms, meaning we’ll need to redouble our efforts to highlight and defend the benefits of preserving these important victories.

Finally, as the underlying drivers of the Digital Revolution continue to spread into other segments of the economy, these freedoms will come into conflict with older top-down regulatory regimes for automobiles, aviation, medical technology, finance, and much more. This will create an epic conflict of governance visions between the Internet’s permissionless innovation model versus the precautionary, command-and-control regulatory regimes of the industrial age. We already see tension at work in policy deliberations over the Internet of Things, “big data,” driverless cars, commercial drones, robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, virtual reality, the sharing economy, and others.

If policymakers hope to preserve and extend the benefits of the hard-fought victories of the Internet’s past twenty years, they will need to restate and reinvigorate their commitment to permissionless innovation to help spur the next great technological revolutions in these and other fields.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2017/06/22/celebrating-20-years-of-internet-free-speech-free-exchange/feed/ 1 76149 Adam Thierer on Permissionless Innovation https://techliberation.com/2014/05/13/thierer/ https://techliberation.com/2014/05/13/thierer/#comments Tue, 13 May 2014 10:00:30 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=74547

Adam Thierer, senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, discusses his latest book Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom. Thierer discusses which types of policies promote technological discoveries as well as those that stifle the freedom to innovate. He also takes a look at new technologies — such as driverless cars, drones, big data, smartphone apps, and Google Glass — and how the American public will adapt to them.

Download

Related Links

]]> https://techliberation.com/2014/05/13/thierer/feed/ 1 74547 Crovitz on The End of the Permissionless Web https://techliberation.com/2014/05/07/crovitz-on-the-end-of-the-permissionless-web/ https://techliberation.com/2014/05/07/crovitz-on-the-end-of-the-permissionless-web/#respond Thu, 08 May 2014 03:00:02 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=74508

Few people have been more tireless in their defense of the notion of “permissionless innovation” than Wall Street Journal columnist L. Gordon Crovitz. In his weekly “Information Age” column for the Journal (which appears each Monday), Crovitz has consistently sounded the alarm regarding new threats to Internet freedom, technological freedom, and individual liberties. It was, therefore, a great honor for me to wake up Monday morning and read his latest post, “The End of the Permissionless Web,” which discussed my new book “Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom.”

“The first generation of the Internet did not go well for regulators,” Crovitz begins his column. “Despite early proposals to register websites and require government approval for business practices, the Internet in the U.S. developed largely without bureaucratic control and became an unstoppable engine of innovation and economic growth.” Unfortunately, he correctly notes:

Regulators don’t plan to make the same mistake with the next generation of innovations. Bureaucrats and prosecutors are moving in to undermine services that use the Internet in new ways to offer everything from getting a taxi to using self-driving cars to finding a place to stay.

This is exactly why I penned my little manifesto. As Crovitz continues on to note in his essay, new regulatory threats to both existing and emerging technologies are popping up on almost a daily basis. He highlights currently battles over Uber, Airbnb, 23andme, commercial drones, and more. And his previous columns have discussed many other efforts to “permission” innovation and force heavy-handed top-down regulatory schemes on fast-paced and rapidly-evolving sectors and technologies. As he argues:

The hardest thing for government regulators to do is to regulate less, which is why the development of the open-innovation Internet was a rare achievement. The regulation the digital economy needs most now is for permissionless innovation to become the default law of the land, not the exception.

Amen, brother! What we need to do is find more constructive ways to deal with some of the fears that motivate calls for regulation. But, as I noted in my little book,  how we address these concerns matters greatly. If and when problems develop, there are many less burdensome ways to address them than through preemptive technological controls. The best solutions to complex social problems are almost always organic and “bottom-up” in nature. Luckily, there exists a wide variety of constructive approaches that can be tapped to address or alleviate concerns associated with new innovations. I get very specific about those approaches in Chapter 5 of my book, which is entitled, “Preserving Permissionless Innovation: Principles of Progress.”

So, I hope you’ll download a free copy of the book and take a look. And my sincerest thanks to Gordon Crovitz for featuring it in his excellent new column.

Additional Reading:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2014/05/07/crovitz-on-the-end-of-the-permissionless-web/feed/ 0 74508 Patrick Byrne on online retailers accepting Bitcoin https://techliberation.com/2014/04/22/byrne/ https://techliberation.com/2014/04/22/byrne/#comments Tue, 22 Apr 2014 10:00:25 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=74423

Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com, discusses how Overstock.com became one of the first online retail stores to accept Bitcoin. Byrne provides insight into how Bitcoin lowers transaction costs, making it beneficial to both retailers and consumers, and how governments are attempting to limit access to Bitcoin. Byrne also discusses his project DeepCapture.com, which raises awareness for market manipulation and naked short selling, as well as his philanthropic work and support for education reform.

Download

Related Links

]]> https://techliberation.com/2014/04/22/byrne/feed/ 1 74423 New Book Release: “Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom” https://techliberation.com/2014/03/25/new-book-release-permissionless-innovation-the-continuing-case-for-comprehensive-technological-freedom/ https://techliberation.com/2014/03/25/new-book-release-permissionless-innovation-the-continuing-case-for-comprehensive-technological-freedom/#respond Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:06:28 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=74314

book cover (small)I am pleased to announce the release of my latest book, “Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom.” It’s a short manifesto (just under 100 pages) that condenses — and attempts to make more accessible — arguments that I have developed in various law review articles, working papers, and blog posts over the past few years. I have two goals with this book.

First, I attempt to show how the central fault line in almost all modern technology policy debates revolves around “the permission question,” which asks: Must the creators of new technologies seek the blessing of public officials before they develop and deploy their innovations? How that question is answered depends on the disposition one adopts toward new inventions. Two conflicting attitudes are evident.

One disposition is known as the “precautionary principle.” Generally speaking, it refers to the belief that new innovations should be curtailed or disallowed until their developers can prove that they will not cause any harms to individuals, groups, specific entities, cultural norms, or various existing laws, norms, or traditions.

The other vision can be labeled “permissionless innovation.” It refers to the notion that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention will bring serious harm to society, innovation should be allowed to continue unabated and problems, if they develop at all, can be addressed later.

I argue that we are witnessing a grand clash of visions between these two mindsets today in almost all major technology policy discussions today.

The second major objective of the book, as is made clear by the title, is to make a forceful case in favor of the latter disposition of “permissionless innovation.” I argue that policymakers should unapologetically embrace and defend the permissionless innovation ethos — not just for the Internet but also for all new classes of networked technologies and platforms. Some of the specific case studies discussed in the book include: the “Internet of Things” and wearable technologies, smart cars and autonomous vehicles, commercial drones, 3D printing, and various other new technologies that are just now emerging.

I explain how precautionary principle thinking is increasingly creeping into policy discussions about these technologies. The urge to regulate preemptively in these sectors is driven by a variety of safety, security, and privacy concerns, which are discussed throughout the book. Many of these concerns are valid and deserve serious consideration. However, I argue that if precautionary-minded regulatory solutions are adopted in a preemptive attempt to head-off these concerns, the consequences will be profoundly deleterious.

The central lesson of the booklet is this: Living in constant fear of hypothetical worst-case scenarios — and premising public policy upon them — means that best-case scenarios will never come about. When public policy is shaped by precautionary principle reasoning, it poses a serious threat to technological progress, economic entrepreneurialism, social adaptation, and long-run prosperity.

Again, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the various problems created by these highly disruptive technologies. But how we address these concerns matters greatly. If and when problems develop, there are many less burdensome ways to address them than through preemptive technological controls. The best solutions to complex social problems are almost always organic and “bottom-up” in nature. Luckily, there exists a wide variety of constructive approaches that can be tapped to address or alleviate concerns associated with new innovations. These include:

  • education and empowerment efforts (including media literacy, digital citizenship efforts);
  • social pressure from activists, academics, and the press and the public more generally.
  • voluntary self-regulation and adoption of best practices (including privacy and security “by design” efforts); and,
  • increased transparency and awareness-building efforts to enhance consumer knowledge about how new technologies work.

Such solutions are almost always superior to top-down, command-and-control regulatory edits and bureaucratic schemes of a “Mother, May I?” (i.e., permissioned) nature. The problem with “top-down” traditional regulatory systems is that they often tend to be overly-rigid, bureaucratic, inflexible, and slow to adapt to new realities. They focus on preemptive remedies that aim to predict the future, and future hypothetical problems that may not ever come about. Worse yet, administrative regulation generally preempts or prohibits the beneficial experiments that yield new and better ways of doing things. It raises the cost of starting or running a business or non-business venture, and generally discourages activities that benefit society.

To the extent that other public policies are needed to guide technological developments, simple legal principles are greatly preferable to technology-specific, micro-managed regulatory regimes. Again, ex ante (preemptive and precautionary) regulation is often highly inefficient, even dangerous. To the extent that any corrective legal action is needed to address harms, ex post measures, especially via the common law (torts, class actions, etc.), are typically superior. And the Federal Trade Commission will, of course, continue to play a backstop here by utilizing the broad consumer protection powers it possesses under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” In recent years, the FTC has already brought and settled many cases involving its Section 5 authority to address identity theft and data security matters. If still more is needed, enhanced disclosure and transparency requirements would certainly be superior to outright bans on new forms of experimentation or other forms of heavy-handed technological controls.

In the end, however, I argue that, to the maximum extent possible, our default position toward new forms of technological innovation must remain: “innovation allowed.” That is especially the case because, more often than not, citizens find ways to adapt to technological change by employing a variety of coping mechanisms, new norms, or other creative fixes. We should have a little more faith in the ability of humanity to adapt to the challenges new innovations create for our culture and economy. We have done it countless times before. We are creative, resilient creatures. That’s why I remain so optimistic about our collective ability to confront the challenges posed by these new technologies and prosper in the process.

If you’re interested in taking a look, you can find a free PDF of the book at the Mercatus Center website or you can find out how to order it from there as an eBook. Hardcopies are also available. I’ll be doing more blogging about the book in coming weeks and months. The debate between the “permissionless innovation” and “precautionary principle” worldviews is just getting started and it promises to touch every tech policy debate going forward.

Related Essays :

]]> https://techliberation.com/2014/03/25/new-book-release-permissionless-innovation-the-continuing-case-for-comprehensive-technological-freedom/feed/ 0 74314 My Two Favorite Technology Policy Books of the Past Half-Century https://techliberation.com/2013/07/12/my-two-favorite-technology-policy-books-of-the-past-half-century/ https://techliberation.com/2013/07/12/my-two-favorite-technology-policy-books-of-the-past-half-century/#respond Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:21:31 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=45143

Future and Its Enemies cover Technologies of FreedomI was honored to be asked by the editors at Reason magazine to be a part of their “Revolutionary Reading” roundup of “The 9 Most Transformative Books of the Last 45 Years.”  Reason is celebrating its 45th anniversary and running a wide variety of essays looking back at how liberty has fared over the past half-century. The magazine notes that “Statism has hardly gone away, but the movement to roll it back is stronger than ever.” For this particular feature, Reason’s editors “asked seven libertarians to recommend some of the books in different fields that made [the anti-statist] cultural and intellectual revolution possible.”

When Jesse Walker of Reason first contacted me about contributing my thoughts about which technology policy books made the biggest difference, I told him I knew exactly what my choices would be: Ithiel de Sola Pool’s Technologies of Freedom (1983) and Virginia Postrel’s The Future and Its Enemies (1998). Faithful readers of this blog know all too well how much I love these two books and how I am constantly reminding people of their intellectual importance all these years later. (See, for example, this and this.) All my thinking and writing about tech policy over the past two decades has been shaped by the bold vision and recommendations set forth by Pool and Postrel in these beautiful books.

As I note in my Reason write-up of the books:

The past 45 years have seen remarkable advances in information technology: the Internet, mobile communications, ubiquitous news and entertainment options, and much more. What made these and other innovations possible was a general openness to the unplanned, the unpredictable, and even the uncontrollable. In our willingness to embrace a world of uncertainty and incessant change, we found unparalleled technological abundance. No two books more eloquently captured and celebrated the information age than Ithiel de Sola Pool’s Technologies of Freedom and Virginia Postrel’s The Future and Its Enemies.

And I conclude by noting that “While plenty of tech pundits and academics cling to… stasist thinking today, Pool and Postrel’s books continue to provide beacons for a better world, free from the top-down, technocratic mentality and prescriptions of the past. At least thus far, permissionless innovation has largely trumped the precautionary principle in tech policy. Let’s hope the dynamist vision can hold the line for another 45 years.”

Head over to Reason to read the rest of my essay as well as all the other excellent books that contributors have recommended as part of the symposium.  There are some really great selections in there.

And if you care about the future of technological freedom and human liberty and progress more generally, please do read (or re-read) both Pool and Postrel’s books when you have a chance.  They changed my life and they will change yours, too.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2013/07/12/my-two-favorite-technology-policy-books-of-the-past-half-century/feed/ 0 45143 The Constructive Way to Combat Online Hate Speech: Thoughts on “Viral Hate” by Foxman & Wolf https://techliberation.com/2013/06/24/the-constructive-way-to-combat-online-hate-speech-thoughts-on-viral-hate-by-foxman-wolf/ https://techliberation.com/2013/06/24/the-constructive-way-to-combat-online-hate-speech-thoughts-on-viral-hate-by-foxman-wolf/#comments Mon, 24 Jun 2013 23:04:03 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=45012

Viral Hate coverThe Internet’s greatest blessing — its general openness to all speech and speakers — is also sometimes its biggest curse. That is, you cannot expect to have the most widely accessible, unrestricted communications platform the world has ever known and not also have some imbeciles who use it to spew insulting, vile, and hateful comments.

It is important to put things in perspective, however. Hate speech is not the norm online. The louts who spew hatred represent a small minority of all online speakers. The vast majority of online speech is of a socially acceptable — even beneficial — nature.

Still, the problem of hate speech remains very real and a diverse array of strategies are needed to deal with it. The sensible path forward in this regard is charted by Abraham H. Foxman and Christopher Wolf in their new book, Viral Hate: Containing Its Spread on the Internet. Their book explains why the best approach to online hate is a combination of education, digital literacy, user empowerment, industry best practices and self-regulation, increased watchdog / press oversight, social pressure and, most importantly, counter-speech. Foxman and Wolf also explain why — no matter how well-intentioned — legal solutions aimed at eradicating online hate will not work and would raise serious unintended consequences if imposed.

In striking this sensible balance, Foxman and Wolf have penned the definitive book on how to constructively combat viral hate in an age of ubiquitous information flows.

Definitional Challenges & Free Speech Concerns

Defining “hate speech” is a classic eye-of-the-beholder problem: At what point does heated speech become hate speech and who should be in charge of drawing the line between the two? “The notion of a single definition of hate speech that everyone can agree on is probably illusory,” Foxman and Wolf note, especially because of “the continually evolving and morphing nature of online hate.” (p. 52, 103)  “Like every other form of human communication, bigoted or hateful speech is always evolving, changing its vocabulary and style, adjusting to social and demographic trends, and reaching out in new ways to potentially receptive new audiences.” (p. 92)

Many free speech advocates (including me) argue that the government should not be in the business of ensuring that people never have their feelings hurt. Censorial solutions are particularly problematic here in the United States since they would likely run afoul of the protections secured by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The clear trajectory of the Supreme Court’s free speech jurisprudence over the past half-century has been in the direction of constantly expanding protection for freedom of expression, even of the most repugnant, hateful varieties. Most recently, in Snyder v. Phelps, for example, the Court ruled that the Westboro Baptist Church could engage in hateful protests near the funerals of soldiers. “[T]his Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled,” ruled Chief Justice John Roberts for the Court’s 8-1 majority. The Court has also recently held that the First Amendment protects lying about military honors (United States v. Alvarez, 2012), animal cruelty videos (United States v. Stevens, 2010), computer-generated depictions of child pornography (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 2002), and the sale of violent video games to minors (Brown v. EMA, 2011). This comes on top of over 15 years of Internet-related jurisprudence in which courts have struck down every effort to regulate online expression.

Some will celebrate this jurisprudential revolution; others with lament it. Regardless, it is likely to remain the constitutional standard here in the U.S. As a result, there is almost no chance that courts here would allow restrictions on hate speech to stand. That means alternative approaches will continue to be relied upon to address it.

Foxman and Wolf acknowledge these constitutional hurdles but also point out that there are other reasons why “laws attempting to prohibit hate speech are probably one of the weakest tools we can use against bigotry.” (p. 171) Most notably, there is the scope and volume problem: “the sheer vastness of the challenge” (p. 103) which means “it’s simply impossible to monitor and police the vast proliferation of bigoted content being distributed through Web 2.0 technologies.” (p. 81) “The borderless nature of the Internet means that, like chasing cockroaches, squashing on offending website, page, or service provider does not solve the problem; there are many more waiting behind the walls — or across the border.” (p. 82) That’s exactly right and it also explains why solutions of a more technical nature aren’t likely to work very well either.

Foxman and Wolf also point out how hate speech laws could backfire and have profound unintended consequences. Beyond targeted laws that address true threats, harassment, and direct incitements to violence, Foxman and Wolf argue that “broader regulation of hate speech may send an ‘educational message’ that actually weakens rather than strengthens our system of democratic values.” (p. 171) That’s because such censorial laws and regulations undermine the very essence of deliberative democracy — robust exchange of potential controversial views — and leads to potential untrammeled majoritarianism. Worse yet, legalistic attempts to shut down hate speech can end up creating martyrs for fringe movements and, paradoxically, end up fueling conspiracy theories. (p. 80)

The Essential Role of Counter-speech & Education

Yet, “the challenge of defining hate speech shouldn’t lead us to give up on solving the problem,” argue Foxman and Woff. (p. 53) We must, they argue, refocus our efforts around “education as a bulwark of freedom.” (p. 170)  Digital literacy — teaching citizens respectful online behavior — is the key to those education efforts.

A vital part of digital literacy efforts is the encouragement of counter-speech solutions to online hate. “[T]he best anecdote to hate speech is counter-speech – exposing hate speech for its deceitful and false content, setting the record straight, and promoting the values of respect and diversity,” note Foxman and Wolf. (p. 129)  Or, as the old saying goes, the best response to bad speech is better speech. This principle has infused countless Supreme Court free speech decisions over the past century and it continues to make good sense. But we could do more through education and digital literacy efforts to encourage more and better forms of counter-speech going forward.

“Counter-speech isn’t only or even primarily about debating hate-mongers,” they note. “It’s about helping to create a climate of tolerance and openness for people of all kinds, not just on the Internet but in every aspect of local, community, and national life.” (p. 146) This is how digital literacy becomes digital citizenship. It’s about forming smart norms and personal best practices regarding beneficial online interactions.

Intermediary Policing

What more can be done beyond education and counter-speech efforts? Foxman and Wolf envision a broad and growing role for intermediaries to help to police viral hate. “We are convinced that if much of the time and energy spent advocating legal action against hate speech was used in collaborating and uniting with the online industry to fight the scourge of online hate, we would be making more gains in this fight,” they say. (p. 121) Among the steps they would like to see online operators take:

  • Establishing clear hate speech policies in their Terms of Service and mechanisms for enforcing them;
  • Making it easier for users to flag hate speech and to speak out against it;
  • Facilitating industry-wide education and best practices via multi-stakeholder approaches; and
  • Limiting anonymity and moving to “real-name” policies to identify speakers.

De-anonymization / Real-name policies

Most of these are imminently sensible solutions that should serve as best practices for online service providers and social media platform operators. But their last suggestion for sites to consider limiting anonymous speech will be controversial, especially at a time when many feel that privacy is already at serious risk online and when some critics argue that intermediaries already “censor” too much content as it is. (See, for example, this Jeff Rosen essay on “The Delete Squad: Google, Twitter, Facebook and the New Global Battle over the Future of Free Speech” and this Evgeny Morozov editorial, “You Can’t Say That on the Internet”).

Anonymous online speech certainly facilitates plenty of nasty online comments. There’s plenty of evidence — both scholarly and anecdotal — that “deindividuation” occurs when people can post anonymously.  As Foxman and Wolf explain it: “People who are able to post anonymously (or pseudonymously) are far more likely to say awful things, sometimes with awful effects. Speaking from behind a blank wall that shields a person from responsibility encourages recklessness – it’s far easier to hit the ‘send’ button without a second thought under those circumstances.” (p. 114)

On the other hand, there needs to be a sense of balance here. We protect anonymous speech for the same reason we protect all other forms of speech, no matter how odious: With the bad comes a lot of good. Forcing all users to identify themselves to get at handful of troublemakers is overkill and it would result in the chilling of a huge amount of legitimate speech.

Nonetheless, many governments across the globe are pushing for restrictions on anonymous speech. As Cole Stryker noted in his recent book, Hacking the Future: Privacy, Identity, and Anonymity on the Web, “we are seeing is an all-out war on anonymity, and thus free speech, waged by a variety of armies with widely diverse motivations, often for compelling reasons.” (p. 229). Stryker is right. In fact, less than two weeks ago, a French court ordered Twitter to produce the names of the people behind anti-Semitic tweets that appeared on the site last year.  Meanwhile, plenty of academics, including many here in the U.S., have stepped up their efforts to ban or limit online anonymity. If you don’t believe me, I suggest you read a few of the chapters of The Offensive Internet: Speech, Privacy, and Reputation (Saul Levmore & Martha C. Nussbaum, eds.). It’s a veritable fusillade against anonymity as well as Section 230, the U.S. law that limits liability for intermediaries who post materials by others.

In Viral Hate, Foxman and Wolf stop short of suggesting legal restrictions on anonymity, preferring to stick with experimentation among private intermediaries. One of the book’s authors (Wolf) penned an essay in The New York Times last November (“Anonymity and Incivility on the Internet”) suggesting that while “this is not a matter for government… it is time for Internet intermediaries voluntarily to consider requiring either the use of real names (or registration with the online service) in circumstances, such as the comments section for news articles, where the benefits of anonymous posting are outweighed by the need for greater online civility.” Specifically, Wolf wants the rest of the Net to follow Facebook’s lead: “It is time to consider Facebook’s real-name policy as an Internet norm because online identification demonstrably leads to accountability and promotes civility.”

These proposals prompted strong responses from some academics and average readers who decried the implications of such a move for both privacy and free speech. But, again, it is worth reiterating that Foxman and Wolf do not call for government mandates to achieve this. “[T]his notion of promulgating a new standard of accountability online is not a matter for government intervention, given the strictures of the First Amendment,” they argue. (p. 117)

However, Foxman and Wolf do suggest one innovative alternative that merits attention: premium placement for registered commenters. The New York Times and some other major content providers have experimented with premium placement, whereby those registered on the site have their comments pushed up in the queue while other comments appear down below them. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of having to register for every news or content site I visit, so I would hope such approaches are used selectively. Another useful approach involves letting users of various social media sites and content services to determine whether they wish to allow comments on their user-generated content at all. Of course, many sites and services (such as YouTube, Facebook, and most blogging services) already allow that.

Conclusion

There are times in the book when Foxman and Wolf push their cause with a bit too much rhetorical flair, as when they claim that “Hitler and the Nazis could never have dreamed of such an engine of hate (as the Internet”). (p. 10)  Perhaps there is something to that, but it is also true that Hitler and the Nazis could have never of dreamed of a platform for individual empowerment, transparency, and counter-speech such as the Internet. It was precisely because they were able to control the very limited media and communications platforms of their age that the Nazis were about to exert total control over the information systems and create a propaganda hate machine that had no serious challenge from the public or other nations. Just ask Arab dictators which age they’d prefer to rule in! It is certainly much harder for today’s totalitarian thugs to keep secrets bottled up and it is equally hard for them to spread lies and hateful propaganda without being met with a forceful response from the general citizenry as well as those in other nations. So the “Hitler-would-have-loved-the-Net” talk is unwarranted.

I’m also a bit skeptical of some of the metrics used to measure this problem. While there is clearly plenty of online hate to be found across the Net today, efforts to quantify it inevitably run right back into the same subjective definition problems that Foxman and Wolf do such a nice job explaining throughout the text. So, if we have such a profound ‘eye-of-the-beholder’ problem at work here, how is it that we can be sure that quantitative counts are accurate?  That doesn’t mean I’m opposed to efforts to quantify online hate, rather, we just need to take such measures with a grain of salt.

Finally, I wish the authors would have developed more detailed case studies of how companies outside the mainstream are dealing with these issues today. Foxman and Wolf focus on big players like Google, Facebook, and Twitter for obvious reasons, but plenty of other online providers and social media operators have policies and procedures in place today to deal with online hate speech. A more thorough survey of those differing approaches might have helped us gain a better understanding of which policies make the most sense going forward.

Despite those small nitpicks, Foxman and Wolf have done a great service here by offering us a penetrating examination of the problem of online hate speech while simultaneously explaining the practical solutions necessary to combat it. Some will be dissatisfied with their pragmatic approach to the issue, feeling on one hand that the authors have not gone far enough in bringing in the law to solve these problems, while others will desire a more forceful call for freedom of speech and just growing a thicker skin in response to viral hate.  But I believe Foxman and Wolf have struck exactly the right balance here and given us a constructive blueprint for addressing these vexing issues going forward.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2013/06/24/the-constructive-way-to-combat-online-hate-speech-thoughts-on-viral-hate-by-foxman-wolf/feed/ 2 45012 “Internet Freedom”: A Short Reading List https://techliberation.com/2013/04/11/internet-freedom-a-short-reading-list/ https://techliberation.com/2013/04/11/internet-freedom-a-short-reading-list/#respond Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:09:51 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=44487

Following up on Eli’s earlier post (“Does CDT believe in Internet freedom?”), I thought I’d just point out that we’ve spent a great deal of time here through the years defending real Internet freedom, which is properly defined as “freedom from state action; not freedom for the State to reorder our affairs to supposedly make certain people or groups better off or to improve some amorphous ‘public interest.'” All too often these days, “Internet freedom,” like the term “freedom” more generally, is defined as a set of positive rights/entitlements complete with corresponding obligations on government to delivery the goods and tax/regulate comprehensively to accomplish it.  Using “freedom” in that way represents a grotesque corruption of language and one that defenders of human liberty must resist with all our energy.

I’ll be writing more about this in upcoming columns, but here’s a short list of past posts on Internet freedom, properly defined:

]]> https://techliberation.com/2013/04/11/internet-freedom-a-short-reading-list/feed/ 0 44487 Important Cyberlaw & Info-Tech Policy Books (2012 Edition) https://techliberation.com/2012/12/17/important-cyberlaw-info-tech-policy-books-2012-edition/ https://techliberation.com/2012/12/17/important-cyberlaw-info-tech-policy-books-2012-edition/#comments Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:23:44 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=39701

The number of major cyberlaw and information tech policy books being published annually continues to grow at an astonishing pace, so much so that I have lost the ability to read and review all of them. In past years, I put together end-of-year lists of important info-tech policy books (here are the lists for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011) and I was fairly confident I had read just about everything of importance that was out there (at least that was available in the U.S.). But last year that became a real struggle for me and this year it became an impossibility. A decade ago, there was merely a trickle of Internet policy books coming out each year. Then the trickle turned into a steady stream. Now it has turned into a flood. Thus, I’ve had to become far more selective about what is on my reading list. (This is also because the volume of journal articles about info-tech policy matters has increased exponentially at the same time.)

So, here’s what I’m going to do. I’m going to discuss what I regard to be the five most important titles of 2012, briefly summarize a half dozen others that I’ve read, and then I’m just going to list the rest of the books out there. I’ve read most of them but I have placed an asterisk next to the ones I haven’t.  Please let me know what titles I have missed so that I can add them to the list. (Incidentally, here’s my compendium of all the major tech policy books from the 2000s and here’s the running list of all my book reviews.)

As I do each year, I need to repeat a few disclaimers.  First, what qualifies as an “important” info-tech policy book is highly subjective, but I would define it as a title that many people — especially scholars in the field — are currently discussing and that we will likely be referencing for many years to come.  But I “weight” books in the sense that narrowly-focused titles lose a few points. For example, books that deal mostly with privacy issues, copyright law, or antitrust policy are docked a few points relative to “big picture” info-tech policy books that offer a broader exploration of policy issues and which offer more wide-ranging recommendations.

Second, almost all of the books included have something profound to say about Internet policy (either directly or indirectly) and the more profound and clear the policy recommendations or implications, the higher the titles rank in terms of importance on my list.

Third, and most importantly: Just because a book appears on this list that does not necessarily mean I agree with everything in it.  In fact, as was the case in previous years, I found much with which to disagree in most of the books listed here. Simply put, the cyber-liberty I cherish is a real loser in both academic and public policy circles these days. It has very few defenders today. So, if this was simply a list of my personal favorite books, there would only be 2 or 3 titles on it. Instead, this is my effort to list important books in the field, regardless of whether I agree with the content and conclusions found in those titles.

OK, on to the list.

(1) Rebecca MacKinnon – Consent of the Network: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet Freedom

Rebecca MacKinnon’s book was the most important information technology policy book released in 2012 because it: (1) presented a splendid history of the ideas and forces shaping Internet policy debates globally; (2) offered policy insights that were extremely relevant to breaking developments in this field; and (3) set forth a call-to-arms to global Internet activists and gave them a new way of framing their issue advocacy.

MacKinnon is a former journalist and her outstanding reporting skills are on display throughout the text. Her coverage of China’s efforts to regulate the Net is outstanding. She also surveys some of the recent policy fights here and abroad over issues such as online privacy, Net neutrality regulation, free speech matters, and the copyright wars. The book demands attention for this historical work and analysis alone.

Even more importantly, however, MacKinnon makes a forceful argument for how to think about Internet freedom and democracy in new digital worlds. Her book is an attempt to take the Net freedom movement to the next level; to formalize it and to put in place a set of governance principles that will help us hold the “sovereigns of cyberspace” more accountable. Many of her proposals are quite sensible. But, as I noted in my much longer review of the book, I had a real problem with MacKinnon’s use of the term “digital sovereigns” or “sovereigns of cyberspace” and the loose definition of “sovereignty” that pervades her narrative. She too often blurs and equates private power and political power, and she sometimes leads us to believe that the problem of the dealing with the mythical nation-states of “Facebookistan” and “Googledom” is somehow on par with the problem of dealing with actual sovereign power — government power — over digital networks, online speech, and the world’s Netizenry.

Despite these nitpicks, MacKinnon has many other ideas about Net governance in the book that are less controversial and entirely sensible in my opinion. She wants to “expand the technical commons” by building and distributing more tools to help activists and make organizations more transparent and accountable. These would include circumvention and anonymization tools, software and programs that allow both greater data security and portability, and devices and network systems to expand the range of communication and participation, especially in more repressed countries. She would also like to see neitzens “devise more systematic and effective strategies for organizing, lobbying, and collective bargaining with the companies whose service we depend upon — to minimize the chances that terms of service, design choices, technical decisions, or market entry strategies could put people at risk or result in infringement of their rights.” This also makes sense as part of a broader push for improved corporate social responsibility.

Regarding the role of law, MacKinnon has a mixed view. She says: “There is a need for regulation and legislation based on solid data and research (as opposed to whatever gets handed to legislative staffers by lobbyists) as well as consultation with a genuinely broad cross-section of people and groups affected by the problem the legislation seeks to solve, along with those likely to be affected by the proposed solutions.” Of course, that’s a fairly ambiguous standard that could open the door to excessive political meddling with the Net if we’re not careful. Overall, though, she acknowledges how regulation so often lags far behind innovation. “A broader and more intractable problem with regulating technology companies is that legislation appears much too late in corporate innovation and business cycles,” she rightly notes.

MacKinnon’s book will be of great interest to Internet policy scholars and students, but it is also accessible to a broader audience interested in learning more about the debates and policies that will shape the future of the Internet and digital networks for many years to come. One other note: MacKinnon’s clearly-worded prose and cool-headed tone deserve praise and emulation. It serves as a model for how to write a thoughtful Internet policy book, even if you don’t agree with all her conclusions or recommendations.

My complete review of Consent of the Networked can be found here.

(2) Susan Crawford – Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age

Susan Crawford’s book was probably my least favorite title of 2012, but that doesn’t mean I can discount its significance within this field. Crawford has made herself a widely-recognized and highly-charged figure in the world of Internet policy through her work as an activist, an academic, and even a government official. In Captive Audience, she doesn’t even try to hide her self-described “radicalized” views on communications policy anymore and in the process she solidifies her role as the ringleader of the growing movement to impose centralized, top-down government control on America’s broadband infrastructure.

What is most astonishing about Captive Audience is the way Crawford so audaciously waxes nostalgic for the days of regulated monopoly. Simply put, Crawford doesn’t believe that capitalism or competition have any role to play in the provision of broadband networks and services. “No competitive pressure will force these companies to act [in the public interest],” she argues on the last page of the manifesto. “Americans,” she claims, “have allowed a naive belief in the power and beneficence of the free market to cloud their vision.” She suggests we should just give up our false hope that markets can deliver such an important service and get on with the task of converting broadband into a full-blown regulated public utility.

Her proposed solutions read like the typical Big Government grab-bag of policy proposals: more government spending, more government ownership, and more government regulation (forced access regulation and rate controls) for any private carriers that are allowed to remain in operation as de facto handmaidens of the state. Crawford’s perfect world scenario would seem to be some sort of amalgam of the U.S. Postal Service and the federal highway program. While both programs have sought to provide an important service to the masses, it goes without saying that both are also an absolute basket case in terms of service management and economic viability. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that Crawford is right and that public ownership and comprehensive government management is the way to go. Where will all this money come from for all the new government activity Crawford desires? Apparently it grows on trees because she isn’t ever willing to admit that we find ourselves in the midst of major fiscal crisis that likely constrains the ability of governments to make these investments themselves. Luckily, private wireline and wireless broadband providers have been investing tens of billions in infrastructural upgrades in recent years (don’t take my word for it, read what the Progressive Policy Institute has to say), a fact that Crawford conveniently ignores.

More importantly, Crawford never fully confronts the fact that the era of regulated monopoly she cherishes was an unmitigated croynist disaster for consumers. That era had nothing to do with the “public interest” and everything to do with protecting the private interests of regulated entities — namely, Ma Bell on the communications side and broadcasters on the media side. She also doesn’t address the lackluster state of innovation during the 70 or so years during which time communications and media markets were under the tight grip of federal and state regulators, who controlled rates, restricted new entry, and discouraged innovation at virtually every juncture. If one is going to recommend a return to the regulatory past, they had better grapple with that uncomfortable, anti-consumer, anti-innovation history. Crawford utterly fails to in Captive Audience.

While the book is nominally about broadband regulation, the bulk of it is actually dedicated to taking on one company — Comcast — and specifically picking apart its recent merger with NBC Universal. For Crawford, the Comcast-NBC deal represented something akin to the Mayan apocalypse of media policy. She wants us to believe that the deal has forever solidified Comcast’s grasp on both programming and broadband markets. Comcast chief Brian Roberts is presented as the nefarious villain of the narrative; Crawford paints him as a cross between Gordon Gecko and Mr. Burns from “The Simpsons.” Usually such neurotic narratives are reserved for Rupert Murdoch and how he is supposedly plotting mass media domination to brainwash the minds of the masses. But Crawford suggests that Roberts is the new Bond villain du jour and chapter after chapter are devoted to demonizing him, his father, and other execs at Comcast. She argues that “Comcast now owns the Internet in America” and that the company is “squeezing independent online video” providers out of the market.

Despite all this hand-wringing, the situation in the video marketplace has never looked brighter. Crawford fails to put things in historical perspective and examine consumer choices in this market today relative to the past — a point I made in this debate with her last year. Of course, she probably didn’t want to seriously examine that evidence because by every metric available — and I published an entire report called Media Metrics a few years ago proving this — Americans have more and better viewing options at their disposal than ever before in history. We have more channels and more content available over more platforms (cable, satellite, telco, online, DVD, mail, etc) and more devices than ever before. Consumers have an unprecedented ability to access, record, time-shift, interact with, and even manipulate and redistribute video content. Of course, all this choice and quality comes at a cost, as Crawford continuously complains throughout the text. Apparently, in her view, all these great new programming options and technologies should just fall to us like manna from heaven with no price tag attached.

If you want to see what the opposite of Internet freedom and digital capitalism looks like, look no further than this book. It is the definitive articulation of the cyber-planner’s ethos. Of course, that’s also what makes Captive Audience one of the most important books of 2012. But if you really must read such one-sided propaganda — since this book will, no doubt, be assigned in many cyberlaw and media studies classes across America — then I encourage you to also read Christopher Yoo’s Dynamic Internet and Randy May’s edited collection of essays on Communications Law and Policy in the Digital Age, both of which are mentioned below. Both of those books offer a refreshingly level-headed examination of the true state of this marketplace. I’d also recommend you check out these recent essays by Bret Swanson and Richard Bennett for a hard look at the shoddy numbers and assumptions underlying many of the broadband policy critiques you hear out there today from Crawford and others.

(3) John Palfrey & Urs Gasser – Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems

What makes Palfrey & Gasser’s book so important is that the authors aim to develop “a normative theory identifying what we want out of all this interconnectivity” that the information age has brought us. They correctly note “there is no single, agreed-upon definition of interoperability” and that “there are even many views about what interop is and how it should be achieved.” Generally speaking, they argue increased interoperability — especially among information networks and systems — is a good thing because it “provides consumers greater choice and autonomy,” “is generally good for competition and innovation,” and “can lead to systemic efficiencies.”

But they wisely acknowledge that there are trade-offs, too, noting that “this growing level of interconnectedness comes at an increasingly high price.” Whether we are talking about privacy, security, consumer choice, the state of competition, or anything else, Palfrey and Gasser argue that “the problems of too much interconnectivity present enormous challenges both for organizations and for society at large.” Their chapter and privacy and security offers many examples, but one need only look around at their own digital existence to realize the truth of this paradox. The more interconnected our information systems become, and the more intertwined our social and economic lives become with those systems, the greater the possibility of spam, viruses, data breaches, and various types of privacy or reputational problems. Interoperability giveth and it taketh away.

Ultimately, however, the authors fail to develop a clear standard for when interoperability is good and when governments should take steps to facilitate or mandate it. They argue that “there is no single form or optimal amount of interoperability that will suit every circumstance” and that “most of the specifics of how to bring interop about [must] be determined on a case-by-case basis. Yet, Palfrey and Gasser also make it clear they want government(s) to play an active role in ensuring optimal interoperability. They say they favor “blended approaches that draw upon the comparative advantages of the private and public sector,” but they argue that government should feel free to tip or nudge interoperability determinations in superior directions to satisfy “the public interest.” “If deployed with skill,” they argue, “the law can play a central role in ensuring that we get as close as possible to optimal levels of interoperability in complex systems.”

The fundamental problem this “public interest” approach to interoperability regulation is that it is no better than the “I-know-it-when-I-see-it” standard we sometimes at work in the realm of speech regulation. It’s an empty vessel, and if it is the lodestar by which policymakers make determinations about the optimal level of interoperability, then it leaves markets, innovators, and consumers subject to the arbitrary whims of what a handful of politicians or regulators think constitutes “optimal interoperability,” “appropriate standards,” and “best available technology.”

In my absurdly long review of their book, I offered an alternative framework that suggests patience, humility, and openness to ongoing marketplace experimentation as the primary public policy virtues that lawmakers should instead embrace. Ongoing marketplace experimentation with technical standards, modes of information production and dissemination, and interoperable information systems, is almost always preferable to the artificial foreclosure of this dynamic process through state action. The former allows for better learning and coping mechanisms to develop while also incentivizing the spontaneous, natural evolution of the market and market responses. The latter (regulatory foreclosure of experimentation) limits that potential.

Defining “optimal interoperability,” is not just difficult as Palfrey and Gasser suggest, but I would argue that it is a pipe dream. Sometimes consumers demanded a certain amount interoperability and they usually get it. But it seems equally obvious that consumers don’t always demand perfect interoperability. Just look at your iPhone or Xbox for proof. Quite often, a lack of interoperability helps firms finance important new products and services while simultaneously ensuring users a tailored and potentially more secure and satisfying experience. Importantly, however, non-interoperability also spurs new forms of innovation from rivals looking to leap-frog the old front-runners. Progress flows from this never-ending cycle of technological change and industrial churn.

In sum, we cannot define or determine “optimal interoperability” in an a priori fashion; only ongoing experimentation can help us determine what truly lies in “the public interest.” Despite my different approach and conclusions, Palfrey and Gasser’s book perfectly frames what should be a very interesting ongoing debate over these issues and for that reason will be required reading on this subject for years to come.

Again, my longer review of Palfrey and Gasser’s book can be found here, and listen to John Palfrey’s podcast discussion with Jerry Brito here.]

(4) Christopher Yoo – The Dynamic Internet: How Technology, Users, and Businesses are Transforming the Network

Christopher Yoo’s book was my personal favorite of the year, but it won’t capture as much interest and recognition as some of the other titles on this list. The book offers a concise overview of how Internet architecture has evolved and a principled discussion of the public policies that should govern the Net going forward. Yoo makes two straight-forward arguments. First, the Internet is changing. In Part 1 of the book, Yoo offers a layman-friendly overview of the changing dynamics of Internet architecture and engineering. He documents the evolving nature of Internet standards, traffic management and congestion policies, spam and security control efforts, and peering and pricing policies. He also discusses the rise of peer-to-peer applications, the growth of mobile broadband, the emergence of the app store economy, and what the explosion of online video consumption means for ongoing bandwidth management efforts. Those are the supply-side issues. Yoo also outlines the implications of changes in the demand-side of the equation, such as changing user demographics and rapidly evolving demands from consumers. He notes that these new demand-side realities of Internet usage are resulting in changes to network management and engineering, further reinforcing changes already underway on the supply-side.

Yoo’s second point in the book flows logically from the first: as the Internet continues to evolve in such a highly dynamic fashion, public policy must as well. Yoo is particularly worried about calls to lock in standards, protocols, and policies from what he regards as a bygone era of Internet engineering, architecture, and policy. “The dramatic shift in Internet usage suggests that its founding architectural principles form the mid-1990s may no longer be appropriate today,” he argues. “[T]he optimal network architecture is unlikely to be static. Instead, it is likely to be dynamic over time, changing with the shifts in end-user demands,” he says. Thus, “the static, one-size-fits-all approach that dominates the current debate misses the mark.”

Yoo makes a particular powerful case for flexible network pricing policies. His outstanding chapter on “The Growing Complexity of Internet Pricing” offers an excellent overview of the changing dynamics of pricing in this arena and explains why experimentation with different pricing methods and business models must be allowed to continue. Getting pricing right is essential, Yoo notes, if we hope to ensure ongoing investment in new networks and services. He also notes how foolish it is to expect the government to come in and save the day thought massive infrastructure investment to cover the hundreds of billions of dollars needed to continue to build-out high-speed services.

Throughout the second half of his book, Yoo explains why it would be a disaster for consumers and high-tech innovation if policymakers limited pricing flexibility and experimentation with new business models and technological standards. He argues that public policy should generally seek to avoid ex ante forms of preemptive, prophylactic Internet regulation and instead rely on an ex post approach when and if things go wrong. Essentially, he wants policymakers to embrace “techno-agnosticism” toward ongoing debates over standards, protocols, business models, pricing methods, and so on. Lawmakers should not be preemptively tilting the balance in one direction or the other or, worse yet, restricting experimentation that can help us find superior solutions.

And even under that model of retrospective review, Yoo makes it clear throughout the book that there should be a very high bar established before any regulation is pursued. This is particularly true because of the First Amendment values at stake when the government attempts to regulate speech platforms. In Chapter 9 of the book, Yoo walks the reader through all the relevant case law on this front and makes it clear how “the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the editorial discretion exercised by intermediaries serves important free speech values.” Yoo also makes the case that a certain degree of intermediation helps serve consumer needs by helping them more easily find the content and services they desire. Law should not seek to constrain that and, under current Supreme Court First Amendment jurisprudence, it probably cannot.

To me, Yoo’s approach strikes the right balance for Net governance and public policy in the information age. It all comes down to flexibility and freedom. If the Internet and all modern digital technologies are to thrive, we must reject the central planner’s mindset that dominated the analog era and forever bury all the static thinking it entailed.

My complete review of Yoo’s Dynamic Internet is here.

(5) Brett Frischmann – Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources

Frischmann’s book offers a nice contrast with Yoo’s in that it suggests a far more ambitious role for the state in shaping the future of digital networks and online platforms. Although not strictly a book about information technology infrastructure, Frischmann spends a great deal of time making the case for a greater government action in the realm of communications policy and for open access and Net neutrality regulation in particular. (There’s also a chapter on intellectual property issues that tech policy wonks will find of interest). The book is a veritable paean to open access regulation; Frischmann aims to persuade the reader that “society is better off sharing infrastructure openly” and devotes considerable energy to hammering that point home in one context after another.

In my review of the book, which was part of 2-day symposium on the book over at the Concurring Opinions blog, I took Frischmann’s book to task for its almost complete absence of public choice insights and his general disregard for thorny “supply-side” questions.  Frischmann is so single-mindedly focused on making the “demand-side” case for better appreciating how open infrastructures “generate spillovers that benefit society as a whole” and facilitate various “downstream productive activities,” that he short-changes the supply-side considerations regarding how infrastructure gets funded and managed to begin with.

The book also ignored the omnipresent threat of regulatory capture and the fact that any major infrastructure regulatory system big enough and important to be captured by special interests and affected parties often will be. Frischmann acknowledges the problem of capture in just a single footnote in the book and admits that “there are many ways in which government failures can be substantial,” but he asks the reader to quickly dispense with any worries about government failure since he believes “the claims rest on ideological and perhaps cultural beliefs rather than proven theory or empirical fact.”  I found that assertion outrageous and argued that, to the contrary, decades of scholarship has empirically documented the reality of government failure and its costs to society, as well as the plain old-fashioned inefficiency often associated with large-scale government programs. For infrastructure projects in particular, the combination of these public choice factors usually adds up to massive inefficiencies and cost overruns.

For those reasons, I argued in my review that society would be better off adopting a “3-P” approach to infrastructure management: privatize, property-tize, and price. But Frischmann is dead set against such thinking and makes it clear that everything must be subservient to the goal of “openness” and commons-based management. Unsurprisingly, therefore, this leads him to suggest that we need “a dramatic shift — perhaps a paradigm shift — away from the conventional position favoring market provisioning and markets ‘free’ from government intervention.” But the problem with that reasoning, as I pointed out in my review, is that most of the infrastructure that Frischmann cites as failing us today is already managed in the fashion he favors! Nonetheless, he wants to pile on still more commons-based government control / ownership solutions even though they are the primary cause of our infrastructure problems today. In this sense, Frischmann’s approach parallels Susan Crawford’s in her book Captive Audience, discussed above. They both seek to gloss over the ugly realities of traditional public infrastructure (mis-)management and they imply that we just need to build a better breed of bureaucrats who will somehow be immune to all the problems of the past. Needless to say, I don’t place much faith in such efforts.

Despite these serious deficiencies, students and scholars studying infrastructure theory will benefit from Frischmann’s excellent treatment of public goods and social goods; spillovers and externalities; proprietary versus commons systems management; common carriage policies and open access regulation; congestion pricing strategies; and the debate over price discrimination for infrastructural resources. He at least does a nice job outlining these concepts and controversies, even if he ultimately fails to make the case for radically expanding government control of infrastructural resources.

Again, you can read my entire review of Frischmann’s book here.

— Other Major Releases in 2012 —

Julie E. Cohen – Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice

Cohen’s book represents an effort to move “beyond the bounds of traditional liberal political theory” by transcending what she labels the traditional “information-as-freedom” versus “information-as-control” paradigms. Her aim is to promote “cultural environmentalism” and “the structural conditions of human flourishing.” She argues that “a commitment to human flourishing demands a more critical stance toward the market-driven evolution of network architectures.” In other words, don’t trust markets.

I didn’t find her case very convincing and it didn’t help that the book is filled with impenetrable prose that sometimes leaves the reader’s head a bit numb. (Two representative samples: “With respect to space, surveillance employs a twofold dynamic of containerization and affective modulation in order to pursue large-scale behavioral modification.” … and… “Here the performative impulse introduces static into the circuits of the surveillant assemblage; it seeks to reclaim bodies and reappropriate spaces.” Say what? Write in plain English, professor!)

The closing chapter also includes a strange reinterpretation of Ludditism. Cohen argues: “the tale of the Luddites poses an important challenge for scholars and policy makers in the emerging networked information society. If technologies do not have natural trajectories, it is our obligation to seek pathways of development that promote the well-being of situated, embodied users and communities. When our preferred policy prescriptions persistently produce information architectures and institutions that undermine human flourishing in critical ways, it is time to question them and to experiment with ways of doing better.”  Hmmm… I’m not sure I want to know what that would mean in practice!

Regardless, Cohen’s book has a lot to say about modern privacy and copyright battles and will be of great interest to scholars in those specific fields of study.  You can find all the chapters online here.

Cole Stryker – Hacking the Future: Privacy, Identity, and Anonymity on the Web

Stryker’s Hacking the Future provides a concise overview of the battles over online anonymity that have raged since the Net’s early days and he outlines the many new threats to it. “What we are seeing is an all-out war on anonymity, and thus free speech, waged by a variety of armies with widely diverse motivations, often for compelling reasons,” he says. The book will be a great use to those covering ongoing policy debates over cybersecurity, the “nymwars” and online authentication / identification debates, post-Arab Spring political activism & “hactivism,” encryption issues, social networking privacy, troll culture and cyberbullying, and much more. Stryker makes a strong case for the continuing importance of online anonymity but isn’t scared to ask hard questions about the trade-offs society faces when some can mask their online identities. But he also explores the question of whether anonymity can survive given recent technological and policy-related developments, both of which aim to make individuals more identifiable online. I particularly enjoyed Chapter 10’s breakdown of the “Faces of Anonymity,” in which Stryker crafts a detailed taxonomy of anonymous character types online.

He also offers a run-down of the tools and steps that people can take advantage of if they want to ensure their anonymity / privacy online, including: cookie blocking, private browsing tools, disabling HTML in email and limiting or disabling broswer extensions, clearing browser histories, and using encryption tools, proxy servers, and VPN tunneling. “The question we have to ask ourselves,” Stryker notes, is “Does the accessibility of these anonymizing technologies make the world a safer, more equitable place, better place?” He answers: “It’s difficult to measure, but their abolition certainly wouldn’t.” He also draws this interesting parallel with efforts to regulate firearms: “The logic here is not unlike that used by those who oppose gun control: if guns are made illegal, then only criminals will have guns, leaving well-meaning folks defenseless. The reasoning is compelling within the identity space,” he argues, “regardless of what you might think about the merits of gun control.”

Two other notes: First, Wide Open Privacy: Strategies For The Digital Life by J.R. Smith & Siobhan MacDermott makes a nice compliment to Hacking the Future. It also offers a breakdown of privacy-enhancing technologies and outlines other strategies to safeguard your online anonymity. Second, if you are interested in digging even deeper in the Luzsec side of this story, you should check out Parmy Olson’s W e are Anonymous: Inside the Hacker Wor ld of Lulzsec, Anonymous and the Global Cyber Insurgency. It’s a splendid history but doesn’t have as much to say about the various policy issues that Stryker tackles in Hacking the Future. Or just listen to Olson’s podcast discussion with Jerry Brito. Speaking of that Brito character…

Jerry Brito (ed.) – Copyright Unbalanced: From Incentive to Excess

My Mercatus Center colleague Jerry Brito put together this important collection of essays by various conservatives and libertarian authors to highlight growing concerns about copyright policy. Contributors include Tom W. Bell, David G. Post, Reihan Salam, Patrick Ruffini, Tim Lee, Christina Mulligan, and Eli Dourado (also of Mercatus). Their essays suggest that the tide may be turning against copyright among free market analysts. Their chapters explore the increasingly complexity of copyright law and the rising costs associated with its enforcement and make a powerful case for reform of, or at least restraints on, the current copyright system. The consensus seemed to revolve around a few key reforms: significantly shortened copyright terms, the reintroduction of formalities (i.e., registration), and limits on criminal prosecution and civil asset forfeiture. The authors also make a strong case that public choice problems pervade today’s copyright system and that we should be concerned that cronyism is increasing creeping into the politics of copyright law and its seemingly endless expansion.

If you interested in a different take on IP issues to balance out Brito’s collection, I’d recommend picking up the forthcoming Laws of Creation: Property Rights in the World of Ideas by Ronald A. Cass and Keith N. Hylton. It’s a 2013 release but it is already in stock. I’m reading an advance copy from the publisher right now and will likely have more to say about it in a forthcoming post.

Randolph J. May (ed.) – Communications Law and Policy in the Digital Age: The Next Five Years

My former colleague Randy May put together this nice collection of essays by some of America’s leading communications and media policy scholars, including Bruce Owen, Christopher Yoo, James Speta, Daniel Lyons and others. The authors offer a generally skeptical take on the expansion of communications and broadband regulation and the growing power of the Federal Communications Commission over these markets. In particular, many of the contributors take the FCC to task for sketchy assertions of jurisdiction and the agency’s efforts to expand its imperial regulatory ambitions without always having the clear statutory authority to do so. The chapters by James Speta and Seth Cooper are particularly good in that regard. Admin law geeks will eat them up.

Those analysts following the ongoing Net neutrality wars will also find the book informative, even if they disagree with the generally skeptical take on the issue from contributors. Spectrum and universal service policy wonks will also appreciate the excellent chapters on those two issues from Michele P. Connolly and Daniel A. Lyons, respectively. And the closing chapter by Bruce Owen is, like everything Bruce does, a masterpiece. Owen is probably the most respected media economist on the planet and his decades of experience in this field shines through in his powerful essay on “Communications Policy Reform, Interest Groups, and Legislative Capture.” He crafts a political economy of the regulatory state and points out that the explosion of rent-seeking and legislative/regulatory capture in this sector is unlikely to dissipate. “Therefore,” Owen argues, “communications policy likely will continue to be subject to welfare-suppressing regulation because such regulation is consistent with the interests of legislators,” who are often beholden to special interests and their campaign dollars.

Joshua Gans – Information Wants to Be Shared

I really enjoyed this book. It’s an insightful exploration of modern media economics filled with interesting questions and scenarios about how information markets will evolve in the future. What will sustain movies, music, book, local reporting, and so on in the future? Gans does a terrific job making these issues easy to understand and doesn’t try to evangelize as much as the many others who have written on these issues. If you’ve read and enjoyed Carl Shapiro and Hal Varian’s classic text, Information Rules, then you will find Gans’ book to be the perfect compliment.

Gans doesn’t have a lot to say about public policy, however. This is really more of a business book suited for industry analysts and business school students. Nonetheless, some of its implications for policy are clear since many of these business model debates boil over into the policy arena.

P.S. I should mention that, even if you don’t pick up his new book, you should be following Gans’ “Digitopoly” blog. It is always worth reading.

Andrew Keen – Digital Vertigo: How Today’s Online Social Revolution Is Dividing, Diminishing, and Disorienting Us

If you’re into ‘the-whole-world-is-going-to-Hell-and-the-Internet-is-to-blame’ screeds, Andrew Keen will never disappoint. In Digital Vertigo as well as his earlier book, The Cult of the Amateur, Keen is grumpy about, well, just about everything under the sun. In the earlier book, it was the Web 2.0 world of blogging and “amateur” content creation — most notably Wikipedia and YouTube — that earned Keen’s wrath. In the new book, it is users themselves and the social sharing sites and technologies that they favor that Keen goes off on.

Specifically, Keen is worried that our increased reliance on new online and interactive technologies is spawning a “hypervisible age of great exhibitionism” that sacrifices privacy and individuality at the altar of sharing and social status-seeking. He also makes sweeping claims that we are now living in “a world in which many of us have forgotten what it means to be human,” or that “we are forgetting who we really are.” As I noted in my Forbes review of the book, it’s classic technopanic talk. Not only does Keen fail to substantiate such claims, but he also doesn’t bother to even offer the reader any sort of practical plan for how to achieve a more balanced digital life.

Bruce Schneier – Liars & Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive

Security expert Bruce Schneier’s latest book was a terrific read and easily one of my favorites of the year. It wasn’t a book about technology policy per se, but it certainly has important ramifications for it. Schneier explains four “societal pressures” combine to help create and preserve trust within society. Those pressures include: (1) Moral pressures; (2) Reputational pressures; (3) Institutional pressures; and (4) Security systems. By “dialing in” these societal pressures in varying degrees, trust is generated over time within groups. Of course, these societal pressures also fail on occasion, Schneier notes. He explores a host of scenarios — in organizations, corporations, and governments — when trust breaks down because defectors seek to evade the norms and rules the society lives by. These defectors are the “liars and outliers” in Schneier’s narrative and his book is an attempt to explain the complex array of incentives and trade-offs that are at work and which lead some humans to “game” systems or evade the norms and rules others follow.

Indeed, Schneier’s book serves as an excellent primer on game theory as he walks readers through complex scenarios such as prisoner’s dilemma, the hawk-dove game, the free-rider problem, the bad apple effect, principle-agent problems, the game of chicken, race to the bottom, capture theory, and more. These problems are all quite familiar to economists, psychologists, and political scientists, who have spent their lives attempting to work through these scenarios. Schneier has provided a great service here by making game theory more accessible to the masses and given it practical application to a host of real-world issues.

The most essential lesson Schneier teaches us is that perfect security is an illusion, and this is where the implications for tech policy come in. We can rely on those four societal pressures in varying mixes to mitigate problems like theft, terrorism, fraud, online harassment, and so on, but it would be foolish and dangerous to believe we can eradicate such problems completely. “There can be too much security,” Schneier explains, because, at some point, constantly expanding security systems and policies will result in rapidly diminishing returns. Trying to eradicate every social pathology would bankrupt us and, worse yet, “too much security system pressure lands you in a police state,” he correctly notes.

Despite these challenges, Schneier reminds us that there is cause for optimism. Humans adapt better to social change than they sometimes realize, usually by tweaking the four societal pressures Schneier identifies until a new balance emerges. While liars and outliers will always exist, society will march on.

See my longer review of Schneier’s excellent book over at Forbes. I highly recommend you pick up Liars & Outliers no matter what your field of study. It is outstanding.

… and still more titles from 2012 (* asterisk means I didn’t find time to finish them)…

… and, again, here are the lists of important books from 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2012/12/17/important-cyberlaw-info-tech-policy-books-2012-edition/feed/ 131 39701 Top 5 Net Policy Issues of 2012 https://techliberation.com/2012/12/10/top-5-net-policy-issues-of-2012/ https://techliberation.com/2012/12/10/top-5-net-policy-issues-of-2012/#respond Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:11:07 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=43211

Earlier today on Twitter, I listed what I thought were the Top 5 “Biggest Internet Policy Issues of 2012.” In case you don’t follow me on Twitter — and shame on you if you don’t! — here were my choices:

  1. Copyright wars reinvigorated post-SOPA; tide starting to turn in favor of copyright reform. [TLF posts on copyright.]
  2. Privacy still red-hot w ECPA reform, online advertising regs & kids’ privacy issues all pending. [TLF posts on privacy.]
  3. WCIT makes Internet governance / NetFreedom a major issue worldwide. [TLF posts on Net governance.]
  4. Antitrust threat looms larger w pending Google case + Apple books investigation. [TLF posts on antitrust.]
  5. Cybersecurity regulatory push continues in both legislative (CISPA) & executive branch. [TLF posts on cybersecurity.]

Lists like these are entirely subjective, of course, but I am basing my list on the general amount of chatter I tended to see and hear about each topic over the course of the year.

What do you think the top tech policy issues of the year were?

]]> https://techliberation.com/2012/12/10/top-5-net-policy-issues-of-2012/feed/ 0 43211 Getting Communications & Media Reform Done Right Once and For All https://techliberation.com/2012/10/19/getting-communications-media-reform-done-right-once-and-for-all/ https://techliberation.com/2012/10/19/getting-communications-media-reform-done-right-once-and-for-all/#respond Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:24:47 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=42639

Yesterday it was my privilege to speak at a Free State Foundation (FSF) event on “Ideas for Communications Law and Policy Reform in 2013.” It was moderated by my friend and former colleague Randy May, who is president of FSF, and the event featured opening remarks from the always-excellent FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell.

During the panel discussing that followed, I offered my thoughts about the problem America continues to face in cleaning up communications and media law and proposed a few ideas to get reform done right once and for all. I don’t have time to formally write-up my remarks, but I thought I would just post the speech notes that I used yesterday and include links to the relevant supporting materials. (I’ve been using a canned version of this same speech at countless events over the past 15 years. Hopefully lawmakers will take up some of these reforms some time soon so I’m not using this same set of remarks in 2027!)

I) The fundamental problem we face in the world of communications and media policy today is easy and diagnose and, at least in theory, easy to remedy.

The Problem= asymmetrical regulation / “unlevel playing field”

  • Policymakers are imposing different regulatory policies on different layers of the modern information ecosystem. (This is sometimes referred to as the “regulatory silos” problem.)
  • Regulatory silos and unlevel playing fields create 3 additional problems. They:
  1. are unfair to those players who suffer under more onerous rules;
  2. threaten to roll the old onerous rules on newer and less regulated speech and communications platforms and technologies; and,
  3. create uncertainty and threatens investment and innovations.

The Solution (again, simple in theory but not in political reality) = level the playing field by deregulating down to achieve parity instead of regulating up

II) Let’s get more concrete about how to accomplish that sort of liberalization and level the playing field. Three simple reform ideas can help:

  1. “MFN clause for communications and media policy”: To the extent Congress continues to place ground rules on the information sector at all, it should consider borrowing a page from trade law by adopting the equivalent of a “Most Favored Nation” (MFN) clause for communications and media policy. In a nutshell, this policy would state that: “Any operator seeking to offer a new service or entering a new line of business, should be regulated no more stringently than its least regulated competitor.” Such a MFN for communications would ensure that regulatory parity exists within this arena as the lines between existing technologies and industry sectors continue to blur. Placing everyone on the same deregulated level playing field should be at the heart of telecommunications policy to ensure non-discriminatory regulatory treatment of competing providers and technologies at all levels of government. In other words, to level the proverbial playing field properly, we should “deregulate down” instead of regulating up to place everyone on equal footing.
  2. “Moore’s Law” for information technology laws and regulations: With information markets evolving at the speed of Moore’s Law, public policy must as well. Toward that end, every new technology proposal should include a provision sunsetting the law or regulation 18 months to 2 years after enactment. And this principle should apply retroactively so that old rules are sunset on a rapid timetable. If Congress deems them vital, they can always be reauthorized. [See my Forbes column on this proposal.]
  3. Comprehensive FCC reform, downsizing & defunding: You can’t truly deregulate communications and media markets if the primary regulator (the FCC  in this case) remains large and is constantly growing its budget and responsibilities. Regulators exist to regulate! Only by downsizing and defunding them can we truly deregulate these markets. (Alfred Kahn and the Democrats taught us that in the late 1970s when the comprehensively deregulated airline and transportation markets and then moved to abolish the agencies that oversaw those sectors as well. They understood that the very existence of those agencies was a major contributing factor to economic inefficiency and crony capitalism.)

III) If wasn’t that long ago that this sort of an approach was considered the model for how to move forward

Following the lead of the Democrats who deregulated airlines and transportation sectors in the late 1970s, a number of scholars in the 1990s and 2000s devised comprehensive reform proposals for communications and media markets. (Two old PFF projects built on this):

  • “The Telecom Revolution”: May 1995 proposal from @ a dozen different free-market think tank analysts to replace the FCC with a much smaller agency.
  • “Digital Age Communications Act” project (“DACA”): a 2005-06 set of proposals from over 50 non partisan academics to make the FCC behave more like the FTC. [See this paper by Ray Gifford for a concise summary of the project and all the proposals).

Generally speaking, both projects focused on same 5 reform objectives:

  1. Replacing the amorphous “public interest” standard with a consumer welfare standard, which is more well-established in field of antitrust law
  2. Eliminate regulatory silos and level the playing field through deregulation
  3. Comprehensively reform spectrum not just through more auctioning but through clear property rights
  4. Reform universal service by either voucherizing it or devolving it to the States and let them run their own telecom welfare programs
  5. Significantly reforming & downsizing the scope of the FCC’s power of the modern information economy
  • If we can get those 5 things done, we will have accomplished true deregulation of America’s information marketplace.  What we don’t want is another fiasco like the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which represented an effort at managed competition. That law intentionally avoided providing clear deregulatory guidance and instead delegated broad and remarkably ambiguous authority to the FCC. This left the most important deregulatory decisions to the FCC and, not surprisingly, the agency did a very poor job of following through with a serious liberalization agenda.
  • Again, regulators generally don’t deregulate themselves! It is against their self-interest. Congress must impose restraint on the agency and limit (or, better yet, end) its powers.

IV) Some will say communications & media markets are too important to deregulate. But the exact opposite is true.

  • America’s Founders thought media was important enough that they made sure that the First Amendment clearly stated that “Congress shall make no law” as it pertains to freedom of speech and the press. They got it exactly right.
  • We need to return to that Constitutional prime directive for information markets and start removing the layers of unjust and unnecessary regulation that have encumbered these markets for the past 100 years. America’s communications and media policy should once again be the First Amendment, not the Communications Act of 1934 or the Telecom Act of 1996.
  • What we need, to borrow the title of Richard Epstein’s book of the same title, is “simple rules for a complex world.”  Those simple rules include: the law of contract, torts and common law, anti-fraud statutes, etc.
  • Such simple rules can govern our complex information ecosystem the same way they govern every other sector of our capitalist economy. We don’t need a sector-specific regulator or body of regulation for communications, media, and the Internet.

[Video clip of my remarks from the FSF panel follows.]

]]> https://techliberation.com/2012/10/19/getting-communications-media-reform-done-right-once-and-for-all/feed/ 0 42639 The Problem with the “Declaration of Internet Freedom” & the “Digital Bill of Rights” https://techliberation.com/2012/07/02/the-problem-with-the-declaration-of-internet-freedom-the-digital-bill-of-rights/ https://techliberation.com/2012/07/02/the-problem-with-the-declaration-of-internet-freedom-the-digital-bill-of-rights/#comments Mon, 02 Jul 2012 16:24:53 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=41536

We live in an entitlement era, when rights are seemingly invented out of whole-cloth. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that a bit of “rights inflation” is creeping into debates about Internet policy. Today, for example, a coalition of groups and individuals (many of which typically advocate greater government activism), have floated a “Declaration of Internet Freedom.”  My concern with their brief manifesto is that is seems to based on a confused interpretation of the word “freedom,” which many of the groups behind the effort take to mean freedom for the government to reorder the affairs of cyberspace to achieve values they hold dear.

The manifesto begins with the assertion that “We stand for a free and open Internet,” and then says “We support transparent and participatory processes for making Internet policy and the establishment of five basic principles:”

  1. Expression: Don’t censor the Internet.
  2. Access: Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks.
  3. Openness: Keep the Internet an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create and innovate.
  4. Innovation: Protect the freedom to innovate and create without permission. Don’t block new technologies, and don’t punish innovators for their users actions.
  5. Privacy: Protect privacy and defend everyone’s ability to control how their data and devices are used.

This effort follows close on the heels of a proposal from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) to craft a “Digital Bill of Rights” that, not to be outdone, includes ten principles. They are:

  1. Freedom – digital citizens have a right to a free, uncensored internet.
  2. Openness – digital citizens have a right to an open, unobstructed internet.
  3. Equality – all digital citizens are created equal on the internet.
  4. Participation – digital citizens have a right to peaceably participate where and how they choose on the internet.
  5. Creativity – digital citizens have a right to create, grow and collaborate on the internet, and be held accountable for what they create.
  6. Sharing – digital citizens have a right to freely share their ideas, lawful discoveries and opinions on the internet.
  7. Accessibility – digital citizens have a right to access the internet equally, regardless of who they are or where they are.
  8. Association – digital citizens have a right to freely associate on the internet.
  9. Privacy – digital citizens have a right to privacy on the internet.
  10. Property – digital citizens have a right to benefit from what they create, and be secure in their intellectual property on the internet.

In a recent Forbes column (“We Don’t Need a Digital Bill of Rights“), I expressed some concerns about the Issa-Wyden effort and I have similar feelings about that new “Declaration of Internet Freedom” as well. As I noted in the Forbes column on those “rights”:

It would be hard to be against any of these things. Luckily, at least here in the United States, we already enjoy all these freedoms thanks to the protections provided by our actual Bill of Rights. We are at liberty to participate where and how we choose, to share and be as creative as we desire, and to associate with whomever we wish. The First Amendment alone secures those rights. Likewise, properly construed, the First Amendment ensures the “right to a free, uncensored Internet,” it’s just that lawmakers often  try to evade the Amendment’s unambiguous and comprehensive “Congress shall make no law” prohibition.

But it’s not just that these new efforts aren’t needed, it’s that conflating them with the actual Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights really bastardizes the true intent of those founding documents. As Cato’s Jim Harper rightly notes:

I’m really hoping that nobody living today gets to define the basic principles by which the Internet is ruled. We’ve got that. It’s a neato collection of negative rights, preventing the government from interfering with society’s development, whether that development occurs online or off.

Of course, Jim and I believe that the original Declaration, the U.S. Constitution, and the original Bill of Rights helped establish a government of limited, enumerated powers that properly safeguarded the most important general right of all: The right of individuals to be at liberty to live a life of their own choosing. It was all beautifully summarized in that simple phrase: you have a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

By contrast, if you subscribe to an alternative theory of rights that imagines there exists a litany of goodies to which we all possess an inalienable right, then you will likely be more sympathetic to efforts like the this new “Declaration of Internet Freedom” and “Digital Bill of Rights.” But that’s the problem I have with both documents.  The wonderful thing about the original Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights was that they didn’t create any expensive entitlements that required affirmative state action. Instead, they tightly bound government and curtailed its powers and left the people at liberty. By contrast, these new “Declaration of Internet Freedom” and “Digital Bill of Rights” contain all sorts of aspirational principles that could be construed as “positive rights” that require government to provide some sort of basic underlying service, or to affirmatively and aggressively regulate the information economy to protect some of these amorphous values.

I think that’s pretty clear with some of the principles listed in the documents. Consider “Access” (“Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks”); and “Openness” (“Keep the Internet an open network where everyone is free to connect, communicate, write, read, watch, speak, listen, learn, create and innovate”). I suppose you could claim that those values do not represent calls for government action, but I hope you can imagine how easy it would be to convert both into an affirmative mandate to subsidize or regulate.

Similarly, I like the sound of the “Innovation” bullet (“Protect the freedom to innovate and create without permission. Don’t block new technologies, and don’t punish innovators for their users actions”), but is that protecting the freedom to innovation and creation without permission from the government or does this entail something more? After all, as I document in this book chapter (“The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 2: Saving the Net from Its Supporters“), there exists a large number of academics and advocacy groups today who believe that “openness” and “innovation” are values (even rights) that are most at risk from private, not public action. I invite you to read the works of Tim Wu, Dawn Nunziato, or Frank Pasquale (among others) to see what I am talking about. These new “Declaration” and “Bill of Rights” proposals don’t offer a detailed answer to that question, but I can’t help but raise this concern when at least the former effort was led by the far-left radicals at the Free Press, which was founded by America’s leading media Marxist (yes, Marxist — read about it all here).

Until the advocates who came up with these statements are willing to unpack these principles a bit more and explain their theories of rights and government, we really don’t know what these manifestos would mean if they came to influence public policy. But I suspect that they would both just result in more legislative meddling and regulatory adventurism.

Finally, I know that a few of my friends here at the TLF have come up with their own “Declaration” to push back against this other one, and I agree with many of the principles that they have articulated in their counter-manifesto. (Hell, Wayne Crews and I once even came up with a sort of Declaration of our own back in 2001).  But I think we now need to impose a moratorium on all these new “Declarations” and “Bill of Rights” proposals until we get a hell of a lot more serious about honoring the originals.

JUST SAY NO to new “Declarations” and “Bill of Rights” proposals, and JUST SAY YES to the real deals!

P.S. For a light-hearted take on the excesses of our entitlement age, you might enjoy my old essay: “Broadband as a Human Right (and a short list of other things I am entitled to on your dime)“

]]> https://techliberation.com/2012/07/02/the-problem-with-the-declaration-of-internet-freedom-the-digital-bill-of-rights/feed/ 12 41536 The Internet, Politics, Lobbying & the “Big Spend” https://techliberation.com/2012/01/24/the-internet-politics-lobbying-the-big-spend/ https://techliberation.com/2012/01/24/the-internet-politics-lobbying-the-big-spend/#comments Tue, 24 Jan 2012 20:47:38 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=39940

In the wake of last week’s big SOPA showdown, a lot of people are talking about the expanded presence and power of the Internet, online operators, and digital Netizens in Washington policy debates. I certainly don’t mean to diminish the importance of this particular episode. It certainly is historic, regardless of how you feel about the specifics of SOPA. What does concern me, however, is the way this episode is prompting questions about how much more “engagement” Internet companies need to consider inside the Beltway. For example, today’s Wall Street Journal features an article on “The Web’s Growing Muscle” and notes:

The Internet industry has found a rare sweet spot in Washington. With Google in the lead, the companies have begun building a strong traditional lobbying force in Washington. And, to complement that inside game, websites’ millions of users have become a powerful outside weight on Congress. What’s more, in a rare Washington double play, the concerns of Internet companies have found a sympathetic ear both in the Democratic White House and among Republican presidential candidates who otherwise can’t agree with Barack Obama on anything.

The piece concludes with a quote from an anonymous media executive saying “People are looking at what Google spent on lobbying and wondering, ‘Can we match that?’ It has to be a big spend.”

I cannot possibly think of anything more demoralizing than that. The idea that web companies should spend more of their time in Washington showering politicians with cash instead of out there in the real world innovating and making consumers happy is extremely troubling. I wrote about this growing trend in my 2010 Cato essay on “The Sad State of Cyber-Politics.” I built that essay around an old manifesto by Cypress Semiconductor CEO T. J. Rodgers on “Why Silicon Valley Should Not Normalize Relations with Washington, D.C.”  Rodgers had argued that “The political scene in Washington is antithetical to the core values that drive our success in the international marketplace and risks converting entrepreneurs into statist businessmen,” and that “The collectivist notion that drives policymaking in Washington is the irrevocable enemy of high-technology capitalism and the wealth creation process.”

But no one was listening then and they certainly aren’t listening now. We find ourselves in the midst a mad rush to see who can open a bigger, fancier office in Washington and have glitzier parties to make the political class happy. As I noted in the Cato essay:

There’s enormous pressure on the high-tech sector to actually become more entrenched in coming years, at least to remain “competitive” with other companies who have planted a flag inside the Beltway. Recently, for example, Reid Hoffman, founder of LinkedIn, a social networking site for professionals, worried that policymakers tend to ignore high-tech startups. “We don’t have an entrepreneurship lobby,” he said, “because entrepreneurs are off doing it.” As if that was a bad thing! In particular, he fretted about startups not getting their share of recent stimulus funding and argued that “It’s much easier when you’re embedded in the political infrastructure to respond to immediate things” such as nabbing stimulus dollars, he said.

Am I being naive about all this? Don’t these new tech companies have to have armies of lobbyists pressing the flesh and greasing the palms here in DC in order to compete against other entrenched competitors who are doing to same thing?  Perhaps, but there’s always been self-fulfilling circularity to the argument that you have to be here in order to “be a player” or “have a seat at the table.” The end result of that thinking is always the same: more lobbying, more logrolling, more of “the big spend.” And then we end up with one giant cesspool of protected markets, protracted legal nightmares, bloated bureaucracies, and widespread regulatory capture. Welcome to the wonderful world of crony capitalism! And your tech sector superstars are now falling all over themselves to make sure they have that proverbial “seat at the table” so they can feast at this Big Government supper.

It makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it. So, I’ll continue right on being a naive dope and conclude this piece the same way I concluded my old Cato essay on the sad state of cyber-politics:

For that small remnant of believers in real Internet Freedom — freedom from incessant government techno-meddling — we will never stop hoping that disputes among high-tech companies might be settled in the marketplace instead of within regulatory agencies and congressional committee rooms. And we must continue our push to discourage high-tech companies from an excessive “normalization” of relations with the parasitic culture that dominates Washington by reminding them, as Rodgers noted in 2000, “that free minds and free markets are the moral foundation that has made our success possible. We must never allow those freedoms to be diminished for any reason.”

Just let me dream, people.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2012/01/24/the-internet-politics-lobbying-the-big-spend/feed/ 4 39940 Emord’s “Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment” Turns 20 https://techliberation.com/2011/10/17/emords-freedom-technology-and-the-first-amendment-turns-20/ https://techliberation.com/2011/10/17/emords-freedom-technology-and-the-first-amendment-turns-20/#respond Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:59:33 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=38723

Twenty years ago, one of the best books ever penned about freedom of speech was released. Sadly, many people still haven’t heard of it. That book was Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment, by Jonathan Emord. With the exception of Ithiel de Sola Pool’s 1983 masterpiece Technologies of Freedom: On Free Speech in an Electronic Age, no book has a more profound impact on my thinking about free speech and technology policy than Emord’s 1991 classic. Emord’s book is, at once, a magisterial history and a polemical paean. This is no wishy-washy apologia for free speech, rather, it is a celebration of the amazing gift of freedom that the Founding Fathers gave us with the very first amendment to our constitution.

Unlike most people, Emord assumes nothing about the nature and purpose of the First Amendment; instead, he starts in pre-colonial times and explains how our rich heritage of freedom of speech and expression came about. Like Pool, Emord also makes the case for equality of all press providers and debunks the twisted logic behind much of this century’s corrupt jurisprudence governing speech transmitted via electronic media. Pool and Emord make it clear that if the First Amendment is retain its true meaning and purpose as a bulwark against government control of speech and expression, electronic media providers (TV, radio, cable, the Internet) must be accorded full First Amendment freedoms on par with traditional print media (newspapers, magazines, books and journals).

After developing his thorough history of free speech and the First Amendment in the first part of the book, Emord turns his attention to competing modern theories of First Amendment construction and interpretation. He outlines and critiques the Literalist Perspective, the Narrow Intentionalist Perspective, and the Relativist Perspective. Emord instead advocates what he labels a “preservationist perspective” which is composed of two essential elements: (1) Static Barriers again government intervention and (2) Adaptive Definitions for the terms “speech” and “press.”  He elaborates:

The effect of the Preservationist Perspective is to rely on the private sphere as a self-correcting mechanism. Should the government attempt to violate the private sphere, it will be barred by a high constitutional barrier. … Under the Preservationist Perspective, government regulation of who may speak or what  may be said would be strictly scrutinized and presumptively invalid. (p. 129)

Employing that framework, Emord spends much of the rest of the book demolishing the most dangerous variant of modern “relativist” thinking: the so-called “Media Access” school of thinking. Media access theories presume the existence of a mythical “right to be heard,” or a “right to respond publicly.” In essence, media access advocates believe that once a given media provider becomes popular enough, everyone has a “right” to speak through it. By this logic, if you build a large soapbox in your backyard, and are informative or entertaining enough to attract and retain an audience, the media access advocates apparently believe that the government should mandate that you share time on your soapbox with others in the name of “diversity.” They care little about the property rights you have in that soapbox, the effort and cost associated with your efforts to build that soapbox, or your editorial freedom to determine what is uttered on that soapbox. As Emord summarizes:

In short, the access advocates have transformed the marketplace of ideas from a laissez-faire model to a state-control model. For them, if the marketplace of ideas can be viewed as the contents of a cauldron, it is not enough to await random stirring; government must burn an eternal flame beneath the cauldron, keeping it at the boiling point. Silence is not an option; the government implores: Let there be speech! (p. 293)

He continues on to point out how silly that notion is:

The First Amendment does not require any set amount of diversity in the marketplace. If everyone were to choose to remain silent, the First Amendment would not be violated, for the amendment’s purpose is to deprive government of a power over the press and to leave to private citizens the decision of when to speak or not to speak and what to say. (p. 228)

While citizens certainly are at liberty to speak freely and communicate their views to others who will listen to them or air them, they do not have a right to demand access to the property of others to do so. If lawmakers could mandate that anyone who has taken the time and expense to build a soapbox to speak on must allow the rest of the world to stand on that soapbox with them in the name of “access” and “fairness,” it would contort the First Amendment into a tyrannical government mandate. This would retard, not expand, genuine freedom of speech and expression. Indeed, when such media access theories have been translated into public policy — as was the case with the old Fairness Doctrine — the effect has been generally to chill speech and expression throughout media.

What is really going on here is that media access advocates are looking to transform the First Amendment into a tool for social change to advance specific political ends or ideological objectives. “Rather than understanding the First Amendment to be a guardian of the private sphere of communication, the access advocates interpret it to be a guarantee of a preferred mix of ideological viewpoints,” notes Emord. “When the access advocates speak of minority views, they are almost always referring to views they believe to be inadequately represented in our society.”

Thus, the danger with media access mandates is that they ultimately transform the First Amendment into an affirmative tool of the state that legislators and regulators can wield to control content and influence the editorial judgments of the press. The ultimate danger of this twisted conception of the First Amendment, Emord rightly argues, is that, “It fundamentally shifts the marketplace of ideas from its private, unregulated, and interactive context to one within the compass of state control, making the marketplace ultimately responsible to government for determinations as to the choice of content expressed.” It converts the First Amendment from a shield against State action into a sword that the State can use as it sees fit. Nothing could be more dangerous and it is a complete contradiction of the original purpose and meaning of the First Amendment.

Emord’s book is the perfect antidote to such misguided thinking. If you care about the First Amendment and the continuing fight for freedom of speech and technological freedom, I beg you to read Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment. It’s as fresh and important today as it was 20 years ago.  A wide range of current policy tech policy debates will ultimately be decided by the courts, and which theory of the First Amendment guides them will make all the difference for the future of our digital society and real Internet freedom.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2011/10/17/emords-freedom-technology-and-the-first-amendment-turns-20/feed/ 0 38723 A Response to Andrew McLaughlin on Net Neutrality & “Freedom” https://techliberation.com/2011/07/09/a-response-to-andrew-mclaughlin-on-net-neutrality-freedom/ https://techliberation.com/2011/07/09/a-response-to-andrew-mclaughlin-on-net-neutrality-freedom/#comments Sat, 09 Jul 2011 20:15:10 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=37751

Over on his Google+ page, cyber-guru Andrew McLaughlin posted a bit of a rant about libertarians and Net neutrality arguing, among other things, that “the pro-freedom position is to enforce net neutrality.” Needless to say, I disagree and posted a long comment explaining why and trying to help him and others on the Left understand the way libertarians generally look at this issue. For what it’s worth, I thought I would just repost my response to him here:
________

Andrew… I’m happy, as always, to engage in friendly debate with you about this, although I suspect from the tone of some of the others here that nothing I will say will convince them that opposition to Net neutrality regulation can be based on anything other than pure corporate whoring!

I’m always mystified by the highly selective nature of this rhetorical device when employed by some on the Left against libertarians. After all, as Tim Lee already alluded to in his comments above, we never seem to hear our Lefty friends trot out those arguments when they agree with us. For example, Berin Szoka and I filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court last year in the BROWN v. EMA video game case along with Lee Tien and Cindy Cohn of EFF. Why is it that I did not hear one peep from any Lefties about my obvious corporate whoring in that matter! I mean, clearly, there’s no possible way that a libertarian could support First Amendment rights. I must have just been in it for video game industry money, right?

OK, I’m being snarky here. And I know this is not your position because I’ve known you a long time and know that you do not adopt such tactics even when we do, on occasion, disagree heatedly over a major policy issue.  But, even if I am wasting my breath, let me just say this to others: We libertarians in the academic and think tank world aren’t exactly living “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.” If we all just in it for the money than I can tell you that we are doing a tremendously shitty job at it! (In fact, most libertarian think tanks or organizations only have something like 5 to 10% corporate funding. The organization I work for has even less.) Seriously folks, we libertarians believe in our ideas and fight for them with the same passion that you fight for yours because of a heart-felt belief in the inherent rightness of our core principles.

So, returning to Net neutrality regulation, I would hope that folks on the Left could entertain the possibility that libertarians have serious concerns about the wisdom of inviting government to establish a new regulatory regime for the Internet.  If others can be open-minded enough to entertain that possibility, then I hope they will take seriously the three prongs of libertarian opposition to Net neutrality regulation.  I suspect the first and second will be somewhat more compelling (or at least plausible) to the Left than the third.

1) First, government simply does not have a very good historical track record regulating network industries.

I view Net neutrality regulation as a combination of common carriage regulation and “public interest” regulation. We have roughly 100 years’ worth of experience with these regimes in practice in various industries. And when we evaluate the success of those regimes in terms of improving economic efficiency, innovation, competitiveness, consumer welfare, etc., well.. the results have been downright dismal.

Now, it is certainly true that common carriage rules and public interest mandates were well-intentioned. For example, who could possibly be against the idea of more diversity and “balance” in the reporting of news and opinion, as was generally mandated by the so-called Fairness Doctrine? And who could be against common carrier regs that mandated “just and reasonable” rates?

But all the noble intentions in the world don’t matter a bit when stacked against the historical evidence of how well these rules and regulatory regimes worked in practice. Most of these efforts backfired miserably. The unintended consequences were myriad.  Public interest regulation didn’t give us more diversity, it gave us less. It limited the vibrancy of the speech marketplace in the process. Likewise, “just and reasonable” rate regulation gave us nothing of the sort. These rules benefited incumbents more than consumers or new competitors. They did not spur more innovation or entry. And regulatory capture was absolutely rampant across the board.

Thus, by my read of history, these regulatory regimes were viciously anti-consumer.

I suppose some might disagree with this history and suggest that things weren’t as bad as I’ve made them out to be.  I have very little tolerance for that suggestion because I do not believe there is any other way to read this history. I’ve spent the last 20 years attempting to document it in much of my work to remind others – especially policymakers – why we don’t want to go down that path again. But you don’t need to believe me. Read the works of Alfred Kahn (a lifelong liberal Democrat, I might note) or the countless others who have written histories of media and communications regulation. It’s a truly miserable tale.

With all that in mind, can you start to see why the libertarian might be a tad bit suspect of calls for Net neutrality regulation?

2) Second, libertarians tend to be far more optimistic about the possibility of markets, ongoing experimentation, spontaneous/unforeseen innovation, and creative destruction to improve matters long before government regs like Net neutrality get around to doing so.

Again, the FCC just isn’t very good at regulating fast-moving industries and technologies and its track record is particularly poor when it comes to incentivizing new things (remember Video Dialtone? Open Video System rules?) Also, flexibility is crucial for fast-moving technologies and networks and we must be careful not to freeze systems and industries in stone.

While libertarians wouldn’t sympathize with efforts by network intermediaries to “block” any sort of content or traffic, we’d also challenge others to provide serious examples of this being a problem. We don’t think there is a problem here. And if there were such silly corporate efforts to meddle, we are far more optimistic about the power of market and social norms to handle it. Pressure from the press, scholars, engineers, and the general public can help curb the worst excesses. Moreover, corporate screw-ups serve as a good invitation for other innovators to take a stab at offering consumers a better deal.

There’s also the omnipresent threat of the slippery slope of regulation. “Neutrality” mandates could gradually spread to other layers of the Net and cover content and applications. We need to be careful so as not to open the door to comprehensive government regulation of the Internet. The FCC, in particular, has shown itself to be an agency with a healthy appetite for mission creep. Libertarians are highly suspect about giving a bunch of unelected bureaucrats the leeway to determine what a “neutral” Net looks like.

3) Finally, libertarians believe that our Constitution embodies a presumption of liberty. People — including corporations — should be free to pursue their interests so long as they do not violate the rights of others.

This is the “knee-jerk” aspect of libertarianism that alienates many progressives who believe in a different interpretation of rights and the Constitution.  For that reason, I never lead with this argument when debating communications, media, or high-technology policy. Nonetheless, I would hope that you would appreciate why this construction of rights and constitutionally-guaranteed liberties leads the libertarian to resist regulatory regimes imposed from above.

 

Well, I’ve gone on far too long here. I know I have not convinced you to change your mind, Andrew. I understand your position and know how passionately you feel about it. I do hope, however, that you now better understand our position on Net neutrality and realize that it has nothing to do with protecting “big corporate interests,” but rather, it’s about understanding what REAL Internet freedom should be all about!

Alas, our competing conceptions of what “freedom” entails keeps us from being allies on this particular issue.  I look forward to continuing to work with you on the many other issues where our ideological traditions are in closer alignment.

Cheers – Adam Thierer

Related Reading:

 

]]> https://techliberation.com/2011/07/09/a-response-to-andrew-mclaughlin-on-net-neutrality-freedom/feed/ 27 37751 Terrific Speech by FCC’s Rob McDowell on “Technology & the Sovereignty of the Individual” https://techliberation.com/2011/06/29/terrific-speech-by-fccs-rob-mcdowell-on-technology-the-sovereignty-of-the-individual/ https://techliberation.com/2011/06/29/terrific-speech-by-fccs-rob-mcdowell-on-technology-the-sovereignty-of-the-individual/#comments Wed, 29 Jun 2011 20:06:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=37594

FCC Commissioner Robert M. McDowell delivered a terrific speech this week on “Technology and the Sovereignty of the Individual” at a broadband conference in Stockholm, Sweden.  The speech serves as another reminder that McDowell is one of those ultimate rare birds: a regulator who is a first-rate intellectual thinker and a great champion of individual liberty. It’s a beautiful statement in defense of real Internet freedom. I can’t recall ever seeing another federal official cite the great Bruno Leoni in a speech!

Here’s a sample of what Commissioner McDowell had to say:

To propel freedom’s momentum, policy makers should remember that, since their inception, the Internet and mobile connectivity have migrated further away from government control.  As the result of longstanding international consensus, the Internet itself has become the greatest deregulatory success story of all time.  To continue to promote freedom and prosperity, regulators should continue to rely on the “bottom up” nongovernmental Internet governance bodies that have a perfect record of keeping the ’Net working and open.  We must heed the advice of leaders like Neelie Kroes, who has consistently called on regulators to “avoid over-hasty regulatory intervention,” and steer clear of “unnecessary measures which may hinder new efficient business models from emerging.” I couldn’t agree more.  Changing course now could not only trigger an avalanche of international regulation, but it could halt the progress of freedom’s march as well.

With these pragmatic principles in mind, freedom-loving governments everywhere should resist the temptation to regulate in the absence of pervasive market failure.  Needless government intrusion into the Internet’s affairs provides nefarious authoritarian regimes with the political cover they desire to justify their interference with the ’Net.  To prevent an escalation of international regulation, we should encourage the kind of positive and constructive chaos that only unfettered competition can produce.  We should adopt spectrum policies that promote flexible uses, spectrum allocation through fair auction processes and, when appropriate, unlicensed use of the airwaves to spur innovation and adoption.  Fueling freedom in this way will turn the world upside down for the better.

Preach it, brother! Read the whole thing.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2011/06/29/terrific-speech-by-fccs-rob-mcdowell-on-technology-the-sovereignty-of-the-individual/feed/ 10 37594 Why My New Forbes Column is Called “Technologies of Freedom” https://techliberation.com/2011/03/27/why-my-new-forbes-column-is-called-technologies-of-freedom/ https://techliberation.com/2011/03/27/why-my-new-forbes-column-is-called-technologies-of-freedom/#comments Sun, 27 Mar 2011 19:25:13 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=35960

I’m very excited to announce that I now have a regular Forbes column that will fly under the banner, “Technologies of Freedom.” My first essay for them is already live and it addresses a topic I’ve dealt with here extensively through the years: Irrational fears about tech monopolies and “information empires.” Jump over to Forbes to read the whole thing.

Regular readers of this blog will understand why I chose “Technologies of Freedom” as the title for my column, but I thought it was worth reiterating. No book has had a more formative impact on my thinking about technology policy than Ithiel de Sola Pool’s 1983 masterpiece, Technologies of Freedom: On Free Speech in an Electronic Age.  As I noted in my short Amazon.com review, Pool’s technological tour de force is simply breathtaking in its polemical power and predictive capabilities. Reading this book almost three decades after it was published, one comes to believe that Pool must have possessed a crystal ball or had a Nostradamus-like ability to foresee the future.

For example, long before anyone else had envisioned what we now refer to as “cyberspace,” Pool was describing it in this book. “Networked computers will be the printing presses of the twenty-first century,” he argued in his remarkably prescient chapter on electronic publishing. “Soon most published information will disseminated electronically,” and “there will be networks on networks on networks,” he predicted. “A panoply of electronic devices puts at everyone’s hands capacities far beyond anything that the printing press could offer.” Few probably believed his prophecies in 1983, but no one doubts him now!

Far more importantly, Pool did all this while also providing a passionate defense of technological freedom and freedom of speech in the electronic age. In his closing chapter on “Policies for Freedom,” Pool discussed possible futures for the emerging world of electronic communications and noted that:

Technology will not be to blame if Americans fail to encompass this system within the political tradition of free speech. On the contrary, electronic technology is conducive to freedom. The degree of diversity and plenitude of access that mature electronic technology allows far exceed what is enjoyed today. Computerized information networks of the twenty-first century need not be any less free for all to use without hindrance than was the printing press. Only political errors might make them so. (p. 231)

Pool went on to outline his “Guidelines for Freedom.” #1 was that “the First Amendment applies fully to all media” and #2 was that “anyone may publish at will.” Regarding economic regulation of tech markets, Pool stressed in principles #3 and #4 that “enforcement must be after the fact, not by prior restraint” and that “regulation is a last recourse. In a free society, the burden of proof is for the least possible regulation of communication.”

This framework for freedom and innovation has governed everything I have done over my first two decades in the field of technology policy and it will shape everything I pen for Forbes, much like it has here at the TLF through the years. I can’t pretend to possess Pool’s predictive powers, but I can and will commit myself to espousing and defending his beautiful vision of technological freedom and progress.

This is what I wake up and go to work for each day.  The fight for technological freedom!

]]> https://techliberation.com/2011/03/27/why-my-new-forbes-column-is-called-technologies-of-freedom/feed/ 3 35960 More Confusion about Internet “Freedom” https://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/ https://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/#comments Tue, 01 Mar 2011 18:18:37 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=35407

Nate Anderson of Ars Technica has posted an interview with Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) about Defining Internet “Freedom”. Neither Sen. Franken nor Mr. Anderson ever get around to defining that term in their exchange, but the clear implication from the piece is that “freedom” means freedom for the government to plan more and for policymakers to more closely monitor and control the Internet economy.  The clearest indication of this comes when Sen. Franken repeats the old saw that net neutrality regulation is “the First Amendment issue of our time.”

As a lover of liberty, I find this corruption of language and continued debasement of the term “freedom” to be extremely troubling. The thinking we see at work here reflects the ongoing effort by many cyber-progressives (or “cyber-collectivists,” as I prefer to call them) to redefine Internet freedom as liberation from the supposed tyranny of the marketplace and the corresponding empowerment of techno-cratic philosopher kings to guide us toward a more enlightened and noble state of affairs. We are asked to ignore our history lessons, which teach us that centralized planning and bureaucracy all too often lead to massively inefficient outcomes, myriad unforeseen unintended consequences, bureaucratic waste, and regulatory capture.  Instead, we are asked to believe that high-tech entrepreneurs are the true threat to human progress and liberty. They are cast as nefarious villains and their innovations, we are told, represent threats to our “freedom.” We even hear silly comparisons likening innovators like Apple to something out of George Orwell’s 1984. 

To be clear, I am not saying everything will be sunshine and roses in a free information marketplace. Mistakes will be made by those innovators and there will even be short-term spells of what many would regard as excessive corporate market power. The question is how much faith we should place in central planners, as opposed to evolutionary market forces, to solve that problem.  Those who truly love liberty and real human freedom would have more patience with competition and technological change and be willing to see how things play out. In other words, “market failures” and “code failures” are ultimately better addressed by voluntary, spontaneous, bottom-up responses than by coercive, top-down approaches.

The decisive advantage of the market-driven approach is nimbleness. It is during what some might regard as a market’s darkest hour when some of the most exciting disruptive technologies and innovations develop. People don’t sit still; they respond to incentives, including short spells of apparently excessive private power. But they can only do so if they are truly free from artificial constraint from government forces who, inevitably, are always one or two steps behind fast-moving technological developments. Thus, we shouldn’t allow the cyber-collectivists to sell us their version of “freedom” in which markets are instead constantly reshaped through incessant regulatory interventions. That isn’t freedom, it’s tyranny.

More insulting to me is the continued repetition of this balderdash about how Net neutrality is “the First Amendment issue of our time.”  As I’ve pointed out before here before in my essay on “Net Neutrality Regulation & the First Amendment,” the Internet’s First Amendment is the First Amendment, not some new, top-down, heavy-handed regulatory regime that puts Federal Communications Commission bureaucrats in control of the Digital Economy. America’s Founding Fathers intended the First Amendment to serve as a shield from government encroachment on our liberties, not as a sword for government to wield to reshape markets and speech according to the whims of five unelected bureaucrats at the FCC. Anyone who suggests otherwise is engaging in revisionist history of the highest order.

Sadly, however, countless people seem to buy into this twisted vision of “Internet freedom” today. They stand ready to empower the techno-planners, to call in the code cops, and to roll out the tech pork barrel in their invitation to Washington to give the Digital Economy a great big bear hug.

You can call this vision many things, but pro-freedom is not one of them.  As Berin Szoka and I have argued here in the past, true “Internet freedom” is freedom from state action; not freedom for the State to reorder our affairs to supposedly make certain people or groups better off or to improve some amorphous “public interest” — an all-to convenient facade behind which unaccountable elites can impose their will on the rest of us.

If you stand for liberty, the choice of which conception of “Net freedom” to embrace is simple.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2011/03/01/more-confusion-about-internet-freedom/feed/ 8 35407 Book Review: The Net Delusion by Evgeny Morozov https://techliberation.com/2011/01/04/book-review-the-net-delusion-by-evgeny-morozov/ https://techliberation.com/2011/01/04/book-review-the-net-delusion-by-evgeny-morozov/#comments Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:58:22 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=34059

In his new book, The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, Evgeny Morozov aims to prick the bubble of hyper-optimism that surrounds debates about the Internet’s role in advancing human freedom or civic causes.  Morozov, a native of Belarus, is a tremendously gifted young cyber-policy scholar affiliated with Stanford University and the New America Foundation.  He’s an expert on the interaction of digital technology and democracy and writes frequently on that topic for a variety of respected media outlets.

In Net Delusion, as with many of his previous columns and essays, Morozov positions himself the ultimate Net “realist,” aiming to bring a dose of realpolitik to discussions about how much of a difference the Net and digital technologies make to advancing democracy and freedom.  His depressing answer: Not much.  Indeed, Morozov’s book is one big wet blanket on the theory that “technologies of freedom” can help liberate humanity from the yoke of repressive government.

Morozov clearly relishes his skunk at the garden party role, missing few opportunities to belittle those who subscribe to such theories.  If you’re one of those who tinted your Twitter avatar green as an expression of solidarity with Iranian “Green Movement” dissidents, Morozov’s view is that, at best, you’re wasting your time and, at worst, you’re aiding and abetting tyrants by engaging in a form of “slacktivism” that has little hope of advancing real regime change.  The portrait he paints of technology and democracy is a dismal one in which cyber-utopian ideals of information as liberator are not just rejected but inverted.  He regards such “cyber-utopian” dreams as counter-productive, even dangerous, to the advance of democracy and human freedom.

Against Cyber-Utopianism

In the opening pages of The Net Delusion, Morozov explains it is his mission is to beat back “cyber-utopianism,” at least as it relates to international affairs and diplomacy.  He defines cyber-utopianism as “a naïve belief in the emancipatory nature of online communication that rests on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge its downside.” He blames “the starry-eyed digital fervor of the 1990s” and the “former hippies… [now] ensconced in some of the more prestigious universities in the world” for giving rise to the notion that “the Internet could deliver what the 1960’s couldn’t” in terms of building a better, more peaceful world. (p. xiii)  He also aims to counter what he has elsewhere referred to as “the public’s penchant for fetishizing the engineer as the ultimate savior.”

Much of the scorn he heaps on the cyber-utopians is well-deserved, although I think there are far fewer of them around than Morozov imagines. Nonetheless, there certainly is a bit too much Pollyanna-ish hyper-optimism at play in debates about the Net’s role in advancing liberation of those peoples who are being subjected to tyrannical rule across the planet.

But Morozov simply doesn’t know when to quit. His relentless and highly repetitive critique goes overboard when it veers into all-too familiar territory already plowed by other Internet pessimists and cultural critics beginning back in the 1980s with the late social critic Neil Postman.  Indeed, what Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985) and Technopoly (1992) were to early discussions about information technology and culture, Morozov’s Net Delusion is to modern debates about the Net and political change.

Like Postman, Morozov wants us to believe that increased access to entertainment and communications technologies breeds societal indifference, and that increased consumerism breeds civic lethargy.  Morozov paints a portrait of world affairs in which the Internet inevitably pushes us into something akin to Idiocracy; it’s a world in which all these digital gadgets, communications devices, and entertainment options turn us all into unthinking, anti-intellectual, apolitical pawns who can be easily manipulated by the State.  “Where new media and the Internet truly excel is in suppressing boredom.  Previously, boredom was one of the few truly effective ways to politicize the population denied release values for channeling their discontent, but this is no longer the case.” (p. 80)  He continues on: “Those of us rooting for the further spread of democracy around the globe must stop dreaming and face reality: The Internet has provided so many cheap and easily available entertainment fixes to those living under authoritarianism that is has become considerably harder to get people to care about politics at all.” (p. 81)

Morozov thinks that the “ridiculously easy group-forming” that his leading nemesis Clay Shirky described in his recent book Cognitive Surplus is, in reality, leading largely to cognitive crap, at least as it pertains to civic action and political activism.  Indeed, at one point in Chapter 7 (the creatively-titled, “Why Kierkegaard Hates Slacktivism”), Morozov speaks of the development of what we might think of as a “tragedy of the civic commons” (my term, not his).  He argues that:

When everyone in the group performs the same mundane tasks, it’s impossible to evaluate individual contributions, and people inevitably begin slacking off… Increasing the number of participants diminishes the relative social pressure on each and often results in inferior outputs. (p 193)

It’s an interesting theory, as far as it goes, but Morozov doesn’t muster much more than a handful of anecdotes in support of it.  He notes, for example, that even back in the Berlin Wall era, young East German students were more likely to know intimate facts about popular American dramas like Dallas and Dynasty than current political affairs.  And, echoing the recent laments of Andrew Keen (Cult of the Amateur) and Lee Siegel (Against the Machine), Morozov worries about the “narcissism” and “attention seeking” of social networking denizens. “There’s nothing wrong with the self-promotion per se, but it seems quite unlikely that such narcissistic campaigners would be able to develop true feelings of empathy or be prepared to make sacrifices that political life, especially political life in authoritarian states, requires.” (p 187)

But this ignores many legitimate forms of social organization / protesting that have been facilitated by the Net and digital technologies.  Despite what Morozov suggests, we haven’t all become lethargic, asocial, apolitical cave-dwelling Baywatch­ rerun-watching junkies.  If all Netizens are just hooked on a cyber-sedative that saps their civic virtue, what are we to make of the millions of progressives who so successfully used the Net and digital technologies to organize and elect President Obama? (Believe me, I wish they wouldn’t have been so civic-minded and rushed to the polls in record numbers to elect that guy!)

Similarly, Morozov belittles some of the online communities that have formed to support various charitable or civic causes by arguing that if you divide the number of members of such online groups by the aggregate amount of money they raise, it comes out to mere pennies on the dollar per community member. But so what?  Do we know if those communities or causes would have come together at all or spent more money without digital communications and networking technologies?  It is certainly true that merely setting up a new cyber-cause and giving a few bucks to it isn’t the same as going on a mission to Africa to build homes and water systems, but does Morozov really want to us to believe that more of that sort of thing would happen in the absence of the Net and digital technology?  Were African relief charities better off in the days when Sally Struthers lectured us on late-night TV about giving more to such causes?  I find that very hard to believe.

Regardless, here’s where we can all agree: Technology is just one of many tools that can be harnessed to keep the power of the State in check or advance important civic / charitable causes.  I am entirely sympathetic to Morozov’s argument that other factors and forces play an even more important role in promoting democracy and, in particular, ending tyranny. (Personally, I think we’d do more to assist repressed dissidents by sneaking them copies of Guns and Ammo or Soldier of Fortune instead of Wired, but I digress.)  “The calculus of measuring quality of life demands a few more steps than simply adding all the efficiencies and subtracting all the inefficiencies,” he says, “it also requires a good understanding of what particular values are important in a particular context of human relations.” (p. 198) Who could disagree with such a statement?

Yet, in his zeal to counter those who have placed too great an emphasis on the role of information technology, Morozov himself has gone too far in the opposite extreme in The Net Delusion by suggesting that technology’s role in transforming States or politics is either mostly irrelevant or even, at times, counter-productive.  I’m just not buying it.  I think you’ll find a more nuanced and balanced set of conclusions in this new white paper, “Political Change in the Digital Age: The Fragility and Promise of Online Organizing,” by Bruce Etling, Robert Faris and John Palfrey.  In it, they conclude:

The Internet has an important role in increasing information sharing, access to alternative platforms, and allowing new voices to join political debates.  The Internet will continue to serve these functions, even with state pushback, as activists devise ways around state online restrictions.  Conditions that contribute to success are likely determined not by the given technological tool, but by human skill and facility in using the networks that are being mobilized.  …  It is less clear how far online organizing and digital communities will be allowed to push states toward drastic political change and greater democratization, especially in states where offline restrictions to civic and political organization are severe.  As scholars, we ought to focus our attention on the people involved and their competencies in using digitally-mediated tools to organize themselves and their fellow citizens, whether as flash mobs or through sustained social movements or organizations, rather than the flow of information as such.

In other words, we should view information as one of many means to the end and not the end in and of itself.  But we also shouldn’t discount its importance too lightly.

But What’s the Ultimate Goal Here?

There’s a more profound problem with Morozov’s thesis. If he is correct that the Net poses such risks, or undermines the cause of democracy-promotion, isn’t the logical recommendation that flows from it technology control or entertainment repression?  If, as Morozov implies, Netizens are spending too much time viewing Lolcats and not enough in the streets protesting or running down to the Peace Corps to sign up for a tour of duty, then what would he have us do about it?  Shall we restrict access to the growing abundance of technological / entertainment choices that he laments?

Amazingly, he never really clarifies his views on this important point. Like so many other cultural critics before him, Morozov finds it easy to use caustic wit to tear apart inflated arguments and egos on the other side while also conveniently ignoring the logical consequences of their critiques or bothering to set forth a constructive alternative.

About the closest he comes is to detailing his views is Chapter 9, which focuses on the danger of the Net and modern digital technology being used to spread extremist views.  Even though he refuses to get more specific about potential responses, what, exactly, are we to conclude when we hear Morozov speak of the need for “measures to mitigate the negative side effects of increased interconnectedness.” (p. 261) And what are we to make of his claim that “More and cheaper tools in the wrong hands can result in less, not more, democracy.” (p. 264)  Or, his argument that:

The danger is that the colorful banner of Internet freedom may further conceal the fact that the Internet is much more than a megaphone for democratic speech, that is other uses can be extremely antidemocratic in nature, and the without addressing those uses the very project of democracy promotion might be in great danger.”(p. 265-6)

Or, finally, his conclusion in that chapter that:

If the sad experience of the 1990s has taught us anything, it’s that successful (democratic) transitions require a strong state and a relatively orderly public life. The Internet, so far, has posed something of a threat to both. (p. 274)

Reading those passages — especially the words I’ve highlighted — it’s hard not to conclude that Morozov would like to put the information genie back in the bottle.  To be clear, he never says that directly since he simply refuses to be nailed down on specifics.  But, again, his tone seems to suggest that some form of technological control or information repression may be necessary.  I hope that in coming essays Evgeny will be willing to clarify his views on this issue since The Net Delusion leaves us scratching our heads and wondering just how far he would go to counter the supposed “danger” or “threat” posed by digital technology.

On the Voluntary Surrender of Privacy via Social Sharing Technologies

Morozov is on somewhat stronger footing in highlighting the paradoxical danger of voluntary information exposure in an age of ubiquitous digital connectivity and communications. “While it is tempting to encourage everyone to flock to social networking sites and blogs to avoid the control of the censors, it would play into the hands of those in charge of surveillance and propaganda. The more connection between activists it can identify, the better for government,” he notes. (p. 83) “[I]n too many contexts,” he argues, “it empowers the strong and disempowers the weak.” (p. xvii)  In another creatively-titled chapter, “Why the KGB Wants You to Join Facebook,” he goes so far as to argue that “membership in a [social] network is a double-edged sword: Its usefulness can easily backfire if some segment gets compromised and their relationships with other members become common knowledge.  Before the advent of social media, it took a lot of effort for repressive governments to learn about the people dissidents are associated with,” but “today, they simply need to get on Facebook,” Morozov argues. (p. 156)

This is a fair point, and one that is much harder to know how to deal with.  But let’s say it is true that social networking tools and other digital technologies which allow greater online personalization and socialization also potentially facilitate increased government surveillance by the State.  What are we to do about that?  Again, we’re right back at the specter of information / technology repression and, once again, Morozov largely dodges that discussion. (Instead of direct regulation, I would think the better answer would be to educate users about sensible use of those sites or technologies and then work to empower them with more tools to better manage their privacy and/or evade surveillance).

Moreover, Morozov once again overplays his hand here.  He spends so much time arguing that digital technologies have made our lives more transparent to the State that he underplays the myriad ways it has simultaneously made government activities more visible than at any point in history.  It is extraordinarily difficult for even the most repressive of States today to completely bottle up all its secrets and actions.  Morozov says modern China, Putin’s Russia and Hugo Chavez are embracing new digital technologies in an attempt to better control them or learn how to use them to better spy on their citizens, and he implies that this is just another way they will dupe the citizenry and seduce them into a slumber so they will avert their eyes and ears to the truth of the repression that surrounds them.  Sorry, but once again, I’m not buying it.  Repressive regimes really do face a tension when they embrace modern information and communications technologies. It does force them to make certain trade-offs as they look to modernize their economies.  Morozov thinks this so-called “dictator’s dilemma” hypothesis is largely bunk, but he seems to expect this process to unfold overnight once new technology moves in.  In reality, these things take more time. The general progression of things in most states is toward somewhat greater transparency and openness, even if it does not magically spawn regime change overnight.

Importantly, he never really offers a credible cost-benefit analysis of the life of citizens in those regimes today relative to the past. Are we seriously supposed to believe that information-deprived Chinese peasants of the Mao era were somehow better positioned to influence positive regime change than the more empowered modern Chinese citizen?  It’s a tough sell.  Are their downsides associated with those new technologies (especially the potential for citizen surveillance)?  Yes, of course.  But let’s not use that as an excuse for marching backwards, technologically-speaking.

On America’s “Contradictions,” and Morozov’s

Chapter 8 of the book focuses on what Morozov describes as the “Cultural Contradictions of Internet Freedom.” He again scores some points for rightly pointing to the hypocrisy at play in the United States today — by both government and corporations — when it comes to the promotion of Net freedom globally.  He correctly notes that “while American diplomats are preaching the virtues of a free and open Internet abroad, an Internet unburdened by police, court orders, and censorship, their counterparts in domestic law enforcement, security, and military agencies are preaching — and some are already pursing — policies informed by a completely different assessment of those virtues.”  (p. 218)  Similarly, Morozov castigates many of America’s leading high-tech companies — Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Twitter, etc. – for preaching the values of Net freedom but then all too willingly handed over information about dissidents to repressive State actors, or playing ball with foreign thugs in other ways.

Morozov is right; American leaders in both government and business need to better align their actions with their rhetoric when it comes to the interaction of government and technology.  Too often, both groups are guilty of talking a big game about the Internet and freedom, only to later take steps to undermine that cause.  As Morozov asks in a recent New York Post column, “Shouldn’t America’s fight for Internet freedom start at home for it to be taken seriously by the rest of the world?”  Yes, it should.

Morozov’s critique of these “cultural contradictions” continues on, however, and it leads him to a surprising conclusion that is contradictory in its own right.  He says that the real problem here is that we’re all being seduced by those silly libertarian types with their crazy ideas about keeping the Net largely unfettered.  He says, for example:

The way forward is to acknowledge that the public pressure to regulate the Web is growing and that not all of the ensuing regulation should be resisted because the Internet is the favorite sacred cow of most libertarians.  The only way to get it right is to avoid holding on to some abstract truths – e.g., that the internet is a revolutionary force that should be spared any regulation whatsoever — but rather to invest one’s energy into seeking broad public agreement on what acceptable, transparent, and just democratic procedures by which such regulation is to occur should look like. (p. 218)

Thus, on one hand, Morozov laments the fact that U.S. politicians and corporations are far too willing to cave to political pressure, which results in the undermining of online freedoms.  On the other, he says that we all need to just chill out and accept the increasing politicization of the Net.  He never identifies the potential contradiction in his own thinking here.

Will increased meddling will the Net really help advance his cause?  I can’t see how but, then again, I’m one of those cyber-libertarians that Morozov would dismiss as unrealistic or “utopian.”  Morozov apparently thinks there is some process out there that will help us determine the “acceptable, transparent, and just democratic procedures [for] regulation” yet, once again, he never lets us in on the details.  All we know from his book is that the way the past three U.S. presidential administrations have approached Internet policy is not to his liking.  And even though it would be hard to call any of them “libertarian” in their approach to Net policy, Morozov clearly thinks the days of “Hands Off the Net” are over and were overrated to begin with.

Conclusion

To summarize, Morozov is quite right about the excessive euphoria currently surrounding the relationship of the Net to politics and regime change, but I think he’s gone a bit overboard in The Net Delusion. I realize how much fun playing the role of cranky contrarian must be for him since he’s addressing a target-rich environment, full of irrational Internet exuberance.  But Morozov just lays it all on a bit too thick for my taste.  “[T]he important thing is to acknowledge that the debate about the Internet’s effects on democracy isn’t over and to avoid behaving as if the jury is already out,” he argues.  (p. 241)  Fair enough.  The problem is, based on the tone of The Net Delusion and some of its conclusions, it appears that Evgeny Morozov has already sent the jury home and rendered a guilty verdict against the Net.

Additional Reading / Links:

http://video.ted.com/assets/player/swf/EmbedPlayer.swf]]> https://techliberation.com/2011/01/04/book-review-the-net-delusion-by-evgeny-morozov/feed/ 17 34059 CNBC Debate on Net Neutrality Regulation & Pricing Freedom https://techliberation.com/2010/08/05/cnbc-debate-on-net-neutrality-regulation-pricing-freedom/ https://techliberation.com/2010/08/05/cnbc-debate-on-net-neutrality-regulation-pricing-freedom/#comments Thu, 05 Aug 2010 18:31:33 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=30861

Today I appeared on CNBC’s “Power Lunch” to debate Net neutrality issues and the specific role of pricing in this debate. Specifically, the producers wanted to know whether websites should be allowed to pay a higher fee to allow consumers faster access to their sites or should it be equal for every website.  The show was partially a response to the rumors that the may be some sort of deal pending between Verizon and Google about prioritized services. On the program, I was up against Craig Aaron of Free Press.  During the discussion I made several points, many of which first appeared in my 2005 essay on “The Real Net Neutrality Debate: Pricing Flexibility Versus Pricing Regulation.” Here are the key points I tried to get across:

  • In a free-market economy, companies should be able to freely set prices for goods and services without fear of government price controls.
  • This isn’t about consumers paying more for basic Internet access or having their connections “slowed down”?  This is about whether the government will allow some broadband services to be differentiated or specialized for unique needs, such as online gaming, live event telecasts, secure telepresence conferences, telemedicine, etc.
  • Differentiated and prioritized services and pricing are part of almost every industrial sector in a capitalistic economy. (ex: airlines, package shipping, hotels, amusement parks, grades of gasoline, etc.)  Why should it be any different for broadband?
  • It’s always important to remember that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Something has to pay for Internet access. It doesn’t just fall like manna from heaven.  Differentiated services may help in this regard by allowing carriers to price more intensive or specialized users and uses to ensure that carriers don’t have to hit everyone – including average household users – with the same bill for service.  Why should the government make that illegal through Net neutrality regulation?
  • Heavy-handing tech mandates – especially Internet price controls – could have a profoundly deleterious impact on investment, innovation, and competition. After all, there can be no innovation or investment without a company first turning a profit.   We don’t want to return to the era of rotary-dial regulated monopoly, in which our choices were few and our services were standardized and rudimentary.  We should let our current experiment with facilities-based, head-to-head competition continue.

http://plus.cnbc.com/rssvideosearch/action/player/id/1559985749/code/cnbcplayershare

]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/08/05/cnbc-debate-on-net-neutrality-regulation-pricing-freedom/feed/ 7 30861 How America’s Hugo Chavez Fan Club Plans to ‘Reform’ Our Media Marketplace https://techliberation.com/2010/07/13/how-america%e2%80%99s-hugo-chavez-fan-club-plans-to-reform-our-media-marketplace/ https://techliberation.com/2010/07/13/how-america%e2%80%99s-hugo-chavez-fan-club-plans-to-reform-our-media-marketplace/#comments Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:31:20 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=30349

hugo-like-the-Free-Press-plan-300x211

[cross-posted from BigGovernment.com]

In the battle over media and communications freedom, no group poses a more serious threat to a free and independent press than the insultingly misnamed regulatory activist group Free Press. Along with their founders, the prolific neo-Marxist media theorist Robert W. McChesney and Nation correspondent John Nichols, Free Press has engaged in relentless agitation for a truly radical media and communications policy agenda, and their influence is now spreading throughout the Obama Administration.

The Free Press-McChesney blueprint for media “reform” reads more like a script for State servitude. On the regulatory side, they call for media ownership restrictions, “localism” mandates, “Net neutrality” regulations, price controls on broadband, advertising and copyright restrictions, and layers of additional regulatory edicts.  Once all that red tape smothers the life out the independent press and private communications providers, they plan to have the State step in become the primary benefactor of the Fourth Estate and high-tech infrastructure. For starters, McChesney and Nichols advocate a $35 billion annual “public works” program for the press modeled after the Works Progress Administration of the New Deal era. Their media WPA would include a “News AmeriCorps” for out-of-work journalists, a “Citizenship News Voucher” to funnel taxpayer support to struggling media entities, a significant expansion of postal subsidies, a massive new subsidy for journalism schools, corporate welfare for newspapers sufficient to pay 50 percent of the salaries of all “journalistic employees,” municipal government ownership of press and infrastructure, and many more bureaucratic programs.

Using its growing lobbying muscle in Washington, Free Press seeks to enshrine the McChesney-Nichols blueprint into law at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under the guise of a “National Journalism Strategy,” a veritable industrial policy for the press that resembles a Soviet-style five-year plan. They also want a “Public Media Trust Fund,” to make sure all the money they confiscate from private providers goes to public-subsidized competitors.  Average citizens would be in for some sticker shock, too, since Free Press and McChesney propose funding much of this new media welfare state with steep taxes on our mobile phones, Internet connections, and digital gadgets. So, get ready for the iPhone tax and new fees on your broadband bills!

Surprisingly, Free Press and McChesney don’t try to sugarcoat their radical intentions. Their self-described “radical” goal is a world of “post-corporate” newsrooms. McChesney and Nichols often speak broadly of “the problem” for the press being the capitalist system itself.  In their 2002 book, Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media, they argued that media-reform efforts begin with “the need to promote an understanding of the urgency to assert public control over the media… Our claim is simply that the media system produces vastly less of quality than it would if corporate and commercial pressures were lessened.”  More recently, in an interview with the Canada-based “Socialist Project,” McChesney went so far as to say that “the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists” and that “Instead of waiting for the revolution to happen, we learned that unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution. While the media is not the single most important issue in the world, it is one of the core issues that any successful Left project needs to integrate into its strategic program,” he argues. Thus, nothing short of “massive public intervention” into the news business is required. Free Press adopts a similar tone and dials up the heat inside the Beltway with apocalyptic talk about the need to have government “save the news.”  In true Rahm Emanuel-like fashion, Free Press insists, “We have a crisis. We have an historic opportunity. We can’t let either go to waste.”

Hugo-Vision for the U.S.?

If you’re beginning to think that the Free Press-McChesney plan sounds a bit like something right out of Hugo Chavez’s tyrannical press-police state, you’re not mistaken. In fact, McChesney imagines the Venezuelan strongman to be something of a misunderstood genius when it comes to how to run a “free press.”  “Aggressive unqualified political dissent is alive and well in the Venezuelan mainstream media, in a manner few other democratic nations have ever known, including our own,” McChesney has written.  That will certain come to a shock to those journalists and news outlets currently being subjected to Chavez’s reign of media terror.  Luckily — at least till McChesney and Free Press get their hands on them — there are still a few independent media outfits here in the U.S. that can report the truth about Chavez’s “democratic” press, which McChesney glorifies as the ideal for other nations.

In fact, just yesterday, editorials by The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady (“Chávez’s Assault on the Press”) and Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post (“Chavez’s Iron Fist”) painted a frightening picture of the press nightmare that now exists in Chavez’s thugocracy. O’Grady and Diehl both document the plight of Guillermo Zuloaga, who fled the country with his family to avoid being arrested by Chavez.  Zuloaga’s crime?  He has the audacity to speak the truth about the Chavez regime, and as the owner of Globovision, one of only three remaining privately held Venezuelan television stations, that makes him a threat to the thug-in-chief.  “How is it possible that he can accuse me of such things and walk free?” Chavez has asked publicly about Zuloaga.

And Zuloaga and other independent media operators clearly have legitimate cause for concern. Chavez has already yanked the license of opposition broadcaster RCTV, who he said had been working to overthrown him. The U.S. government’s Open Source Center, which provides information on foreign political, military, economic, and technical issues, has documented how “President Chavez’s government is moving forcefully to silence critics by introducing a Media Crimes bill that would give it sweeping authority to jail journalists, media executives, and bloggers who report on anything that the government considers to be harmful to state interests.”  According to Freedom House, which ranks press freedom internationally, Venezuela is the only country besides Cuba listed as “Not Free” in the entire Western Hemisphere. The organization notes that Chavez expelled Human Rights Watch officials from the country after it released a critical report entitled A Decade Under Chavez, which found that “The Venezuelan government under President Chavez has undermined freedom of expression through a variety of measures aimed at reshaping media content and control.” The National Journalists’ Guild has also accused Chavez of violating the rights of the press. The latest Freedom House report on the state of press freedom in the country also notes that:

“Free-to-air broadcast media are largely owned by the government, which operates seven channels with nationwide coverage. However, Venezuela’s leading newspapers are privately owned, and most identify with the opposition. As a result, they are subject to threats and violence by the government and its supporters, sometimes leading to self-censorship. Local and regional media are particularly dependent on government advertising revenue, leaving them vulnerable to economic retaliation for criticism.”

So, what’s Robert McChesney’s response to Chavez’s crackdown on dissent and opposition journalism?  They had it comin’!  “If RCTV were broadcasting in the United States, its license would have been revoked years ago,” McChesney has argued. “In fact its owners would likely have been tried for criminal offenses, including treason.”

Perhaps I’ve missed something but I study the history of journalism for a living and I can’t remember the last time any media outlet had their license yanked or that any journalist was tried for treason in the U.S. for opposing a president’s policies!  But such are the tactics of shameless media Marxist.

Media Reformistas Gaining a Voice in Government

While such sympathy for the devil may seem shocking to most of us, McChesney has no choice but to defend a socialist strongman like Chavez. After all, this is basically the McChesney-Free Press blueprint for media reform!  But one would hope and think that McChesney and his merry band of media reformistas at Free Press wouldn’t be gaining much traction here in the U.S. with their self-described “radical” agenda for media takeover.  Unfortunately, you’d be wrong.

For starters, some Free Press reformistas are now having real, direct influence on the Obama Administration’s media and communications agenda.  Jen Howard, former press director for Free Press, now serves as press secretary for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.  And Ben Scott, former Policy Director for Free Press, was recently appointed as a “policy advisor for innovation” to the State Department. Lord help us if it’s the Free Press’s brand of “innovation” that our government will now be promoting worldwide!  Meanwhile, as Seton Motley has noted here before, Free Press has a regular audience in FCC, FTC, and congressional hearing and meeting rooms.  McChesney was even recently invited to deliver a major address at an FTC workshop on “saving journalism.”  Meanwhile, Susan DeSanti, the FTC’s Director of Policy Planning, who spearheads the agency’s “media reinvention” effort, has publicly praised McChesney and Nichols’ “excellent book,” referring to their latest manifesto for media statism, The Death and Life of American Journalism: The Media Revolution that Will Begin the World Again.

The fingerprints of McChesney and Free Press can also be seen on many of the documents and projects the Obama Administration is currently producing on media policy issues.  As part of the FTC’s workshop series asking “How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?” the agency released a 47-page discussion draft entitled “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism.” The document reads like the Cliff’s Notes for the latest McChesney-Nichols book and Free Press’s “National Journalism Strategy.” The FTC draft cites the authors over a dozen times and reproduces their proposals almost verbatim.  Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission is simultaneously conducting a proceeding of its own on the “Future of Media.” So far, its workshops have featured plenty of talk of expanded public media and “public-interest” programs — as well as multiple Free Press witnesses and submissions.

Amazingly, Obama Administration agency officials and congressional lawmakers on the Left often seem to turn a blind eye to some of Free Press’s more infantile attacks and tactics. For example, this week the group is wall-papering Chicago with “wanted” posters featuring Chairman Genachowski’s picture. The Chairman’s crime? He’s not attending a show trial hearing set up to demonize the pending merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal.  And Free Press has repeatedly eaten their own young during Net Neutrality debates by viciously blasting any Democrat who has had the temerity to suggest that maybe, just maybe, an FCC takeover of the Internet isn’t such a grand idea.

The Stakes in the Debate

Let’s be clear about the stakes in this battle. As media historian Ben Compaine has argued, “What the hard core reformistas really want, it seems, is not diversity or an open debate but a media that promotes their own vision of society and the world.”  That’s exactly right and, more specifically, the media reformistas want to impose this control by borrowing the old fantasy that “the public owns the [broadcast] airwaves” and extending that misguided notion to all media platforms and outlets. In other words, McChesney and Free Press want an UnFree Press. To cast things in neo-Marxists terms that they could appreciate, they want to take control of the information means of production.

The fight for real media freedom and a truly “free press” begins with a better understanding and documentation of the radical intentions of the opposition as the struggle over the future course of America’s media marketplace continues. True freedom doesn’t begin by fettering media and communications systems with more chains, as McChesney and Free Press advocate; it begins by removing the chains that already exist and then erecting a firm wall between State and Press.

For more on this subject, see my ongoing series of essays: Should Government Bailout Media, Subsidize the Press & Seek to “Save Journalism”?

]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/07/13/how-america%e2%80%99s-hugo-chavez-fan-club-plans-to-reform-our-media-marketplace/feed/ 5 30349 China Renews Google’s License https://techliberation.com/2010/07/09/china-renews-googles-license/ https://techliberation.com/2010/07/09/china-renews-googles-license/#comments Fri, 09 Jul 2010 20:57:07 +0000 http://techliberation.com/?p=30278

Today, China renewed Google’s license to do business in the country, reports The Washington Post. The announcement means that Google will maintain its presence in the country for the foreseeable future. Google will likely meet criticism, but this is good news nonetheless for Chinese Internet users.

The rapidly unfolding Google-China saga has made headline after headline since January, when Google announced that it had suffered an intrusion originating in China. In March, after months of internal debate and heavy public criticism, Google shut down its China-based search engine Google.cn, redirecting all queries to its Hong Kong-based Google.com.hk site. Late last month, Google reactivated some of its China-based services and has continued to operate in China, albeit on a limited basis.

Operating in China has long been a headache for Google, due to the Chinese government’s notorious disregard for Internet freedom, embodied by its infamous “Great Firewall of China.” China surveils all Internet traffic that traverses its borders and attempts to block its citizens from accessing information sources which the government considers unfavorable. China also gleans data from its network to identify and retaliate against political dissidents.

Human rights advocates have long derided Google and other U.S. tech companies, such as Microsoft and Yahoo, for doing business in China. China requires all search engines operating in the country to censor a broad range of information, like photos of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Critics contend that complying with the Chinese government’s oppressive demands is unethical and that facilitating censorship and suppression is morally unacceptable on its face.

Such criticisms, however principled, miss the forest for the trees. If Google were to cease its Chinese operations entirely, the result would be one less U.S. Internet firm accessible to Chinese citizens. While Google is the worldwide search leader, in the Chinese search market Google lags behind Baidu, a search company based in China. Baidu’s market share increased after Google shut down its China-based search site. If Google were to pull out of China entirely, chances are Baidu would pick up many more users.

Why is this troubling? Because Baidu has a long history of complying with the Chinese government’s demands, and has never publicly repudiated the regime’s oppressive practices.

American firms that operate in China do so begrudgingly, often repudiating the state’s human rights violations and, at times, even pushing back when they believe the government has gone too far. Google in particular has struggled over the ethical dilemma posed by China. Before 2005, Google had not formally entered the Chinese market at all, partially on human rights grounds. And after its servers were hacked from within China in late 2009, Google was reportedly on the verge of pulling out of China entirely.

The complicity of U.S. tech firms in China’s oppressive practices has also spurred attacks from politicians looking to score political points. At a recent hearing, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) accused Microsoft of “enabling tyranny” in China. And Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is pushing for federal legislation to regulate the practices of U.S. companies that do business in non-democratic nations.

Such saber-rattling will only make problems worse. Undermining the autonomy of private U.S. corporations to make their own business decisions only discourages constructive business engagement with China. Worse, American politicians’ lambasting of China actually emboldens the Chinese regime, which plays upon nationalist sentiments to garner public support.

American businesses, on the other hand, are in a far better position to criticize Chinese censorship. Google and Microsoft are household names in China. And it is far more difficult for the Chinese government to demonize American technology firms than the U.S. government.

Yes, China has a horrendous human rights record, but it isn’t the only nation in the world whose government routinely tramples human rights. In the flawed world we live in, to expect businesses to operate only in nations that truly respect their citizens’ human rights is wishful thinking. Neither Google nor any other American company enjoys facilitating Chinese oppression. But given the available alternatives, is pulling out really a superior option? Is relegating Chinese citizens to patronizing solely Chinese firms actually conducive to improving human rights?

In the long run, disengaging China will not encourage its government to grant greater political freedoms to its people. Commerce between the U.S. and China facilitates wealth creation and opens up new economic opportunities in both countries. In China, that new wealth, along with corresponding new opportunities, help expand the country’s middle class, bringing subsistence farmers into cities and, thus, closer to the global economy.

For China to become a politically and economically freer nation, a sizable middle class is a crucial factor. While Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo may not seem to be making China any freer now, they can only help in the long run.

Today, China renewed Google’s license to do business in the country, reports The Washington Post. The announcement means that Google will maintain its presence in the country for the foreseeable future. Google will likely meet criticism, but this is good news nonetheless for Chinese Internet users.

The rapidly unfolding Google-China saga has made headline after headline since January, when Google announced that it had suffered an intrusion originating in China. In March, after months of internal debate and heavy public criticism, Google shut down its China-based search engine Google.cn, redirecting all queries to its Hong Kong-based Google.com.hk site. Late last month, Google reactivated some of its China-based services and has continued to operate in China, albeit on a limited basis.

Operating in China has long been a headache for Google, due to the Chinese government’s notorious disregard for Internet freedom, embodied by its infamous “Great Firewall of China.” China surveils all Internet traffic that traverses its borders and attempts to block its citizens from accessing information sources which the government considers unfavorable. China also gleans data from its network to identify and retaliate against political dissidents.

Human rights advocates have long derided Google and other U.S. tech companies, such as Microsoft and Yahoo, for doing business in China. China requires all search engines operating in the country to censor a broad range of information, like photos of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Critics contend that complying with the Chinese government’s oppressive demands is unethical and that facilitating censorship and suppression is morally unacceptable on its face.

Such criticisms, however principled, miss the forest for the trees. If Google were to cease its Chinese operations entirely, the result would be one less U.S. Internet firm accessible to Chinese citizens. While Google is the worldwide search leader, in the Chinese search market Google lags behind Baidu, a search company based in China. Baidu’s market share increased after Google shut down its China-based search site. If Google were to pull out of China entirely, chances are Baidu would pick up many more users.

Why is this troubling? Because Baidu has a long history of complying with the Chinese government’s demands, and has never publicly repudiated the regime’s oppressive practices.

American firms that operate in China do so begrudgingly, often repudiating the state’s human rights violations and, at times, even pushing back when they believe the government has gone too far. Google in particular has struggled over the ethical dilemma posed by China. Before 2005, Google had not formally entered the Chinese market at all, partially on human rights grounds. And after its servers were hacked from within China in late 2009, Google was reportedly on the verge of pulling out of China entirely.

The complicity of U.S. tech firms in China’s oppressive practices has also spurred attacks from politicians looking to score political points. At a recent hearing, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) accused Microsoft of “enabling tyranny” in China. And Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) is pushing for federal legislation to regulate the practices of U.S. companies that do business in non-democratic nations.

Such saber-rattling will only make problems worse. Undermining the autonomy of private U.S. corporations to make their own business decisions only discourages constructive business engagement with China. Worse, American politicians’ lambasting of China actually emboldens the Chinese regime, which plays upon nationalist sentiments to garner public support.

American businesses, on the other hand, are in a far better position to criticize Chinese censorship. Google and Microsoft are household names in China. And it is far more difficult for the Chinese government to demonize American technology firms than the U.S. government.

Yes, China has a horrendous human rights record, but it isn’t the only nation in the world whose government routinely tramples human rights. In the flawed world we live in, to expect businesses to operate only in nations that truly respect their citizens’ human rights is wishful thinking. Neither Google nor any other American company enjoys facilitating Chinese oppression. But given the available alternatives, is pulling out really a superior option? Is relegating Chinese citizens to patronizing solely Chinese firms actually conducive to improving human rights?

In the long run, disengaging China will not encourage its government to grant greater political freedoms to its people. Commerce between the U.S. and China facilitates wealth creation and opens up new economic opportunities in in both countries. In China, that new wealth, along with corresponding new opportunities, help expand the country’s middle class, bringing subsistence farmers into cities and, thus, closer to the global economy.

For China to become a politically and economically freer nation, a sizable middle class is a crucial factor. While Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo may not seem to be making China any freer now, they can only help in the long run.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/07/09/china-renews-googles-license/feed/ 9 30278 The Sideways, Alcoholic Commerce Clause https://techliberation.com/2010/04/21/the-sideways-alcoholic-commerce-clause/ https://techliberation.com/2010/04/21/the-sideways-alcoholic-commerce-clause/#comments Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:43:17 +0000 http://surprisinglyfree.com/?p=1426

Wine (and beer) lovers who want to order hard-to-get vintages online have benefited greatly from federal court decisions that say state alcohol laws cannot discriminate against out-of-state sellers. Federal legislation introduced last week could threaten electronic commerce as it further entrenches middlemen who normally profit from every bottle of alcohol that passes from producers to consumers.

To understand what’s going on, you have to know something about Commerce Clause litigation. I’m not a lawyer, though I once played the teetotaling William Jennings Bryan character in a high school production of Inherit the Wind.  This proves my motives are pure. And since a lot of lawyers practice economics without a license, I figure I’ll return the favor.

The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution says that Congress, not the states, can regulate interstate commerce. A longstanding judicial interpretation, the “dormant” Commerce Clause, holds that if Congress has not chosen to regulate some aspect of interstate commerce, that means Congress doesn’t want the states to regulate it either.  So, normally a state can regulate interstate commerce only if Congress has given explicit permission.

If state law discriminates against out-of-state sellers who compete with in-state sellers, the state is regulating interstate commerce.  A state is not allowed to do this unless it can prove the discrimination is necessary to accomplish some clear state purpose that cannot be accomplished in some other way. States have to present evidence that proves these points, not just make arguments. 

The 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition, gave states the right to regulate alcohol.  Recent court cases involving direct wine shipment clarified that when states regulate alcohol, they must still obey the Commerce Clause. This makes good sense. Imagine if the 21st Amendment freed states from the rest of the Constitution when they regulate alcohol. The police could break into your house without warning if they imagined you might give your 20-year-old a beer, but they’d still need a search warrant if they thought you were cooking meth. 

In Granholm v. Heald (2005), the Surpeme Court said that states could either allow in-state and out-of-state sellers to ship wine directly to consumers, or prohibit it for both, but states couldn’t ban direct shipment for out-of-state sellers and allow it for in-state sellers. In response, most states have liberalized their direct shipment laws rather than making them more restrictive. In Family Wine Makers of California v. Jenkins (2008), federal courts said that an ostensibly neutral law that had a discriminatory effect on out-of-state sellers was also unconstitutional. Massachusetts had enacted a law that allowed only wineries producing 30,000 gallons or less to ship directly to consumers; the production cap was large enough to allow all in-state wineries to direct ship but small enough to exclude 637 larger out-of-state wineries that produce 98 percent of all wine in the United States.  The judge’s opinion essentially said, “By their fruits you shall know them,” and it reserved special grapes of wrath for the blatantly protectionist motives voiced by advocates of the law. Massachusetts appealed this decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, lost, and on April 12 decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court.

On April 15, Massachusetts Rep. Bill Delahunt introduced federal legislation that would turn alcoholic Commerce Clause litigation sideways. The legislation makes four big changes in the rules of the game:

  1. It says that states may not “facially discriminate without justification.” This standard might reverse Granholm, because the state laws were clearly discriminatory but the states offered justifications. It would likely reverse Family Wine Makers, because the law was “facially” neutral but had discriminatory effects. (Of course, if this thing passes, I’d be delighted to see a consumer or winery plaintiff prove me wrong.)
  2. It repeals the “dormant” Commerce Clause for alcohol by stating that congressional silence on interstate commerce in alcohol should not be interpreted as a prohibition on state regulation of interstate commerce in alcohol.
  3. It shifts the burden of proof by requiring that anyone challenging a state alcohol law must prove “by clear and convincing evidence” that the law is invalid. Normally, states have the obligation to present evidence that a discriminatory law accomplishes a state purpose and is no more discriminatory than necessary.  
  4. Any state law that burdens interstate commerce or contradicts any other federal law (!) would be upheld unless the person challenging it proves that the state law has no effect on temperance, orderly markets, tax collection, the structure of the distribution system, or underage drinking.  Since there’s plenty of economic evidence that state alcohol laws increase prices, a state could argue its laws reduce consumption and promote temperance, and the law would be upheld.  In other words, any state alcohol law that harms consumers by increasing prices would automatically be OK, even if it blatantly conflicted with other federal laws (such as antitrust laws, which are intended to protect consumers from the high prices associated with monopoly) or the Commerce Clause.

Word on the street is that the biggest pushers of this legislation are the beer wholesalers. Since most of this litigation has involved wine, what’s going on here?

The real goal of this legislation is not harrassing wineries that want to ship a few bottles to out-of-state customers. The real goal is to preserve anti-competitive state laws that force brewers, wine makers, and distillers to market most of their product through beer, wine, and spirits wholesalers, instead of marketing directly to retailers and restaurants. The proposed legislation would effectively insulate these state laws from challenge under the Commerce Clause, federal antitrust laws, or any other federal laws that might give alcohol producers and consumers some leverage to break the wholesalers’ lock on the market.

Call it states’ rights kool-aid with a chaser of economic protectionism.  A strange brew indeed.

]]> https://techliberation.com/2010/04/21/the-sideways-alcoholic-commerce-clause/feed/ 1 1426