Interoperability is a topic that has long been of interest to me. How networks, platforms, and devices work with each other–or sometimes fail to–is an important engineering, business, and policy issue. Back in 2012, I spilled out over 5,000 words on the topic when reviewing John Palfrey and Urs Gasser’s excellent book, Interop: The Promise and Perils of Highly Interconnected Systems.

I’ve always struggled with the interoperability issues, however, and often avoided them became of the sheer complexity of it all. Some interesting recent essays by sci-fi author and digital activist Cory Doctorow remind me that I need to get back on top of the issue. His latest essay is a call-to-arms in favor of what he calls “adversarial interoperability.” “[T]hat’s when you create a new product or service that plugs into the existing ones without the permission of the companies that make them,” he says. “Think of third-party printer ink, alternative app stores, or independent repair shops that use compatible parts from rival manufacturers to fix your car or your phone or your tractor.”

Doctorow is a vociferous defender of expanded digital access rights of many flavors and his latest essays on interoperability expand upon his previous advocacy for open access and a general freedom to tinker. He does much of this work with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which shares his commitment to expanded digital access and interoperability rights in various contexts.

I’m in league with Doctorow and EFF on some of these things, but also find myself thinking they go much too far in other ways. At root, their work and advocacy raise a profound question: should there be any general right to exclude on digital platforms? Although he doesn’t always come right out and say it, Doctorow’s work often seems like an outright rejection of any sort of property rights in networks or platforms. Generally speaking, he does not want the law to recognize any right for tech platforms to exclude using digital fences of any sort.

Where to Draw the Lines?

As someone who has authored a book about the importance of permissionless innovation, I need to be able to answer questions about where these lines between open versus closed systems are drawn. Definitions and framing matter, however. I use “permissionless innovation” as a descriptor for one possible policy disposition when considering where legal and regulatory defaults should be set. Another conception of permissionless innovation is more of an engineering ideal; a general freedom to connect, tinker, modify, etc. (I speak more about these conceptions in my latest book, Evasive Entrepreneurs.) Of course, someone advocating permissionless innovation as a policy default will sometimes be confronted with the question of what the law should say when someone behaves in an “evasive” fashion in the latter conception of permissionless innovation.

Doctorow would generally answer that question by saying that law should not be rigged to favor exclusion through laws like the DMCA (and specifically the law’s anti- circumvention provisions), Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, patent law, and various other rules and laws. “[T]he current crop of Big Tech companies has secured laws, regulations, and court decisions that have dramatically restricted adversarial interoperability.”

Generally speaking, I agree. I’m not a fan of technocratic laws or regulations that seek to micro-manage interoperability and which stack the deck in favor of exclusionary conduct with steep penalties for evasion. But does that mean adversarial interoperability should be permitted in all cases? Should there exist any sort of common law presumption one way or the other when a user or competitor seeks access to an existing private platform or device?

Specifics matter here and I don’t have time to get into all the case studies that Doctorow goes through. Some are no-brainers, like the infamous Lexmark case involving refillable printer ink cartridges. Other cases are far more complicated, at least for me. Does Epic, creator of Fortnite, have a right of adversarial interoperability that it can exercise against Apple and their AppStore? As Dirk Auer suggests in a new essay, this episode looks more like a straightforward pricing dispute. Epic is making it out to be much more than that, suggesting Apple is guilty of unfair and exclusionary practices that require a legal remedy.

Why not take that logic further and just say Apple’s App Store us tantamount to a natural monopoly or digital essential facility that Epic and everyone else is entitled to on whatever terms they want? For that matter, why not apply the same logic to Epic’s Fortnite platform or even its Unreal Engine? Does every other gaming developer have a right to piggyback on the juggernaut that Epic has built?

This gets to the core question about Doctorow’s concept of adversarial interoperability: Exactly what should common law and the courts say platform owners make access rights a simple pricing matter and say: “You pay or you are out.” Like Doctorow and EFF, I don’t want Apple to benefit from any special favors from laws like DMCA. Where we differ is that I would still leave the door open for Apple to exercise various other common law contractual rights or property rights in court.

I suspect Doctorow would deny any such claims by Apple or anyone else. If so, I would like to see him spell out in more precise terms exactly what Apple’s property rights and contractual rights are in this instance. Or, again, should we just treat the App Store as a digital commons with unfettered open access rights for developers? If so, would Apple be required to still manage the resource once it is a quasi-commons?

I think that would end miserably, but would like to hear Doctorow’s preferred approach before saying more. I suspect a lot rides on the distinction between “open” verses “proprietary” standards, but compared to Doctorow and EFF, I am willing to embrace a world of both open and proprietary systems, and many hybrids in between. I don’t want the law favoring one type over the other, but that means I need to endorse a generalized property right for digital operators such that they can still exclude others (even in the absence of artificial regulatory rights like DMCA creates). Again, I suspect Doctorow would reject that standard, preferring a generalized right of access, even if that means the platforms become de facto commons.

More Radical Steps

Elsewhere, Doctorow has said is that some of these questions would be better addressed through more aggressive antitrust regulation. Mere data portability or mandatory interoperability isn’t enough for him. “Data portability is important,” Doctorow says, “but it is no substitute for the ability to have ongoing access to a service that you’re in the process of migrating away from.”

In his latest online book on “How to Destroy Surveillance Capitalism,” Doctorow suggests that it is time to “make Big Tech small again” through an “anti-monopoly ecology movement.” That “means bans on mergers between large companies, on big companies acquiring nascent competitors, and on platform companies competing directly with the companies that rely on the platforms.” And he desires a host of other remedies.

So, here we have the convergence of interoperability policy and antitrust policy, with a layer of property confiscation layered on top apparently. “Now it’s up to us to seize the means of computation, putting that electronic nervous system under democratic, accountable control,” he insists in his latest manifesto.

What’s funny about this is that Doctorow begins most of his essays by pointing out all the ways that politics is the problem when it comes to access issues, only to end by suggesting that a lot more political meddling is the required solution. He repeatedly laments how large tech players have so often been able to convince lawmakers and regulators to pass special laws or regulations that work to their favor. Yet, in his We-Can-Build-A-Better-Bureaucrat model of things, all those old problems will apparently disappear when we get the right people in power and get rid of those nefarious capitalist schemers.

Thus, what really animates Doctorow’s advocacy for adversarial interoperability is a deep suspicion of free market capitalism and property rights in particular. In this worldview, interoperability really just becomes a Trojan Horse meant to help bring down the entire capitalist order. Am I exaggerating? “As to why things are so screwed up? Capitalism.” Those are his exact words from the conclusion of his latest book.

Adversarial Innovation & Evolutionary Interop

Still, Doctorow raises many legitimate issues about interconnection and digital access rights. But we need a better approach to work though these questions than the one he suggests.

In my lengthy review of the Palfrey and Gasser Interop book, I tried to sketch out an alternative framework for thinking seriously about these issues. I referred to my preferred approach as “experimental interoperability” or “evolutionary interoperability.” I described this as the theory that 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.

Adversarial interoperability is important, but not nearly as important as adversarial innovation and facilities-based competition. Stated differently, access rights to existing systems is an important value, but the incentives we have in place to encourage entirely new systems is what really matters most. At some point, a generalized right of access to existing systems discourages the sort of platform-building that could help give rise to the sort of creative destruction we have seen at work repeatedly in the past and that we still need today. Taken too far, adversarial interoperability threatens to undermine this goal. Why seek to build a better alternative platform if you can just endlessly free ride off someone else’s by force of law?

Thus, I prefer to work at the margins and think through how to balance these competing claims of access / interoperability rights versus contractual / property rights. My take will be too utilitarian for not only Doctorow but also for some libertarians, who want clear answers to all these questions based upon their preferred natural law-oriented constructions of rights. The problem with that approach is that it leads to all-or-nothing extremes (complete digital property rights, or virtually none) and that approach is fundamentally unworkable and destructive. We need to work harder about how to balance these rights and values in pro-competitive, pro-innovation fashion.

There is No Such Thing as Optimal Interoperability

In sum, there is no such thing as “optimal interoperablity.” Sometimes proprietary or “closed” systems will offer the public features and options that they will find preferable to “open” ones.  “There are many reasons why consumers might prefer ‘closed’ systems – even when they have to pay a premium for them,” argues Dirk Auer in a separate essay. It could be greater convenience, security, or other things. Palfrey and Gasser correctly noted in their book that, “the state is rarely in a position to call a winner among competing technologies” (p. 174). Moreover, they concluded:

“Lawmakers need to keep in view the limits of their own effectiveness when it comes to accomplishing optimal levels of interoperability. Case studies of government intervention, especially where complex information technologies are involved, show that states tend to be ill suited to determine on their own what specific technology will be the best option for the future (p. 175)

A thousand amens to that! The law should not artificially foreclose experimentation with many different types of platforms, standards, devices and the interoperability that exists among them.

I’ve been working on a new book that explores the rise of evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience in our modern world. Following the publication of my last book, Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom, people started bringing examples of evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience to my attention and asked how they were related to the concept of permissionless innovation. As I started exploring and cataloging these cases studies, I realized I could probably write an entire book about these developments and their consequences.

Hopefully that book will be wrapped up shortly. In the meantime, I am going to start rolling out some short essays based on content from the book. To begin, I will state the general purpose of the book and define the key concepts discussed therein. In coming weeks and months, I’ll build on these themes, explain why they are on the rise, explore the effect they are having on society and technological governance efforts, and more fully develop some relevant case studies.

Key Concepts Defined

• Evasive entrepreneurs – Innovators who don’t always conform to social or legal norms.
• Regulatory entrepreneurs – Innovators who “are in the business of trying to change or shape the law” and are “strategically operating in a zone of questionable legality or breaking the law until they can (hopefully) change it.” (Pollman & Barry)
• Technologies of freedom – Devices and platforms that let citizens openly defy (or perhaps just ignore) public policies that limit their liberty or freedom to innovate.
• The “pacing problem” – The gap between the ever-expanding frontier of technological possibilities and the ability of governments to keep up with the pace of those changes.
• Technological civil disobedience – The technologically-enabled refusal of individuals, groups, or businesses to obey certain laws or regulations because they find them offensive, confusing, time-consuming, expensive, or perhaps just annoying and irrelevant.
• Innovation arbitrage – The movement of ideas, innovations, or operations to those jurisdictions that provide a legal and regulatory environment more hospitable to entrepreneurial activity. It can also be thought of as a form of “jurisdictional shopping” and can be facilitated by “competitive federalism.”
• Permissionless innovation – As a general concept, it refers to Rear Admiral Grace Hopper’s notion that quite often, “It’s easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” As a policy vision, it refers to the idea that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Permissionless innovation comes down to a general acceptance of change and risk-taking.

Themes of the Book

The book documents how evasive entrepreneurs are using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems, or at least put pressure on public policymakers to reform or selectively enforce laws and regulation that are outmoded, inefficient, or illogical. Evasive entrepreneurs pursue a strategy of “permissionless innovation” in both the business world and the political arena.  In essence, they live out the adage that, “it is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission” by creating new products and services without necessarily receiving the blessing of public officials before doing so.

Evasive entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the growth of various technologies of freedom and the corresponding “pacing problem” to create new goods and services or just decide how to live a life of their own choosing. We can think of this phenomenon as “technological civil disobedience.” The technologies of freedom that facilitate this sort of civil disobedience include common tools like smartphones, ubiquitous computing, and various new media platforms, as well as more specialized technologies like cryptocurrencies and blockchain-based services, private drones, immersive tech (like virtual reality), 3D printers, the “Internet of Things,” and sharing economy platforms and services. But that list just scratches the surface.

When innovators and consumers use new tools and technological capabilities to pursue a living, enjoy new experiences, or enhance their lives and the lives of others, they often disrupt legal or social norms in the process. While that can raise serious legal and ethical concerns, evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience can have positive upsides for society by:

• expanding the range of life-enriching—and even life-saving—innovations available to society;
• helping citizens pursue a life of their own choosing—both as creators looking for the freedom to earn a living, and as consumers looking to discover and enjoy important new goods and services; and,
• providing a meaningful, ongoing check on government policies and programs that all too often have outlived their usefulness or simply defy common sense.

For those reasons, my book will argue that we should accept—and often even embrace—a certain amount of evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience. I am particularly excited by the last point. In an age when many of the constitutional limitations on government power are being ignored or unenforced, innovation itself can act as a powerful check on the power of the state and help serve as a protector of important human liberties. Over the past century, both legislative and judicial “checks and balances” in the United States have been eroded to the point where they now exist mostly in name only. While we should never abandon efforts to use democratic and constitutional means of limiting state power—especially in the courts, where meaningful reforms are still possible—the ongoing evolution of technology can provide another way of keeping governments in line by forcing public officials to constrain their worse tendencies and undo past mistakes. If they fail to, they risk losing the allegiance of their more technologically-empowered citizenry.

But evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience can have serious downsides, too. We should explore how to address the challenges associated with this more turbulent and sometimes dangerous world. In doing so, however, technological critics and public policymakers should also appreciate how once any particular innovation genie is out of its bottle, it will be increasingly difficult to stuff it back in. Worse yet, attempts to do so can often result in a “compliance paradox,” in which tighter rules lead to increased legal evasion and intractable enforcement challenges. Thus, more flexible and adaptive technological governance mechanisms will be needed.

In coming essays, I will discuss some prominent examples of these trends that are developed at length in my book, I will also do a deeper dive into some of the interesting ways governments are responding to these developments using what Phil Weiser refers to as “entrepreneurial administration,” or what others call “soft law” mechanisms. As Weiser notes, “[t]he traditional model of regulation is coming under strain in the face of increasing globalization and technological change,” and, therefore, governments must think and act differently than they did in the past. And they are already doing so. Even in an age of expanding evasive entrepreneurialism and technological civil disobedience, governments can shape the evolution of technology. But that cannot be done using the previous era’s technocratic, overly-bureaucratic, and top-down regulatory playbook. New policies and procedures will be needed for a new era.

Perfect media equality is impossible.  There has never been anything close to “equal outcomes” when it comes to the distribution or relative success of old media: books, magazines, music, movies, book, theater tickets, etc.  A small handful of titles have always dominated, usually according to a classic “power law” or “80-20? distribution, with roughly 20% of the titles getting 80% of the traffic / revenue.

But here’s the really interesting thing: This trend is increasing, not decreasing, for newer and more “democratic” online media.  As I pointed out in two previous essays [“YouTube, Power Laws & the Persistence of Media Inequality” & “Cuban on Fragmentation & Attention in the Blogosphere (or Why Power Laws Really Do Govern All Media)”], there is solid evidence that blogs, YouTube, Twitter, and other digital media outlets and platforms not only follow a classic power law distribution but that the distribution is even more heavily skewed toward the “fat head” of the distribution curve, not “the long tail” of it.

The latest evidence of the persistence of power laws across media comes from Facebook. Erick Schonfeld has a new essay up at TechCrunch (“It’s Not Easy Being Popular. 77 Percent Of Facebook Fan Pages Have Under 1,000 Fans“) highlighting some new findings from an upcoming report by Sysomos, a social media monitoring and analytics firm. Here’s the summary from Schonfeld:

A full 77 percent of Facebook fan pages have less than 1,000 fans… The vast bulk of fan pages have between 10 and 1,000 fans.  Only 4 percent have more than 10,000 fans, and less than 1/20th of a percent have more than a million fans.  It breaks down as follows:

• 95% of pages have more than 10 fans
• 65% of pages have more than 100 fans
• 23% of pages have more than 1,000 fans
• 4% of pages have more than 10,000 fans
• 0.76% of pages have more than 100,000 fans
• 0.047% of pages have more than one million fans (297 in total).

That’s a pretty lopsided distribution but, again, it’s the same sort of thing we’ve seen at work for all media platforms. But this distributional inequality has been accelerating and deepening with the Internet and digital media distribution platforms. As Schonfeld rightly summarizes, “The Internet has long been defining celebrity down, and now we know by how much.”  Exactly right, but down below I’ll explain why shouldn’t get too worked up about all this.

First, let’s try to understand why this is occurring.  Simply put, freedom of choice breeds media inequality through a radically uneven distribution of outcomes. Historically, some media economists and analysts thought that power laws always exist in all media contexts because the economics of media are quite different than most other industries. Namely, media industries typically exhibit “public good” qualities; high fixed (production costs), but lower distribution costs. But then along came the Internet–a perfectly open media platform for all to use as they wish–and yet power law not only did not fade, but the distributional imbalance became more severe, as Clay Shirky first documented here.

So, there must be another explanation. I believe the primary reason why power laws are probably more prevalent in media and communications industries than in other sectors of the economy is because the creation and consumption of news and popular culture is a truly social phenomenon. Think of it as the economics of popular choice and the sociology of fashion and fads. People (and consumers) react to what others are reading or watching. Word-of-mouth counts. Bandwagon effects exist. First-mover advantages are significant. And so on.  The end result is a hopeless imbalance of outcomes or outputs.  Media egalitarianism is simply an impossibility. And, again, despite what Chris Anderson said in The Long Tail, the “future of all business” most definitely does not lie mostly in the 80% part of the tail.  While the long tail of the curve certainly is more profitable than in the past, that “fat head” of the tail is still where most profits (or at least eyeballs) are at.

But as I argued here previously, none of this makes a damn bit of difference!

What is really important is equality of media opportunity, not equality of media outcomes.  A focus on the latter is both foolish and destructive. It is foolish because media equality is an impossibility absent extreme measures, which in turn explains why it is destructive. We would need totalitarian government controls on media outputs and consumption in order to achieve anything remotely close to “balance” or “equality” in terms of media results. Again, all that really counts is that people have a chance to be heard, not whether millions are listening.  New media platforms really do change some things for the better because at least we now all have an equal chance to make a go at it and grab a bit of that audience. That’s certainly more than could be said back in the old analog media world, in which we suffered from outlet scarcity and information poverty. Today, by contrast, will live in a wonderful world of media abundance, where every man, woman, and child really does have a soapbox on which to stand and speak to the world. Of course, no one may be listening.  And there will always be someone else who will nab greater audience share than you. Get used to it. It is the way the media world has always worked, and it is the way every media platform will work until the end of time.  So long as citizens are free to choose, media inequality is inevitable.

[ Update May 2015 : Guess what, this is true for Twitter, too!]

I really appreciate the venture capitalists (VCs) in Silicon Valley subsidizing my soapbox at Twitter.  Seriously, it is an absolutely awesome platform for getting a message out to the masses.  But at some point I worry that the gravy train will come to an end and that users will have to start picking up part of the tab.  After all, will those VCs continue to subsidize Twitter if it never turns a profit?  According to the Wikipedia entry about Twitter:

In total, Twitter has raised over US$57 million from venture capitalists. The exact amounts of funding have not been publicly released. Twitter’s first round of funding was for an undisclosed amount that is rumored to have been between $1 million and $5 million. Its B round of funding in 2008 was for $22 million and its C round of funding in 2009 was for $35 million from Institutional Venture Partners and Benchmark Capital along with an undisclosed amount from other investors including Union Square Ventures and Spark Capital^. Twitter is backed by Union Square Ventures, Digital Garage, Spark Capital, and Bezos Expeditions.

Again, thank you VCs!  But, like them, I do wonder when and how Twitter will bring in some cash.  Is there a “freemium” model that could work?  Perhaps.  “Pro” or corporate accounts have been rumored to be in the works.  Getting someone else to pick up the tab that way might bring in enough cash for Twitter to allow the free ride to continue for the rest of us.  But what about advertising?  It’s been the “mother’s milk” of most online media and platforms for some time now, and Twitter seems perfectly suited to insert a few banner ads or contextual ads here and there.  It could be happening sooner than you think. Austin Modine of The Register notes in a new piece, “Twitter ‘Leaves Door Open’ for Targeted Ads,” that:

Twitter has always been reluctant to commit to serving advertisements as a revenue model – the way most web start-ups today stay afloat. In the past, the website has expressed more interest in developing add-on tools and services for companies and professionals. Yet [Twitter cofounder Biz Stone] … has never ruled out the possibility.

Modine reports that Twitter recently changed its Terms of Service in such a way that makes this more likely.  Here is what the new Terms of Service say:

The Services may include advertisements, which may be targeted to the Content or information on the Services, queries made through the Services, or other information. The types and extent of advertising by Twitter on the Services are subject to change. In consideration for Twitter granting you access to and use of the Services, you agree that Twitter and its third party providers and partners may place such advertising on the Services or in connection with the display of Content or information from the Services whether submitted by you or others.

As Tony Bradley of PC World argues:

Why not? Advertising is the grease that keeps the Internet revenue engine running smoothly. Its tried and true. Internet entities like Google have grown from the embryo stage to technology behemoth primarily by feasting on a steady diet of ad revenue.

Absolutely correct.  Of course, that probably won’t stop some people — especially the privacy zealots — from whining about commercial exploitation, mind manipulation, and so on — especially if Twitter really does make their ads highly targeted.  But that’s the natural evolution of things for Twitter and similar sites, and it’s very pro-consumer because it supports the continued provision of service at no charge to the vast majority of users. That’s especially important for a communications platform like Twitter, which carries a massive amount of non-commercial speech, as Berin Szoka and I pointed out in our papers, “Online Advertising & User Privacy: Principles to Guide the Debate,” and “Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?  It’s essential that policymakers not interfere with the evolution of business models that could support speech-enhancing platforms like Twitter going forward.  This is why we always point out the relationship between economic regulation and speech regulation. Burdensome regulation could stifle the “technologies of freedom” like Twitter and diminish our speech opportunities in the process.

by Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer

This morning, the House Energy & Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on “Behavioral Advertising: Industry Practices And Consumers’ Expectations.” If nothing else, it promises to be quite entertaining:  With full-time Google bashers Jeff Chester and Scott Cleland on the agenda, the likelihood that top Google officials will be burned in effigy appears high!

Chester, self-appointed spokesman for what one might call the People for the Ethical Treatment of Data (PETD) movement, is sure to rant and rave about the impending techno-apocalypse that will, like all his other Chicken-Little scenarios, befall us all if online advertisers were permitted to better tailor ads to consumers’ liking. After all, can you imagine the nightmare of less annoying ads that might actually convey more useful information to consumers? Isn’t serving up “untargeted” dumb banner ads for Viagra to young women and Victoria’s Secret ads to Catholic school kids the pinnacle of modern online advertising?  Gods forbid we actually make advertising more relevant and interest-based!  (Those Catholic school boys may appreciate the lingerie ads, but few will likely buy bras.)

Anyway, according to National Journal’s Tech Daily Dose, the hearing lineup also includes:

• Charles Curran, Executive Director, Network Advertising Initiative
• Christopher Kelly, Chief Privacy Officer, Facebook
• Edward Felten, Director, Center for IT Policy, Princeton University
• Anne Toth, Chief Privacy Officer & Vice President, Policy, Yahoo!
• Nicole Wong, Deputy General Counsel, Google

That’s an interesting group and we’re sure that they will say interesting things about the issue. Nonetheless, because four of them have a corporate affiliation that fact will inevitably be used by some critics to dismiss what they have to say about the sensibility of more targeted or interest-based forms of online advertising. So, we’d like to offer a few thoughts and pose a few questions to make sure that Committee members understand why, regardless of what it means for any particular online operator, targeting online advertising is very pro-consumer and essential to the future of online content, culture, and competition.  As Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg has noted, “Advertising is the mother’s milk of all the mass media.”  Much of the “free speech” we all cherish isn’t really free, but ad-supported!

Our Approach

We have previously set forth a framework for analyzing advertising policy issues in two PFF reports: “Online Advertising & User Privacy: Principles to Guide the Debate” and “Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?” At root, our model depends heavily on two common-sense, and inter-related, principles:

1. We live in a world of trade-offs; and
2. There is no free lunch.

Their Approach

We are deeply concerned that too few people are talking about—or even understand the relevance of—those two principles in the debate over targeted online advertising. It seems that too many who wish to retard the further evolution of the advertising marketplace are living a lie based upon the antithesis of our model. Many privacy advocates seem to imagine that regulatory actions don’t have consequences and that Congress can simply mandate new privacy standards for the Internet without having any impact on the free flow of ideas supported by, and direct facilitated through, advertising.

Simply put, the privacy critics often imagine that their values are indicative of everyone’s values. Our blogging colleague Jim Harper of the Cato Institute has referred to this as “preference imposition” but we’ll use a simpler term: Elitism. In essence, privacy advocates seem to believe that:

1. People are too ignorant, busy or just plain stupid, and cannot be trusted to make wise decisions for themselves (or their children); and/or
2. Everyone shares the same values or concerns when it comes to privacy such that a national “baseline” regulatory standard (namely, mandatory “opt-in” regulations for data collection and use) should govern the entire online marketplace.

Let’s be clear: Such a mandate, and the thinking behind it, would greatly impoverish the future Internet economy. Too many people think of the Internet as a magic box that just keeps cranking out free goodies. But something powers that box of goodies: advertising.  More than anything else, it’s advertising that keeps the Internet “Free, Innovative & Open,” to borrow the slogan of our friends at CDT, which seems to flirt with joining the PETD movement, despite their well-earned reputation for pragmatic skepticism of government interference with the Internet.

The regulatory advocates complain that giving consumers the right to opt-out of data collection and use isn’t meaningful because very few consumers will exercise the opt-out.  Again, they presume that this must be because users just don’t know what’s good for them because of course if they really understood what was being done with “their data,” they would never choose to just “give it away” for a few scraps from the advertisers’ table.  It never occurs to them that (i) many, perhaps most, users just don’t care and that (ii) that their “ignorance” about the all specific details of “how the sausage is made” (online data collection and use practices for targeting advertising) may be completely rational.

But just as importantly, would-be privacy regulatory don’t seem to understand—or perhaps simply don’t care—that what’s true of opt-out is also true of opt-in:  in practice, few people will bother doing either.  In a world of perfect information and infinite time, of course, there would be no difference in outcomes with the two different rules.  But in the real world with real constraints on time, knowledge and everything else, mandating opt-in would make all the difference in the world by severely limiting the ability of advertisers to target advertising.

The Ignored Trade-offs

We’ve been assembling evidence on the real-world costs of restricting targeted advertising. Here are just a few data points we’ve seen to give you a sense of what’s at stake:

• Relevance to Users: The best evidence that users prefer seeing more relevant ads is their increased likeliness to actually click on an ad—instead of just ignoring it or trying to block it. The most recent study of this issue concluded that Click-Through Rates (CTR) can be improved by as much as 670% by using basic behavioral targeting as compared to simple contextual targeting—0r even more than 1000% using more sophisticated targeting. Conversion rates (the percentage of clicks that actually result in a sale) also strongly indicate that consumers find ads more interesting, and in one 2005 study, were estimated to increase up to 3000% with behavioral targeting.
• Macro: More Revenue to Fund All Services & Content: eMarketer (in June 2008) estimated that U.S. spending on behavioral targeting would grow from $.775 billion in 2008 to $4.4 billion in 2012—representing fully a quarter of display ad spending.  The total amount of money at stake is huge:  U.S. online ad revenues totaled $23.5 billion in 2008.
• Micro: More Revenue for Individual Publishers: Estimates on the increased profitability of behavioral targeting range as high as 1200% (eMarketer).

While these examples illustrate the broad outlines of the trade-offs ignored by privacy regulatory advocates, the key dilemma to understand is this: If, under an opt-in regime, publishers would be able to target advertising for webpages based on the keywords contained within those pages, and not on other content the user has looked at, the value of most Internet content will depend not on how many eyeballs it attracts but primarily on the economic value of the keywords that are directly associated with it. Pages with keywords related to products and services will fetch a fine price because advertisers will be able to make money off ads on those pages ( e.g., a site for digital camera reviews). But content with little commercial value will generate little revenue. Indeed, this is perhaps the single greatest problem faced by journalism sites. Who wants to advertise on a story about North Korea? How many users are going to be interested in taking a honeymoon in the DMZ?

But if such websites could target advertising to users’ user’s likely interests based on an anonymous profile of their interests created by collecting data about their browsing “behavior,” web content becomes valuable because of the audience it attracts, not just because the content itself serves as a rough proxy for a user’s interests. This democratization of Internet advertising revenue is essential for sustaining the future of journalism in particular, but also for “free” culture more generally.

As we noted in our response to the FTC’s proposed self-regulatory guidelines on data collection for advertising:

Depending on how regulation is structured, therefore, it is possible that new privacy mandates would severely curtail the overall quantity of content and services offered—and greatly limit the ability of new providers to enter the market with innovative offerings. Alternatively, or perhaps additionally, companies would change the character of their offerings and water-down sophisticated services that cater to consumer demand; in other words, the quality of service would deteriorate. Bottom line: Something must give because there is no free lunch. Regulation is a giant game of economic whack-a-mole: Attempting to control one of the primary variables of price, quantity, or quality inevitably results in non-optimal adjustments in the other two variables. The absence of price as a variable in this context means there is one less variable for the government to control in the first place. Simply stated, stifling the evolution of the online advertising marketplace will likely result in fewer free online services and less content, less high-quality online services and content, or some combination of both… We stand at an important crossroads in the debate over the online marketplace and the future of a “free and open” Internet. Many of those who celebrate that goal focus on concepts like “net neutrality” at the distribution layer, but what really keeps the Internet so “free and open” is the economic engine of online advertising at the applications and content layers. If misguided government regulation chokes off the Internet’s growth or evolution, we would be killing the goose that laid the golden eggs…. These observations are even more relevant to the online marketplace, where advertising has been shown to be the only business model with any real staying power. Walled gardens, pay-per-view, micropayments, and subscription-based business models are all languishing. Consequently, the overall health of the Internet economy and the aggregate amount of information and speech that can be supported online are fundamentally tied up with the question of whether we allow the online advertising marketplace to evolve in an efficient, dynamic fashion. Heavy-handed privacy regulation (or co-regulation) could, therefore, become the equivalent of a disastrous industrial policy for the Internet that chokes off the resources needed to fuel e-commerce and online free speech going forward.

Our Challenge to the Advocates of Privacy Regulation

For these reasons, we have repeatedly issued the following three-part challenge in our previous work to those who advocate the regulation of online advertising:

1. Identify the harm or market failure that requires government intervention.
2. Prove that there is no less restrictive alternative to regulation.
3. Explain how the benefits of regulation outweigh its costs.

We’re still waiting…

We’ve also made it clear that there is an alternative to the pre-emptive, one-size-fits-all regulation demanded by the regulatory advocates:  We’ve proposed a “layered approach” based on user education, user empowerment, self-regulation and FTC enforcement of privacy policies.  Our goal is as follows:

The ideal state of affairs would be to create a system of tools and data disclosure practices that would empower each user to implement their personal privacy preferences while also recognizing the freedom of those who rely on advertising revenues to “condition the use of their products and services on disclosure of information”—not to mention the viewing of ads! Self-regulatory efforts can be refined, especially through technological innovation to better satisfy the concerns of policymakers, privacy advocates, and average consumers. For example, if websites and ad networks participating in a self-regulatory framework supplemented their current “natural language” privacy policies with equivalent “machine-readable” code [ e.g., P3p], that data could be “read” by browser tools that would implement pre-specified user preferences by blocking the collection of information depending on whether the privacy policies of certain websites or ad networks met the user’s preferences about data-use. Such robust and granular disclosure, if implemented for behavioral advertising, would exceed the wildest dreams of those who argue that users currently do not read privacy policies—without disrupting the browsing experience or cluttering websites. But this system would only work if users had to make real choices about “pay*ing+ for ‘free’ content and services by disclosing their personal information.”

A Final Word About Advertising

On some level, this debate isn’t about user privacy at all, but about the alleged evils of advertising as inherently manipulative.  Jeff Chester straddles both camps.  His rantings about the use of “neuromarketing” boil down to the same simple idea that the Neo-Marxists have been pushing for decades:  Since people are stupid, ignorant and/or lazy (see above), they’re easy to control and trick with shiny objects, pretty faces, memorable slogans, and catchy jingles. No better response to this argument has ever been made than was offered in this 1959 magazine ad by the ad firm Young & Rubicam (emphasis added for Chester’s benefit):

There is no chestnut more overworked than the critical whinny: “Advertising sells people things they don’t need.” We, as one agency, plead guilty. Advertising does sell people things they don’t need. Things like television sets, automobiles, catsup, mattresses, cosmetics, ranges, refrigerators, and so on and on. People don’t really need these things. People don’t really need art, music, literature, newspapers, historians. wheels, calendars, philosophy, or, for that matter, critics of advertising, either. All people really need is a cave, a piece of meat and, possibly, a fire. The complex thing we call civilization is made up of luxuries. An eminent philosopher of our time has written that great art is superior to lesser art in the degree that it is “life-enhancing.” Perhaps something of the same thing can be claimed for the products that are sold through advertising. They enhance life, to whatever degree they can.