Here’s the notice I’ve been getting the last few days when, logged into Facebook from a computer, I try to post a comment or update my status.

Clever observers will note that the recommendation to log in from a computer is misplaced, as I get it when I’m logged in from a computer. Facebook gives me no instructions when I log in (or when I log out and log in again), though it did once ask me to change my password, which I did.

Most likely, Facebook’s algorithms believe I’ve violated some part of the Terms of Service, such as by repetitive posting or other spammy behavior. My exclusion from the site began contemporaneous with my attempt to post a single comment that failed for reasons I couldn’t discern in several tries.

Undoubtedly, my friends at Facebook will leap to my aid and clear this up for me in short order, feeling slightly stung that I “went public” with the problem rather than going to them. But I wanted to experience this as an ordinary consumer, not as a member of the digerati with insider access to people at important companies. In the past, I’ve used insider access with services like PayPal and (the now defunct) Bitcoin7 to get help that an ordinary user couldn’t have gotten. Bully for me that I can do that, but my experience is atypical and no basis for observing how the world works.

Some observations:

I’ve been reading a lot about data mining lately, and I have a lifelong love of mental error (not only as a practitioner!). My best guess is that the folks at Facebook have come up with an algorithmic way to recognize and exclude bad behavior (which they see in droves and endless variety). Keenly focused on excluding baddies, they’ve kind-of forgotten to double-check about making sure not to exclude good people. The sources of error here are many. It could be that my behavior as a user of the site produced a false positive for spamming or similar behavior. It could be that a computer of mine has a virus that is seeking to abuse my access to Facebook (though I do practice good computer hygiene). Other things might be happening that I don’t know about.

But Facebook’s folk haven’t successfully produced a way for me to signal to them, “I am here. I’m a human, and I’m a user of your site whose behavior is ordinary and within your terms.”

Thus, I can log in to Facebook, I can see what my friends are doing, and I can see what they are posting and saying about me. I just can’t post any comments or update my own status. It’s kind of like being locked out of your house and watching your friends have a good time inside, unable to bang on the doors or windows loud enough to get anyone’s attention.

[While I think of it, would someone please post a link to this blog post on my wall? Thanks.]

It’s all a little strange, but this is exactly what one can expect from a company with a customer base as large as Facebook’s, enjoying continuing growth and working to add new features: imperfection.

Which brings me to my second observation: I really don’t think social networks ought to scale like we’re trying to make them scale. Having come to rely on one a little too much, I’m now being forced to reconsider whether I want to rely on one—and I don’t. Giving the bulk of my interaction to any one platform is a risk to my ability to interact. Here, it’s mistake, but any number of risks could manifest themselves, with individuals or society as a whole, if we lean too heavily on any one way of interacting.

As a basic privacy protection, for example, don’t put everything you do in one place. Think of your Internet access and your social networks (and lots of other things) the way you would your stock portfolio. You’re a fool of you don’t diversify.

So it sure is great we have markets and competition!

I’m a Twitter user, of course. You can get an odd blend of public policy comment and quirky personal observations there at @Jim_Harper. I also have Twitter account(s) you don’t get to know about.

And I’ll be ramping up my use of Google+, which I did not really want to do—but, yes, I should. And I’ll use it for stuff that’s more work oriented. Because I’m a stickler for the meanings of words, Facebook will be for actual friends. (Meeting once is not a friendship, friends. Nor is me referring to you as part of the collective “friends” in that last sentence.)

I’ll also do more on Diaspora, which is still nascent, but I think a very important network because nobody owns it. Kinda like the meatspace social network, it has no central controller, and that’s a very important protection for a lot of our human and political interests—even if Diaspora is not yet hitting on all cylinders.

So there you have it! Companies are imperfect, and if you’re part of the infinitesimal fraction of their customers who they fail to serve, you do get some hassles and annoyances. This counsels diversification—not only in social networks, but in all things under innovation—as a security against hassle and worse.

And finally: Ain’t it cool we got options!

[UPDATE Feb. 2012: This little essay eventually led to an 80-page working paper, “Technopanics, Threat Inflation, and the Danger of an Information Technology Precautionary Principle.”]

In this essay, I will suggest that (1) while “moral panics” and “techno-panics” are nothing new, their cycles seem to be accelerating as new communications and information networks and platforms proliferate; (2) new panics often “crowd-out” or displace old ones; and (3) the current scare over online privacy and “tracking” is just the latest episode in this ongoing cycle.

What Counts as a “Techno-Panic”?

First, let’s step back and define our terms. Christopher Ferguson, a professor at Texas A&M’s Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal Justice, offers the following definition: “A moral panic occurs when a segment of society believes that the behavior or moral choices of others within that society poses a significant risk to the society as a whole.” By extension, a “techno-panic” is simply a moral panic that centers around societal fears about a specific contemporary technology (or technological activity) instead of merely the content flowing over that technology or medium. In her brilliant 2008 essay on “The MySpace Moral Panic,” Alice Marwick noted:

Technopanics have the following characteristics. First, they focus on new media forms, which currently take the form of computer–mediated technologies. Second, technopanics generally pathologize young people’s use of this media, like hacking, file-sharing, or playing violent video games. Third, this cultural anxiety manifests itself in an attempt to modify or regulate young people’s behavior, either by controlling young people or the creators or producers of media products.

While protection of youth is typically a motivating factor, some techno-panics transcend the old “It’s For the Children” rationales for information control. What all panics share in common, however, is a general desire by the public, media pundits, and policymakers to “do something” to rid ourselves of the apparent menace. Thus, an effort to control the particular content or technology in question is what really defines a true “panic.”

It’s impossible to be scientific about this but there seems to be a cycle of such moral panics or techno-panics at work in our society.  Indeed, looking back over the past few decades, it seems that we experience a new panic roughly every 3 to 5 years. Consider this chronological breakdown of some notable techno-panics since the 1980s on:

• mid-1980s: music lyrics and music videos
• early to mid-1990s: violent video games
• mid- to late 1990s: Internet porn
• late 1990s to early 2000s: browser cookies + kids privacy
• mid-2000: TV & movie violence
• mid- to late 2000: online predators / “stranger danger”
• late 2000s to present: cyberwar
• late 2000s to present: online privacy / web “tracking”

Of course, there were other “mini-panics” that occurred during this stretch and, again, some of them did not involve child safety rationales. There was a brief panic over RFID chips and even the Y2K scare in the late 1990s, for example. Some might argue we also had a bit of panic with copyright and file-sharing back in the early 2000s, and perhaps even one back in the early 1980s when the VCR came on the scene, although that seemed to be more industry-driven. Wireless geo-location and geo-tagging has also been getting more attention recently and still may blossom into a full-blown techno-panic.   And you could make the case that we experienced a different type of techno-panic last year over the supposed “Death of the Web,” although few took that one all that seriously.

Why Do Techno-Panics Pass?

To be clear, there are no clear boundaries with techno-panics.  They do not just suddenly begin and end, and it is impossible to gauge their relative severity since no metric or yardstick exists to measure them against.  Nonetheless, these techno-panics certainly seem to have peaks and valleys in terms of public / political / media attention.

Just a few years ago, for example, the online predator panic reached a fever pitch and “stranger danger” reports were all over the media. As a result, legislation banning social networking sites in publicly funded schools and libraries was introduced, and state attorneys general proposed mandatory online age verification schemes for the Internet to segregate adults and children online. And then, it seems, the fever passed. I couldn’t tell you exactly what week or month it happened — and in many ways some of those fears still exist out there — but it’s clear that the panic about online predation has subsided greatly. I’d like to think that education and awareness helped debunk some of the myths that were fueling that particular panic, just as I’d like to believe that education and awareness helped deflate the fear bubbles that surrounded previous panics.

While I don’t want to entirely discount that possibility, I’m convinced another more cynical explanation may exist: New techno-panics simply crowd-out old techno-panics. There may be several explanations for this:

• Perhaps there is only so much fear-mongering our minds can handle at any given time.
• Perhaps it is becuase the media gets myopically focused on one panic and then hammers it till all the fear has been squeezed out of it such that they have to move on.
• Perhaps it is because a new technology comes along that spooks politicians and the media even more than the previous one they were demonizing.
• Or perhaps all of those factors combine to limit the duration of panics.

Regardless, it seems evident that moral panics and techno-panics have always been with us and will always be with us. From the waltz to rock and roll to rap music, from movies to comic books to video games, from radio and television to the Internet and social networking websites — every new media format or technology spawns a fresh debate about the potential negative effects it might have on society or our kids in particular. An excellent recent report by the U.K. government entitled Safer Children in a Digital World noted that “New media are often met by public concern about their impact on society and anxiety and polarisation of the debate can lead to emotive calls for action.” Indeed, each of the media technologies or communications platforms mentioned above was either regulated or threatened with regulation at some point in its history.

The Cycle is Accelerating but is the Severity of Each Panic Diminished as a Result?

However, it seems like these cycles are now accelerating somewhat.  They peak and fizzle out faster, that is. Perhaps that is a natural outgrowth of the technological explosion we have witnessed in recent years.  Digital innovation is unfolding at a breakneck pace and each new development gives rise to a new set of concerns. Going forward, this could mean we experience more “mini-panics” and fewer of those sweeping “the-world-is-going-to-hell” type panics.

This brings me to the current debate over online advertising, web “tracking,” and personal privacy. What’s interesting about this debate is that, unlike many of the other moral or techno-panics mentioned above, this debate is not being driven by the mantra that “It’s For the Children.”  Today’s privacy panic reflects a more widespread unease with the notion that our digital footprints are somehow being “tracked” for nefarious purposes.  In reality, there isn’t anything nefarious going on here at all. Online sites and service providers are simply using data collection to improve our web experience and better target ads to us in an attempt to cross-subsidize all that wonderful free stuff we enjoy online today. This is truly one of the great pro-innovation, pro-consumer success stories of modern times.  Yet, irrational fears about data collection and targeted marketing have given rise to the second major privacy techno-panic of the past dozen years. (Again, the first privacy-related panic was the “cookie craze” that took place back in the late-90s but then subsided). It is also somewhat ironic that many of the same people and groups who have done yeoman’s work debunking techno-panics in other contexts are driving this modern privacy panic.

I want to make it clear that I am not oblivious to the fact that there are occasionally some legitimate concerns behind some of these moral panics or techno-panics.  For example, I certainly don’t want my young children (ages 9 & 6) viewing hard-core porn, playing extremely violent video games, or even reading graphic comics. And I understand that some forms of personal information are quite sensitive and a legitimate topic for policy discussions.  But, again, these concerns are typically greatly over-hyped, and to the extent that they represent more legitimate concerns, I would argue that education and empowerment-based solutions typically represent a more sensible approach than regulation. Although I sometimes question whether the “harm” that people fear is legitimate, I would hope we could work together to find more sensible ways to address people’s concerns without calling for comprehensive control of the media, content, technology, or the Internet more generally.

Resiliency, Responsibility & Common Sense

Finally, in these discussion, I believe many people overlook the importance of human adaptability and resiliency.  The amazing thing about humans is that we adapt so much better than other creatures. When it comes to technological change, resiliency is hard-wired into our genes.  “The techno-apocalypse never comes,” notes Slate’s Jack Shafer, because “cultures tend to assimilate and normalize new technology in ways the fretful never anticipate.” We learn how to use the new tools given to us and make them part of our lives and culture.  Indeed, we have lived through revolutions more radical than the Information Revolution.  We can adapt and learn to live with some of the legitimate difficulties and downsides of the Information Age. [See my recent book chapter on, “The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 1: Saving the Net From Its Detractors.”]

A healthy does of humility, patience, personal responsibility, and good ‘ol common sense will usually get us through these things. Quite literally, there is no need to panic!

Related Reading

• Techno-Panic Cycles (and How the Latest Privacy Scare Fits In)
• Against Techno-Panics
• Collier on “Why Technopanics are Bad”
• Kids, Media, Commercialism & Moral Panic
• The Next Great Technopanic: Wireless Geo-Location / Social Mapping
• Technopanics and the Great Social Networking Scare
• Sen. Klobuchar Stirs Up Facebook Child Safety Technopanic
• A Rarity: Newspaper Argues Against Techno-panic, Cites Constitution
• Google Street View/Wi-Fi Privacy Technopanic Continues
• Digital Sensors, Darknets, Hyper-Transparency & the Future of Privacy

I’ve had quite enough of service providers of one kind or another making me part of their new social network. (I’m looking at you, Google Buzz.)

So here’s an article about how to control iTunes’ new Ping social network, which comes with iTunes 10.

Apple did a couple things right: They made it very clear in the “Terms and Conditions” click-through for the new version of the software that you’re getting Ping. It also appears to default to “off.” That’s what I found when I followed the directions in the article linked above, anyway.

If you want to be in yet another social network, you can enable Ping using those directions. You also might want to get your head checked. Something might be wrong in your real life.

Companies often promote consistent and reliable customer experiences. KLM touts itself as “the reliable airline” while Michelin touts its dependability “because so much is riding on your tires.” And now we have Yahoo, who announced that it will be increasing the social networking functionality in Yahoo Mail. Yahoo has the ability to promote consistency in determining user defaults for sharing information.

But social networking is a product much different than most – it is participatory. Passengers can’t fly airplanes and drivers don’t design tire tread, but social networking users control what and with whom they share information.

So what happens when a social networking service changes functionality or adds new features? How does a company be consistent in carrying-over a user’s preference from the prior version to the new one? What assumptions should it make on user privacy preferences for new features?

These considerations matter whenever an online service tries to increase its social networking functionality. Last week, Facebook unveiled new privacy controls, and we blogged that it was a welcome response to clear-up confusion. In the coming weeks Yahoo will change how status updates work in Yahoo Mail. Michael Arrington’s TechCrunch article describes it well:

[C]urrently to see status updates for others in Yahoo Mail, you have to have a mutual follow, meaning both people have agreed to be “friends.” You can then see that user’s Yahoo status updates as well as updates on third party services that they have added to their Yahoo profile as well. In the new version there will no longer be a requirement for a mutual follow. So, like on Twitter, users can follow whomever they choose. This isn’t actually a dramatic change for Yahoo, since users can follow others in this way already on Yahoo Messenger.

Like Google and Facebook before it, Yahoo is adding features to make its service more “social.” And because of the scrutiny over the changes by Google and Facebook, Yahoo seems to be going out of its way to assure users that they can rely and depend on Yahoo. According to the Yahoo Corporate Blog:

Before Yahoo! Updates is expanded to Yahoo! Mail where many more people will see their Contacts’ activity, we want you to explore your Updates settings and make sure you know who can see what you’re publishing. Even if you are among the many Yahoo! users who haven’t ever generated an update, we want to encourage everyone to actively manage these settings. Because the majority of events listed within Updates are inherently public activities, our defaults are set to allow anyone to see them (that is, for people over 18; we have different defaults that are age-appropriate for people under 18 – learn more in our FAQ).

In one sense, Yahoo is trying to stay consistent: in Yahoo Messenger, user updates are public, so they’re going to make updates public in Mail too. But in another sense, Yahoo is making assumptions—that users want to have their updates be public. Hence the rationale for Yahoo’s explanation: Updates are inherently public activities, our defaults are set to allow anyone to see them.

As online services add features and functionality, they will be faced with decisions about setting defaults about what most users prefer. Google Buzz presumed that Gmail users would want to publicly reveal which people they emailed the most—but based on the wide range of user pushback, Google chose this default poorly.

In the case of Yahoo, it is trying to make it easy for users to control and opt-out of sharing status updates: “[Y]ou can easily limit who sees your Updates stream either by editing the controls for each specific activity…or by turning your Updates stream off entirely in one simple step.”

Yahoo and other online services will strive to seek a balance. They will want to respect previously expressed user preferences, while defaulting settings so that people see and are encouraged to use new features.

But if the threat of regulation—beckoned by the noisy call of privacy critics—becomes too great, companies will be afraid to take risks and introduce new service. Forcing online sites to perpetually maintain original settings prevents innovative business models and services (just ask Microsoft about how slavish consistency to decade-old software makes Windows innovation so difficult). Strict consistency is a brake on innovation.

We know that companies won’t always get the right balance. But online services need the freedom to experiment with new ways for publishing and sharing information.

As the social web matures, we’ll see more and more sites confronted with this balancing act. They’ll need to carryover preferences from old to new versions, and make assumptions on what information most users will or will not want to disclose. If sites get it wrong, some users will change their settings, while others will leave—ultimately, either is a better expression of user preferences than any law or regulation.

I got some feedback from readers about my post last night regarding the irony of the FCC’s newly-created MySpace page containing some rather vulgar user comments. I wondered if the agency would continue to allow such comments when the agency regulates similar words when they are uttered on broadcast TV or radio.  A few people asked me why the agency hasn’t bother using the comment management tools that MySpace puts at the public’s disposal.  It’s a good question, and actually I’m not sure why they didn’t do that right from the start.  Perhaps the agency is concerned about being accused of censoring public comment. [Incidentally, the White House and some federal agencies have MySpace pages, so perhaps I need to look into how those agencies manage comments.]

Regardless, the FCC now has taken steps to deal with this. John Eggerton of Broadcasting & Cable and Kim Hart of The Hill point out that the agency has removed some vulgar comments on their MySpace page (namely, any comment with the F-bomb in it).  And I assume the agency is now taking steps to screen comments going forward. For those who are not aware, MySpace empowers users (including government agencies if they choose to set up profiles) to require approval before new comments appear on their profiles (accessed by clicking “My Account” and then “Spam”).  Here are the options:

Moreover, I should also mention that if people want to see the FCC’s MySpace profile but don’t want to see all the comments, they can always change their default view to MySpace’s “Lite View,” which hides all comments, third party applications, and some other sections of a page. To switch to Lite View, click on “My Account” in the upper-right corner of any MySpace page, then click on “Miscellaneous” to access the Default View setting. It’s another nice way that MySpace empowers users to control their site experience.

Regardless, this will be a difficult issue for federal agencies to manage going forward. If agencies are going to take the plunge and boldly enter the social networking world, they’ll need to understand that the vibrant exchange of views will sometimes entail some salty language and occasional insults.  Yet, when they take steps to deal with some of the most offensive comments posted on their pages, accusations of censorship are bound to fly. It’s a tough position for agencies to be in since they want to encourage maximum public interaction and input, and yet some of that input is bound to get heated, even ugly.

So, here are some questions that both agencies and policy wonks will need to consider going forward. Will government agency profiles on social networking sites be considered “public forums” under traditional First Amendment jurisprudence?  While there are important limits on how government can regulate the “time, place, and manner” of speech on government property, the Supreme Court has allowed government-run schools to regulate the use of profanity to some extent. It probably makes sense for government agencies to have the discretion under the First Amendment to impose some basic ground rules on the use of profanity comments on their social networking profiles, as well as on the kinds of crowd-sourcing discussion platforms that the Obama administration has been experimenting with.  Most agencies already have some policies in place for public comments directly to their websites. And yet, with a little effort, one can find the same sort of profanity in comments submitted to the FCC’s own website. But social networking sites are much easier to use than the FCC’s existing Electronic Comment Filing System.  They’re easier to use in two respects: It’s easier for people to submit comments, and it’s easier for others to see those comments. So that’s why government agencies would be well-advised to establish and publish clear ground rules for online comments.

But even with posting guidelines in place, there are other sticky questions here, especially for the FCC. As Broadcasting & Cable’s John Eggerton points out, the agency does have moderation policies for its other sites, but those policies raise still more questions because of positions the FCC has taken in court on other First Amendment matters:

“We have moderation policies for blog and Ideascale comments,” said an FCC spokesman, “and are applying those principles to MySpace while we draft a moderation policy specific to that site.” The Blogband moderation policy excludes “slurs; abusive or obscene language,” so profanity of the S- and F-word varieties could fall under that prohibition. But a check of the moderation policy for Ideascale, a crowd-sourcing site the FCC is employing for comments on policies and proposals, revealed the following: “Comments which include any of the following may be removed from the public site: Threats or incitements to violence; Obscenity; Duplicate posts; Posts revealing your own or others’ sensitive/personal information (e.g., Social Security numbers); Information posted in violation of law, including libel, condoning or encouraging illegal activity, revealing classified information, or comments which might affect the outcome of ongoing legal proceedings; Promotion of commercial services or products; Spam.” Hmmm. That creates another potential problem. The only category a post simply containing the F-word would seem to fit in is “obscenity.” But, as First Amendment attorneys will tell you, obscenity in content control terms is a legal definition for speech that is totally unprotected. If the FCC is suggesting cursing is obscene in the legal sense, then it is wholly unprotected and could be banished entirely from the online waves and from the airwaves, too, safe harbor be doggoned.

In other words, we’re back to the legal fight we’ve been having in court for decades about the meaning of terms like “indecency,” “obscenity,” and so on.  The FCC is going to be walking a bit of legal tightrope here, and other agencies will likely encounter similar problems in the future.

If readers are aware of how other agencies or government officials are dealing with this, I’d appreciate your comments below.  I have not studied this issue that closely in the past, but plan to do so now.

It seems the whole web is incorporating social networking functionality. Microsoft recently led the way in incorporating functionality to search, allowing users to share search results they like with their social networking contacts directly from the search results page through Twitter and Facebook. I’ve also noted that it’s just a matter of time before the same thing happens with advertising—and that Facebook will likely lead the way.

Websites have long used social networking buttons to encourage visitors to join their Facebook group, follow them on Twitter, etc. Facebook recently made this even easier by creating a widget for pages that can easily be embedded on any site. So why is Facebook blocking advertisers from including social networking functionality in ads like this one? Facebook’s terms of service using the new Fan Box widget in ads. Facebook’s spokesperson told InsideFacebook.com:

We want Page owners to have an easy way to connect with fans both on and off of Facebook.  In order to protect the the Fan Box widget from being used for the wrong reasons, we do not allow it to be used in third party advertising.

InsideFacebook.com speculates:

it’s safe to assume that Facebook wants to protect the “Become a Fan” experience from becoming too intertwined with aggressive online ads that it hasn’t approved. One can imagine the variety of ways advertisers could (potentially misleadingly) push users to become a fan in an ad unit on a web site, then pollute their Facebook stream later. Facebook wants more control over that experience, even if it means partially restricting growth for Facebook Pages.

So why might policymakers be interested in this? Because, as Fred Vogelstein predicted in Wired this June, Facebook will likely someday soon expand beyond selling ads on its own site to selling ads on the wider Internet that incorporate social networking functionality like the “Become a fan” button above. There is a vast untapped market for online advertising, and if Facebook’s going to get a piece of it, they’ll have to offer something no other ad network can. If and when this happens, Facebook will likely get a lot of grief from the anti-advertising zealots, but this would actually be a good thing for consumers for five reasons:

1. Facebook would prove a powerful competitor to Google. The ability to offer what Google can’t is precisely the sort of “disruptive innovation” that could up-end Google’s current dominance of online advertising. Those who fear that Google is the be-all-and-end-all of online advertising will likely find that Google can’t “stay on top of the heap” forever because online services are so profoundly dynamic. Some likely complain that Facebook has an “unfair advantage” if it’s the only ad network that can supply ads using Facebook buttons, but in the topsy-turvy world of Internet competition, you have to fight “fire with fire”: The only way to unseat the current leaders is to find ways of exercising a bit of “market power.” That term sets off alarm bells in the heads of many who can’t bear the thought that competition should ever be “unfair” in any way. But competition, like life itself, is not fair: Denying Facebook the opportunity to sell ads would only retard innovation and reduce competition. Greater competition between ad networks would ultimately mean more revenue for publishers as well as increased pressure to compete for reputation among consumers in terms of better privacy practices.
2. Increasing the effectiveness of online advertising means more revenue for the publishers who might sell ads through Facebook, which in turn will increase the quantity and quality of ad-supported online content. In fact, even publishers who don’t sell their ad inventory through Facebook would benefit if overall ad prices go up.
3. More revenue for Facebook would allow the company to continue to innovate in building better social networking functionality for its users. As I said in my response to Vogelstein, “Facebook can’t keep losing money forever.”
4. For the same reasons that Facebook is so cautious today about allowing the use of their button in ads, they would likely provide very clear guidelines for any advertising they might sell on the wider web. Specifically, Facebook would have a strong incentive to policy for the kinds of deceptive uses InsideFacebook speculates about above.
5. In addition to any direct oversight exercised by Facebook, the “Social-ification” of advertising would also change the incentives of advertisers: If your goal is to get someone to “become a fan,” you have to be even more careful about the way you engage them.  Annoying ads that flash or blink might build awareness of your brand by overcoming ad-blindness, but they’re sure not going to be effective in getting people to “Fan” you! Facebook pages allow advertisers to build communities around their brands, which means engaging customers as, well, friends!

In short, we shouldn’t fear the kind of change that Vogelstein warns about.  If Facebook is really thinking about this, they’re probably taking the time to do this correctly, which means coming up with clear policies for advertisers as well as explaining to users what this means for them.

Finally, the courts are starting to take notice of the growing ease with which we all share information online: “Twenty-somethings have a much-reduced sense of personal privacy,” as an NYU law professor put it. Unfortunately, this slow realization of the utterly obvious is happening in the narrow area of legal ethics: Courts are punishing young lawyers who say unkind things about the court on social networking sites or say something inconsistent with what they’ve told the court. It’s a must-read for all young lawyers!

Microsoft is making a major push to integrate social networking tools like Facebook and Twitter into its Bing search engine: users will soon be able to “Ping” search results they like to their friends directly from Bing. Back in January, in “Google, the Innovator’s Dilemma and the Future of Search & Web Ads,” I talked about the implications of this history of search from the WSJ):

Microsoft missed its opportunities to get into paid search not because it was “dumb,” “uninnovative” or a “bad” company, but for the same sorts of reasons that big, highly successful and even particularly innovative companies fail.  The reasons companies generally succeed in mastering “adaptive” innovation of the technologies behind their established business models are the very reasons why such great companies struggle to encourage or channel the “disruptive” innovation that renders their core technologies and business models obsolete.  This dynamic was described brilliantly in Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen’s classic 1997 book The Innovator’s Dilemma:  When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail… Let’s hope that Microsoft—as well as Yahoo!—have carefully studied the vast literature produced by business schools in the wake of Christensen’s book about how big companies can avoid the Innovator’s Dilemma by promoting—and capitalizing on—radical innovation from within.  Indeed, this seems to be precisely what has guided Google’s own strategy as it has grown from “disruptive innovator” to become the very sort of behemoth that cannot easily escape the Dilemma, even if corporate managers are fully aware of the problem on a theoretical level.  If Google can do it, Microsoft should be able to, too.  But let’s also not discount the possibility that, no matter how hard Google’s management might try to retain the innovative culture of a start-up, the giant  can’t do that well enough to prevent its own apparent market dominance from being disrupted by new upstart innovators in search and advertising technologies.

My prediction seems to be coming true: Microsoft, with less to lose and without a huge installed user base to worry about annoying by violating Google’s “Prime Directive” of elegant simplicity, may have an easier time introducing “disruptive” innovations to search than Google. Of course, it’s unlikely that any one feature will prove the “killer app” that suddenly causes Bing’s market share to explode—and Google’s to plummet—but a steady stream of such nifty features could convince many users to switch to Bing.

At 29, I’m old enough to remember when Microsoft seemed as cool as Google does today. Hell, I remember being thrilled as a sophomore in high school by Bill Gates’ 1995 book The Road Ahead and the accompanying CD-ROM (which included, as I recall, a tour of Gates’s ultra-futuristic home).  If Microsoft can “get its mojo back,” the company could truly become a web services provider to rival Google.  We’d all benefit from having more choices in search engines, advertising platforms and related tools. And, driving each other to “build a better mousetrap,” the two companies could lead us down the “Road Ahead” from Search 2.0 to Search 3.0 and beyond. So here’s to hoping that Redmond can solve the “Innovator’s Dilemma” with tools like Google’s “20 percent” time that free engineers to innovate!

What Unites Advocates of Speech Controls & Privacy Regulation? [pdf]

by Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Progress on Point No. 16.19

Anyone who has spent time following debates about speech and privacy regulation comes to recognize the striking parallels between these two policy arenas. In this paper we will highlight the common rhetoric, proposals, and tactics that unite these regulatory movements. Moreover, we will argue that, at root, what often animates calls for regulation of both speech and privacy are two remarkably elitist beliefs:

1. People are too ignorant (or simply too busy) to be trusted to make wise decisions for themselves (or their children); and/or,
2. All or most people share essentially the same values or concerns and, therefore, “community standards” should trump household (or individual) standards.

While our use of the term “elitism” may unduly offend some understandably sensitive to populist demagoguery, our aim here is not to launch a broadside against elitism as Time magazine culture critic William H. Henry once defined it: “The willingness to assert unyieldingly that one idea, contribution or attainment is better than another.”^[1] Rather, our aim here is to critique that elitism which rises to the level of political condescension and legal sanction. We attack not so much the beliefs of some leaders, activists, or intellectuals that they have a better idea of what it in the public’s best interest than the public itself does, but rather the imposition of those beliefs through coercive, top-down mandates.

That sort of elitism—elitism enforced by law—is often the objective of speech and privacy regulatory advocates. Our goal is to identify the common themes that unite these regulatory movements, explain why such political elitism is unwarranted, and make it clear how it threatens individual liberty as well as the future of free and open Internet. As an alternative to this elitist vision, we advocate an empowerment agenda: fostering an environment in which users have the tools and information they need to make decisions for themselves and their families.

I. The Elitism of Speech Regulation

First, consider how those two elitist beliefs identified above are on display when lawmakers or regulatory advocates make efforts to control speech or content.^[2] Calls to regulate free speech are often premised on the belief that something must be done to “protect The Children.”^[3] Personal and parental responsibility ^[4] are regarded as inadequate safeguards ^[5] since some parents will inevitably fall down on the job by not adequately shielding their children’s eyes and ears from potentially objectionable (or supposedly harmful) speech. Therefore, government must regulate content that is indecent, profane, excessively violent, and so on. The definition of those things is then left to unelected bureaucrats and judges to make on our behalf.

But it’s not just about “The Children.” Some regulatory advocates believe that even the choices made by consenting adults must be disregarded because some people fail to understand the supposedly destructive nature of the speech they are consuming. Government must act to protect people from making what some regulatory advocates regard as destructive or even immoral choices that could bring harm to them or their loved ones.

In sum, regulatory advocates are essentially saying that people cannot be trusted or left to their own devices and, therefore, government must intervene and establish a baseline “community standard” on behalf of the entire citizenry to tell them what‘s best for them.^[6] Even if those citizens have tools and information at their disposal to make sensible decisions about objectionable content, that’s not good enough because they might not do the job properly. Government must do it for them!

II. The Elitism of Privacy Regulation

This same mentality motivates calls for privacy regulations. Those who call for government interventions to “protect privacy” often claim that people too willingly surrender personal information about themselves and that they don’t understand the adverse consequences of those actions.^[7] Alternatively, regulatory advocates claim that advertising and marketing efforts are inherently “manipulative” and that people do not realize they are being duped into surrendering personal information or into buying products or services they supposedly don’t need.^[8] Of course, those regulatory advocates rarely pause to explain to us how it is that they were not also duped and manipulated by the same things—again revealing their deeply-rooted elitism! (As discussed below, this makes it clear how the psychological phenomenon of “third-person effect hypothesis” is driving much of this debate.)

“Protecting The Children” is also used as a rhetorical cover for regulation here, but not as often in debates over speech controls.^[9] Instead, regulatory advocates mostly focus on adults who are presumed not to know what is in their own best interest—necessitating paternalistic government intervention on their behalf.

III. Intellectual Schizophrenia on Both the Left & Right

What is particularly interesting about all this is the way these two issues expose a sort of intellectual schizophrenia at work on both the Left and Right of the political spectrum. Left-leaning policymakers and intellectuals typically decry censorship efforts (except where “commercial speech,” “hate speech” and “bias” are at issue), but are quick to rally around proposals to layer privacy regulations on the Internet. The opposite is often true of many on the Right of the political spectrum: They typically declare privacy regulations to be paternalistic and antithetical to free enterprise (or perhaps just erosive of efforts to legislate morality),^[10] but in the next breath advocate controls on content they find objectionable.

Few on either side stop to consider the relationship between speech and privacy. In fact, they are but two sides of the same coin. After all, what is your “right to privacy” but a right to stop me from observing you and speaking about you?^[11] “Protecting privacy,” therefore, typically means restricting speech rights in the process. Advocates of privacy regulation often insist that the use, processing and collection of information are “conduct” unprotected by the First Amendment, but in fact, the First Amendment broadly protects the gathering and distribution of information as part of the process of communication (“speech”).^[12] Similarly, attempts to “clean up” speech or “protect The Children,” often require regulations that would betray the privacy of adults by expanding the role of government, and impose serious burdens on businesses and markets—such as age verification mandates ^[13] or extensive data retention requirements.^[14]

IV. Common Tactics & Regulatory Mechanisms

The two movements also share common political tactics and regulatory approaches. Privacy advocates generally favor “opt-in” mandates as the federal “baseline standard” for any website collecting information about users, especially their browsing habits (regardless of whether the information is “personally identifiable”). In other words, the law would create a property right in such “personal information” (ironically, many advocates of this approach criticize or reject intellectual property.) In a similar vein, many advocates of speech controls push for mandatory parental control tools or restrictive default settings.^[15] That is, if government won’t censor speech outright, regulatory advocates want lawmakers to at least (1) require that media, computing and communications devices be shipped to market with parental controls embedded or included (as proposed in Australia and with China’s “Green Dam” filter),^[16] and possibly, (2) that such controls be defaulted to their most restrictive position—forcing users to opt-out of the controls later if they want to consume media rated above a certain threshold.

More sophisticated advocates of speech controls and privacy regulation will likely argue that their paternalism is less elitist or intrusive because they merely want to “nudge” the public into making “better” decisions. Economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein (director of President Obama’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, responsible for analyzing most new federal regulations) popularized this approach with their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Based on behavioral economics studies, they argue that both government and private actors must inevitably make decisions about “choice architecture” and that, by setting defaults, incentives and rules smartly, “choice architects” can and should improve decision-making without blocking, fencing-off or significantly burdening choices.^[17]

In this regard, Sunstein and Thaler’s approach parallels the work of Lawrence Lessig, one of the most influential Internet policy thinkers. Lessig has argued that the “architecture” of “code” (how software is written) “regulates” all online activities and requires government oversight and intervention to keep in check. Otherwise, he warned ominously a decade ago, “Left to itself, cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control.”^[18] Lessig’s hyper-pessimistic predictions have proven unwarranted, however. Far from fostering a world of “perfect control,” code and cyberspace have proven remarkably difficult to regulate, but nonetheless has generally benefited consumers and citizens without centralized direction.^[19] Still, Lessig, Sunstein, and others of this ilk persist in their advocacy of “nudges” of many varieties to impose their will on cyberspace through mandates from above.

But while it might be possible to define “better decisions” and argue that poor choice architecture leads people to choose things they clearly don’t want in contexts like investment decisions and mortgages, how can elites know what other people really want in highly subjective contexts like privacy and speech? Should they rely on opinion polls—the highly subjective results of which depend heavily on “choice architecture” of question-crafting—to guess what the right default should be?^[20] Was the Chinese proposal to mandate deployment of “Green Dam” just a harmless “nudge” because users weren’t barred from uninstalling the filtering software that must accompany their computers (i.e., “opting-out”)? The problem becomes even more difficult where trade-offs among competing values are inevitable. For example, data collection about Internet users raises privacy concerns for some but benefits all, creating more funding for “free” content (i.e., speech) and services users prefer by making more valuable the advertising that supports online publishers. In short, regulations of speech and privacy are likely to be pure paternalism, even when billed as “libertarian paternalism as Thaler and Sunstein label their approach.^[21]

What might be called “regulatory blackmail” is also a time-honored tradition among both advocates of speech controls and privacy regulation. When censorship advocates have previously been impeded by the First Amendment, they have worked behind the scenes with lawmakers or regulatory agencies to use indirect pressure and strong-arming tactics to extract “voluntary concessions” from companies or others.^[22] For example, in 2004, the FCC strong-armed radio giant Clear Channel into agreeing to a “voluntary” consent decree that involved taking Howard Stern off the air.^[23] Similarly, in 2008, XM and Sirius Satellite Radio finally agreed to set aside 4% of their system capacity for use by politically favored racial minorities (a kind of speech control) as a “voluntary condition” of their merger—after the FCC had sat on their application for nearly 16 months.^[24] This race-based preference would have been unconstitutional if the FCC had imposed it directly.^[25] While the FTC has been far less prone to such abuse and actually plays a key role in holding companies to their promises, its current Chairman, Jon Leibowitz, has hung the “regulatory sword of Damocles” over the heads of the online advertising industry, threatening them with a “day of reckoning” if he doesn’t get what he wants from industry self-regulatory efforts.”^[26] The sword could actually fall if the FTC turns self-regulation into the European model of “co-regulation,” where the government steers and industry simply rows.^[27]

V. The Crisis Mentality that Drives Regulation

Speech and privacy regulatory advocates share another trait in common: an affinity for the use of a crisis mentality as a method of spurring political action. In his 1995 book The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, political philosopher and economist Thomas Sowell formulated a model that he argued drives ideological crusades to expand government power over our lives and economy. “The great ideological crusades of the twentieth-century intellectuals have ranged across the most disparate fields,” noted Sowell. But what they all had in common, he argued, was “their moral exaltation of the anointed above others, who are to have their different views nullified and superseded by the views of the anointed, imposed via the power of government.”^[28] These government-expanding crusades shared several key elements, which Sowell identified as follows:

1. Assertion of a great danger to the whole society, a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
2. An urgent need for government action to avert impending catastrophe.
3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many, in response to the prescient conclusions of the few.
4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes.

We see this model at work on a daily basis today with our government’s various efforts to reshape our economy, but the model is equally applicable to debates over speech controls and privacy regulation. In particular, the various “technopanics”^[29] we have witnessed in recent years fit this model. For example, consider how this model plays out in the debate over online social networking:

1. Assertion of a great danger to the whole society [online sexual predators], a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
2. An urgent need for government action [such as mandatory online age verification ^[30] or the Deleting Online Predators Act ^[31]] to avert impending catastrophe.
3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many [must stop kids and adults from being online together on same sites], in response to the prescient conclusions of the few [some state Attorneys General].^[32]
4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes [child safety researchers and others are told that their research is meaningless or offbase].^[33]

We also see this model in play in other debates, such as efforts to regulate “excessively violent” video games and television programming.^[34] And consider how this model plays out on the privacy front:

1. Assertion of a great danger to the whole society [amorphous privacy violations], a danger to which the masses of people are oblivious.
2. An urgent need for government action [“baseline federal privacy regulation”] to avert impending catastrophe.
3. A need for government to drastically curtail the dangerous behavior of the many [anyone who shares information online], in response to the prescient conclusions of the few [a handful of privacy advocacy groups].
4. A disdainful dismissal of arguments to the contrary as either uninformed, irresponsible, or motivated by unworthy purposes [any suggestion that privacy concerns are being overblown and that most information-sharing is socially beneficial is dismissed out-of-hand].

Worse yet, regulatory intervention in these cases simply begets more and more intervention to correct the inevitable failures of, or dissatisfaction with, previous interventions.^[35] Thus, the “crisis” cycle never ends.

VI. Third-Person Effect Hypothesis as an Explanation

Something more profound than simple political elitism seems to be at work here, however. A phenomenon psychologists refer to as the “third-person effect hypothesis” can explain many calls for government intervention, especially in the media world.^[36] Simply stated, speech and privacy critics sometimes seem to only see and hear in media or communications what they want to see and hear—or what they don’t want to see or hear. When they encounter perspectives or preferences that are at odds with their own, they are more likely to be concerned about the impact of those things on others throughout society and come to believe that government must “do something” to correct those perspectives. Many people desire regulation because they think it will be good for others, not necessarily for themselves. The regulation they desire has a very specific purpose in mind: “re-tilting” speech or market behavior in their desired direction.

The third-person effect hypothesis was first formulated by W. Phillips Davison in a seminal 1983 article:

In its broadest formulation, this hypothesis predicts that people will tend to overestimate the influence that mass communications have on the attitudes and behavior of others. More specifically, individuals who are members of an audience that is exposed to a persuasive communication (whether or not this communication is intended to be persuasive) will expect the communication to have a greater effect on others than on themselves.^[37]

Davison used this hypothesis to explain how media critics on both the Left and Right seemed to simultaneously find “bias” in the same content or reports when they couldn’t possibly both be correct. In reality, their own personal preferences were biasing their ability to fairly evaluate that content. Davison’s article prompted further research by many other psychologists, social scientists, and public opinion experts to test just how powerful this phenomenon was in explaining calls for censorship and other social phenomena.^[38] In these studies, third-person effect has been shown to be the primary explanation for why many people fear—or even want to ban—various types of speech or expression, including news,^[39] misogynistic rap lyrics,^[40] television violence,^[41] video games,^[42] and pornography.^[43] In each case, the subjects surveyed expressed strong misgivings about allowing others to see or hear too much of the speech or expression in question, but greatly discounted the impact of that speech on themselves. Such studies thus reveal the strong paternalistic instinct behind proposals to regulate speech. As Davison notes:

Insofar as faith and morals are concerned… it is difficult to find a censor who will admit to having been adversely affected by the information whose dissemination is to be prohibited. Even the censor’s friends are usually safe from the pollution. It is the general public that must be protected. Or else, it is youthful members of the general public, or those with impressionable minds.^[44]

It’s easy to see how this same phenomenon is at work in debates about privacy. Regulatory advocates imagine their preferences are “correct” (right for everyone) and that the masses are being duped by external forces beyond their control or comprehension, even though the advocates themselves are somehow immune from the brain-washing and privy to some higher truth that the hoi polloi simply cannot fathom. Again, this is Sowell’s “Vision of the Anointed” at work.

Consider the flare-up in 2004 over the introduction of Gmail, Google’s free email service. At a time when Yahoo! mail (then as now the leading webmail provider) offered customers less than 10 megabytes of email storage, Gmail offered an astounding gigabyte of storage that would grow over time (now over 7 GB). Rather than charging some users for more storage or special features, Google paid for the service by showing advertisements next to each email “contextually” targeted to keywords in that email—a far more profitable form of advertising than “dumb banner” ads previously used by other webmail providers.^[45] Self-appointed (or, to extend Sowell’s framework, “self-anointed”) privacy advocates howled that Google was going to “read users’ email,” and led a crusade to ban such algorithmic contextual targeting.^[46] Thierer responded to these critics by pointing out that the service was purely voluntary and noted:

you don’t speak for me and a lot of other people in this world who will be more than happy to cut this deal with Google. So do us a favor and don’t ask the government to shut down a service just because you don’t like it. Privacy is a subjective condition and your value preferences are not representative of everyone else’s values in our diverse nation. Stop trying to coercively force your values and choices on others. We can decide these things on our own, thank you very much.^[47]

Interestingly, however, the frenzy of hysterical indignation about Gmail was followed by a collective cyber-yawn: Users increasingly understood that algorithms, not humans, were doing the “reading” and that, if they didn’t like it, they didn’t have to use it. Today, nearly 150 million of people around the world use Gmail, and it has a steadily growing share of the webmail market. Even though cyber-consumers have embraced the service, some privacy advocates persist in their effort to shut down Gmail. They appear determined to stop at nothing to impose their will on others—the essence of political elitism—even if that means cutting off free email service for 150 million people!^[48]

A similar debate has played out more recently regarding targeted online advertising in general. Advertising on search engines is, much like Gmail, targeted “contextually” based on search terms entered by users and most advertising on other websites is based on the nature of content on a site or page. But certain data is collected about users as they browse to make that advertising more effective—by measuring its performance, reducing fraud, preventing over-exposure, etc. Some privacy advocates have insisted that industry self-regulation of such practices (even if enforced by the FTC) is inadequate and have called for preemptive regulation. They are even more offended by “behavioral advertising” which allows publishers whose content would have little value as the basis for contextually targeting advertising on their own sites to compete for more highly valued advertising by showing ads to users based on other sites they’ve visited. In both cases, data collection can increase the funding available to publishers to produce more of the content and services preferred by users, thus conferring an enormous indirect benefit on users, but also directly benefits users by increasing the relevance of the advertising they see.^[49] For some of the more extreme advocates of privacy regulation, however, there are no trade-offs, only absolutist “solutions:” To them, privacy is so obviously desirable that they feel at ease in deciding what’s best for everyone else. Such absolutists often respond with righteous indignation and conspiratorial fulmination when challenged to identify the harm against which they’re protecting consumers, while disdainfully dismissing all talk of the benefits of online advertising as self-serving industry propaganda.^[50]

VII. The Principled Alternative: Trust People & Empower Them

There is an alternative to this elitist mentality: freedom and personal responsibility. Individuals should be permitted to live a life of their own, even if they sometimes make mistakes or choices that are at odds with what elites think is best for them. ^[51]

Of course, the world isn’t perfect. In an ideal world, adults would be fully empowered to tailor speech and privacy decisions to their own values and preferences. Specifically, in an ideal world, adults (and parents) would have (1) the information necessary to make informed decisions and (2) the tools and methods necessary to act upon that information. Importantly, those tools and methods would give them the ability to not only block the things they don’t like—objectionable content, annoying ads or the collection of data about them—while also finding the things they want.

Achieving that ideal is likely impossible, but the good news is that we are moving closer to it with each passing day. Citizens have more tools and methods at their disposal than ever before which enable them to make decisions for themselves and their families. And this is true for both parental controls ^[52] and privacy controls.^[53]

Of course, some speech and privacy elitists will argue that we can’t trust empowerment tools ( e.g., filters, rating systems, or other controls) that are created by companies or other affected parties. But rather than trying to enhance those tools and educate users about how to use them, these elitists skip right past user empowerment and channel their energies into regulations that would impose a top-down, one-size-fits all standard on all adults and families—or even into trying to craft the perfect “nudge” that will help users make what elites believe to be the “right” decisions. Of course, these tools can, and should, be improved. Those groups worried about speech/content and privacy issues should focus on how we might drive such protections from the bottom-up by empowering individuals instead of government bureaucrats. The goal in both cases should be a “let-a-thousand-flowers-bloom” approach, which offers diverse tools and strategies for our diverse citizenry.^[54] We need not accept “one-size-fits” all approaches, whether they be regulatory mandates or “nudges,” based on the presumption that elites know best.

Finally, it is vital not to lose sight of what’s ultimately at stake here. If regulatory approaches trump the empowerment agenda we have described, the future of a free and open Internet—indeed, as technology converges, the future of all media—is at risk.^[55] By imposing technological solutions from the top-down that can never keep pace with technological change, regulation necessarily forecloses freedom and innovation.^[56] By contrast, individual empowerment allows innovation to flourish. The better approach across the board is education, not regulation.^[57] Empowerment, not elitism, is the path forward. The digital elite should be leading this effort by developing and promoting technologies of empowerment, not crafting regulatory mandates to force their will upon us.^[58]

#

Adam Thierer is a Senior Fellow with The Progress & Freedom Foundation and the director of its Center for Digital Media Freedom. Berin Szoka  is a Senior Fellow with PFF and the Director of PFF’s Center for Internet Freedom.

[1] . William A. Henry, In Defense of Elitism (1995) at 2-3.

[2] . See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Congress, Content Regulation, and Child Protection: The Expanding Legislative Agenda, Progress Snapshot 4.4, Feb. 2008, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2008/ps4.4childprotection.html. Like American courts, we use the term “speech” as a broad catch-all for communications, including both actual speaking as well as other forms of transmitting, as well as receiving, information (“content”).

[3] . See generally Adam Thierer, Don’t Scapegoat Media, USA Today, Dec. 4, 2008, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2008/ps4.24scapegoatmedia.html; Marjorie Heins, Not in Front of the Children, “Indecency,” Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth (2001); Karen Sternheimer, It’s Not the Media: The Truth about Pop Culture’s Influence on Children (2003); Karen Sternheimer, Kids These Days: Facts and Fictions about Today’s Youth (2006).

[4] . See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, FCC Violence Report Concludes that Parenting Doesn’t Work, PFF Blog, Apr. 26, 2007, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2007/04/fcc_violence_re.html.

[5] . See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Sen. Rockefeller Gives Up on Parenting at Senate Violence Hearing, PFF Blog, June 26, 2007, blog.pff.org/archives/2007/06/sen_rockefeller_1.html.

[6] . Adam Thierer, Conservatives, Porn, and “Community Standards,” The Technology Liberation Front, March 2, 2009, http://techliberation.com/2009/03/02/conservatives-porn-and-community-standards.

[7] . Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Online Advertising & User Privacy: Principles to Guide the Debate, Progress Snapshot 4.19, Sept. 2008, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2008/ps4.19onlinetargeting.html.

[8] . Jeff Chester, for decades the great gadfly of American advertising, has decried “the system … developed to track each and every one of us and our behavior for one-on-one marketing efforts” as “manipulative, intrusive and un-democratic.” Wendy Melillo, Q&A: Chester Writes the Book on Privacy, Dec. 11, 2007, www.gfem.org/node/227. For instance, Chester and other leading “privacy advocates” ridicule the idea of smart phones as a “liberating technology” and insist that,

Despite the glowing words about customization and personalized service, what marketers and advertisers are increasingly offering consumers is merely the illusion of free choice. Mobile operators offer their various options and services, not on an individual basis, but preconfigured according to segmented demographic profiles.

Center for Digital Democracy and U.S. Public Interest Research Group, Complaint and Request for Inquiry and Injunctive Relief Concerning Unfair and Deceptive Mobile Marketing Practices, Jan. 13, 2009 (emphasis original), www.democraticmedia.org/files/FTCmobile_complaint0109.pdf. See generally Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?, Progress on Point 16.2, Feb. 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.2targetonlinead.pdf.

[9] . Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, COPPA 2.0: The New Battle over Privacy, Age Verification, Online Safety & Free Speech, Progress on Point 16.11, May 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.11-COPPA-and-age-verification.pdf.

[10] . The Supreme Court has used a “right to privacy” to strike down laws against the use of contraception by married couples, Griswold v Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and abortion, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[11] . Eugene Volokh, Freedom of Speech and Information Privacy: The Troubling Implications of a Right to Stop People From Speaking About You, 52 Stanford L. Rev. 1049 (2000), available at www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop7.15freedomofspeech.pdf.

[12] . See , Amicus Brief for Association Of National Advertisers, Cato Institute, Coalition For Healthcare Communication, Pacific Legal Foundation And The Progress & Freedom Foundation In Support Of Appellants, IMS Health v. Sorrell, No. 09-1913-cv(L), 09-2056-cv(CON) (2nd Cir. 2009), available at www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2009/071309-Brief-Amici-Curiae-ANA-et-al-Second-Circuit-(09-1913-cv).pdf.

[13] . See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Social Networking and Age Verification: Many Hard Questions; No Easy Solutions, Progress on Point No. 14.5, March 2007, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ pops/pop14.8ageverificationtranscript.pdf; www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.5ageverification.pdfAdam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Statement Regarding the Internet Safety Technical Task Force’s Final Report to the Attorneys General, Jan. 14, 2008, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/other/090114ISTTFthiererclosingstatement.pdf; Nancy Willard, Why Age and Identity Verification Will Not Work—And is a Really Bad Idea, Jan. 26, 2009, www.csriu.org/PDFs/digitalidnot.pdf; Jeff Schmidt, Online Child Safety: A Security Professional’s Take, The Guardian, Spring 2007, www.jschmidt.org/AgeVerification/Gardian_JSchmidt.pdf.

[14] . Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Mandatory Data Retention: How Much is Appropriate, PFF Blog, June 26, 2006, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2006/06/mandatory_data.html

[15] . Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Perils of Mandatory Parental Controls and Restrictive Defaults, Progress on Point 14.4, Apr. 11, 2008, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2008/pop15.4defaultdanger.pdf.

[16] . Adam Thierer, China’s Green Dam Filter and the Threat of Rising Global Censorship, PFF Blog, June 17, 2009, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/06/chinas_green_dam_filter_and_threat_of_rising_globa.html

[17] . They define choice architecture as follows: “A structure designed by a choice architect(s) to improve the quality of decisions made by homo sapiens. Often invisible, choice architecture is the specific user-friendly shape of an organization’s policy or physical building when homo sapiens come into contact with it. Examples of choice architecture include a voter ballot, a procedure for handling well-meaning people who forget a deadline, or a skyscraper.” Nudge Glossary of Terms, www.nudges.org/glossary.cfm.

[18] . Lawrence Lessig, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace (1999) at 6.

[19] . See Adam Thierer, Code, Pessimism, and the Illusion of “Perfect Control,” Cato Unbound, May 2009, www.cato-unbound.org/2009/05/08/adam-thierer/code-pessimism-and-the-illusion-of-perfect-control

[20] . See Solveig Singleton & Jim Harper, With A Grain of Salt: What Consumer Privacy Surveys Don’t Tell Us, 2001, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=299930.

[21] . As Cato Institute scholar Will Wilkinson has argued, the book’s “agreeably banal doctrine of choice-preserving helpfulness” blurs the lines between paternalism and libertarianism, and thus “the thrust of the conceptual renovation behind the term libertarian paternalism is to empower, not limit, political elites.” Why Opting Out Is No “Third Way,” Reason, October 2008, www.reason.com/news/show/128916.html. See also Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Sunstein’s “Libertarian Paternalism” is Really Just Paternalism, PFF Blog, April 7, 2008, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2008/04/sunsteins_liber.html.

[22] . See Robert Corn-Revere, “’Voluntary’ Self-Regulation and the Triumph of Euphemism,” in Rationales & Rationalizations: Regulating the Electronic Media (Robert Corn-Revere, ed., 1997), at 183-208.

[23] . Telecom Policy Report, Commission Settles Indecency Charges, But At What Cost?, June 30, 2004, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PJR/is_25_2/ai_n6091525.

[24] . See Adam Thierer, XM-Sirius, Regulatory Blackmail, and Diversity, June 17, 2008, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2008/06/xmsirius_regula.html.

[25] . See Comments of W. Kenneth Ferree on Implementation of Sirius-XM Merger Condition, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, MB Docket No. 07-57, March 30, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2009/033009siriusXMconditionfiling.pdf.

[26] . See Szoka & Adam Thierer, supra note 8 at 3.

[27] . See id. at 2.

[28] . Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995) at 5.

[29] . Alice Marwick, To Catch a Predator? The MySpace Moral Panic, First Monday, Vol. 13, No. 6-2, June 2008, www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2152/1966; Wade Roush, The Moral Panic over Social Networking Sites, Technology Review, Aug. 7, 2006, www.technologyreview.com/communications/17266; Anne Collier, Why Techopanics are Bad, Net Family News, April 23, 2009, www.netfamilynews.org/2009/04/why-technopanics-are-bad.html; Adam Thierer, Parents, Kids & Policymakers in the Digital Age: Safeguarding Against ‘Techno-Panics,’ Inside ALEC, July 2009, at 16-17, www.alec.org/am/pdf/Inside_July09.pdf; Adam Thierer, Progress & Freedom Foundation, Technopanics and the Great Social Networking Scare, PFF Blog, June 10, 2008, http://techliberation.com/2008/07/10/technopanics-and-the-great-social-networking-scare.

[30] . Supra note 13.

[31] . In the 109th Congress, former Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) introduced the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), which proposed a ban on social networking sites in public schools and libraries. DOPA passed the House of Representatives shortly thereafter by a lopsided 410-15 vote, but failed to pass the Senate. The measure was reintroduced just a few weeks into the 110th Congress by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), the ranking minority member and former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee. It was section 2 of a bill that Sen. Stevens sponsored titled the “Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act” (S. 49), but was later removed from the bill. See Declan McCullagh, Chat Rooms Could Face Expulsion, CNet News.com, July 28, 2006, http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6099414.html?part=rss&tag=6099414&subj=news.

[32] . See Emily Steel & Julia Angwin, MySpace Receives More Pressure to Limit Children’s Access to Site, Wall Street Journal, June 23, 2006, online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115102268445288250-YRxkt0rTsyyf1QiQf2EPBYSf7iU_20070624.html; Susan Haigh, Conn. Bill Would Force MySpace Age Check, Yahoo News.com, March 7, 2007, www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17502005.

[33] . See, e.g., Letter of Henry McMaster, Attorney General, South Carolina to Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Attorney General Roy Cooper Regarding Internet Safety Task Force (“ISTTF”) Report, January 14, 2009, www.scag.gov/newsroom/pdf/2009/internetsafetyreport.pdf

[34] . See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Video Games and “Moral Panic,” PFF Blog, Jan. 23, 2009, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/01/video_games_and_moral_panic.html ; Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Fact and Fiction in the Debate over Video Game Regulation, Progress Snapshot 13.7, March 2006, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf.

[35] . “All varieties of interference with the market phenomena not only fail to achieve the ends aimed at by their authors and supporters, but bring about a state of affairs which—from the point of view of their authors’ and advocates’ valuations—is less desirable than the previous state affairs which they were designed to alter. If one wants to correct their manifest unsuitableness and preposterousness by supplementing the first acts of intervention with more and more of such acts, one must go farther and farther until the market economy has been entirely destroyed and socialism has been substituted for it.” Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, at 858 (3rd ed. 1963) (1949).

[36] . See generally Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership (2005) at 119-123, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/books/050610mediamyths.pdf (Explaining how the third-person effect serves as a powerful explanation for the heated backlash that followed an FCC effort to moderately liberalize media ownership rules in 2003-04).

[37] . W. Phillips Davison, The Third-Person Effect in Communication, 47 Public Opinion Quarterly 1, Spring 1983, at 3.

[38] . For the best overview of third-person effect research, see Douglas M. McLeod, Benjamin H. Detenber, and William P. Eveland., Jr., Behind the Third-Person Effect: Differentiating Perceptual Processes for Self and Other, 51 Journal of Communication, Vol. 51, No. 4, 2001, at 678-695.

[39] . Vincent Price, David H. Tewksbury & Li-Ning Huang, Third-person Effects of News Coverage: Orientations Toward Media, Journalism & Mass Communications Quarterly, Vol. 74, at 525-540.

[40] . Douglas M. McLeod, William P. Eveland & Amy I. Nathanson, Support for Censorship of Violent and Misogynic Rap Lyrics: And Analysis of the Third-Person Effect, Communications Research, Vol. 24, 1997, at 153-174.

[41] . Hernando Rojas, Dhavan V. Shah, and Ronald J. Faber, For the Good of Others: Censorship and the Third-Person Effect, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Vol. 8, 1996, at 163-186.

[42] . James D. Ivory, Addictive, But Not For Me: The Third-Person Effect and Electronic Game Players’ Views Toward the Medium’s Potential for Dependency and Addiction, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Aug. 2002.

[43] . Albert C. Gunther, Overrating the X-rating: The Third-person Perception and Support for Censorship of Pornography, Journal of Communication, Vol. 45, No. 1, 1995, at 27-38

[44] . Supra note 37 at 14. Along these lines, a December 2004 Washington Post article documented the process by which the Parents Television Council, a vociferous censorship advocacy group, screens various television programming. One of the PTC screeners interviewed for the story talked about the societal dangers of various broadcast and cable programs she rates, but then also noted how much she personally enjoys HBO’s “The Sopranos” and “Sex and the City,” as well as ABC’s “Desperate Housewives.” Apparently, in her opinion, what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander! See Bob Thompson, Fighting Indecency, One Bleep at a Time, The Washington Post, Dec. 9, 2004, at C1, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49907-2004Dec8.html.

[45] . See Chris Anderson, Free: The Future of a Radical Price at 112-118 (2009).

[46] . See Letter from Chris Jay Hoofnagle, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Beth Givens, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, Pam Dixon, World Privacy Forum, to California Attorney General Lockyer, May 3, 2004, http://epic.org/privacy/gmail/agltr5.3.04.html.

[47] . See email from Adam Thierer to Declan McCullaugh on Politech Email discussion group, April 30, 2004, http://lists.jammed.com/politech/2004/04/0083.html (emphasis added).

[48] . See Complaint and Request for Injunction of the Electronic Privacy Information Center against Google, Inc., March 17, 2009, http://epic.org/privacy/cloudcomputing/google/ftc031709.pdf; see also Ryan Radia, Should the FTC Shut Down Gmail and Google Docs Because of an Already-Fixed Bug?, Technology Liberation Front Blog, March 18, 2009, http://techliberation.com/2009/03/18/should-the-ftc-shut-down-gmail-and-google-docs-because-of-an-already-fixed-bug/.

[49] . See Berin Szoka & Mark Adams, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, The Benefits of Online Advertising & the Costs of Regulation, PFF Working Paper, forthcoming.

[50] . Anti-advertising crusader Jeff Chester often resorts to questioning the motives of those who question whether his regulatory prescriptions would actually benefit consumers, see, e.g., http://techliberation.com/2009/06/17/behavioral-advertising-industry-practices-hearing-some-issues-that-need-to-be-discussed/#comment-11698840. See generally Jeff Chester, Digital Destiny: New Media and the Future of Democracy (2007).

[51] . “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily or mental and spiritual.” John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Penguin Classics, 1859, 1986) at 72.

[52] . Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection, Special Report, Version 4.0, Summer 2009, www.pff.org/parentalcontrols.

[53] . Adam Thierer, Berin Szoka & Adam Marcus, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Privacy Solutions, PFF Blog, Ongoing Series, http://blog.pff.org/archives/ongoing_series/privacy_solutions.

[54] . Comments of Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, In the Matter of Implementation of the Child Save Viewing Act; Examination of Parental Control Technologies for Video or Audio Programming; MB Docket No. 09-26, April 16, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2009/041509-%5bFCC-FILING%5d-Adam-Thierer-PFF-re-FCC-Child-Safe-Viewing-Act-NOI-(MB-09-26).pdf.

[55] . See Adam Thierer, FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment in the Information Age, Engage, Feb. 20, 2009, www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20090216_ThiererEngage101.pdf

[56] . “To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.” Friedrich von Hayek, “The Pretence of Knowledge,” in The Essence of Hayek, (Hoover Inst., 1984), at 276.

[57] . Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Two Sensible, Education-Based Legislative Approaches to Online Child safety, Progress Snapshot 3.10, Sept. 2007, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2007/ps3.10safetyeducationbills.pdf.

[58] . See, e.g., Berin Szoka, Google, CDT, Online Advertising & Preserving Persistent User Choice Across Ad Networks Through Plug-ins, Technology Liberation Front Blog, March 13, 2009, http://techliberation.com/2009/ 03/13/google-cdt-online-advertising-preserving-persistent-user-choice-across-ad-networks-through-plug-ins/.

The latest edition (Version 4.0) of my PFF special report on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods” is now up.  For those not familiar with the report, it explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education and media literacy efforts, and various other tools, methods, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety.  After evaluating that state of this market, I conclude: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”  Moreover, I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation.

Version 4.0 of the report is now over 250 pages long (up from 200 pages in Version 3.0) and it contains almost 70 exhibits (up from 50), 725 references (up from roughly 500), and numerous updates in all five sections of the book. Major updates have been made to the Internet, social networking, and mobile media sections, reflecting the growing importance of those sectors and issues. Other new sections or appendices have also been added to the report, including:

• a new section examining how many households really need parental control tools;
• a new appendix on the downsides of mandatory parental controls and restrictive default settings;
• a new section on the dangers of “deputizing the online middleman” solution as an approach to solving child safety concerns;
• a new appendix reviewing the findings of 5 past online safety task forces;
• … and much more.

I issue major updates once a year and 1 or 2 minor tweaks during the course of the year to reflect the evolution of the parental control and online child safety marketplace and debate. The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, and the previous editions of the report are housed there too in case you want to see how it has evolved over the past couple of years. For those interested in taking a quick look at the report, I have embedded it down below the fold as a Scribd file. Finally, as is always the case, I encourage readers to send me updates and suggestions for how to improve the report and I will incorporate them into future versions.

Facebook has been at the center of a controversy involving its moderation policies and The Pirate Bay, a popular Bittorrent tracker that was found guilty of copyright infringement by a Swedish court last month. Since early April, Facebook has enforced a “site-wide” ban on links to The Pirate Bay – including those in private messages.

This practice may run afoul of federal wiretapping statutes that bar service providers from “intercepting” private messages, according to an article that appeared on Wired Threat Level last week. Wired quotes Kevin Bankston, a senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who explains that Facebook’s filtering raises “serious questions about whether Facebook is in compliance with federal wiretapping law.”

It’s important to draw a distinction between the traditional notion of “wiretapping” and Facebook’s “interception” of user messages, which doesn’t involve any human intervention. Regardless of how the courts may interpret ancient laws like the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, an automated computer system flagging and deleting certain strings from user messages simply isn’t comparable to a third party secretly listening in on a private phone conversation.

Besides, Facebook makes clear to its users from the get-go that their messages and postings are subject to a set of rules (which Facebook lays out in plain English). If Facebook believes a message or posting is against the rules, it can block or remove it. This is not an unreasonable rule; many online discussion forums have enforced similar policies since the Web’s early days. Such filtering is possible only if sites can “examine” messages to identify misconduct.

Critics of Facebook’s filtering policies have rightly pointed out that even legal Pirate Bay links are being blocked. While this is a valid argument, it belongs on the feedback section of Facebook’s Site Governance page – not in a court of law. It isn’t the role of government to second-guess content judgments reached in good faith by social networking sites. Facebook must weigh a range of competing concerns in deciding how to cater to its hundreds of millions of diverse users. The same message that one user might consider “spammy” or malicious might be seen in a totally different light by another user. Add into the equation concerns over reputation and even potential copyright infringement liability, and it’s easy to see why Facebook has to make tough – and controversial – decisions all the time.

While I agree with Bankston that the legal ramifications of Facebook’s practices are far from clear, I’m concerned about the prospect of wiretapping laws being used against websites that moderate communications between users. If filtering Pirate Bay links from user messages constitutes illegal wiretapping, then it would seem that any social network or discussion forum that monitors and removes content from user-to-user communications would be in violation of federal law.

What would it mean for the Internet if websites were barred from moderating messages sent between users? AOL might not be able to “kids only” chat rooms; instant messaging services might be even more spam-ridden than they already are; and yoursphere, a social-networking site “just for kids,” likely wouldn’t even be able to exist.

Decisions about how to operate private online ecosystems are best left to individual firms competing in an open marketplace. Prohibiting website operators from moderating user messages may not bother people who don’t mind spam or porn (or Pirate Bay links), but what about people who desire a social network in which certain kinds of speech are off-limits?

One of the best aspects of the Web is that choices are abundant. If you don’t like one social networking site’s policies, you can go someplace else. Users can already send around links to Pirate Bay torrents through countless other social networking sites, email providers, and instant messaging services. Gmail, AIM, Ning, and Skype are just some examples of free online services that do not censor Pirate Bay links. Heck, if none of these options are satisfactory, you can even build your very own social network with free software like BoonEx and spread around all the Pirate Bay links you want.

I was reading this Sun Magazine interview with the always-interesting Nick Carr and I liked what he had to say here about the public’s inconsistent views on privacy:

If you ask people whether they’re concerned about the ability of the government or corporations to gather information about them online, they’ll say yes. But if you look at how they behave online, they don’t display much fear of exposing themselves. What that says about people — and it’s true for most of us — is that we will readily forgo our privacy in exchange for convenient and useful services, particularly if they’re free. That’s a trade-off you make all the time on the Internet. Even if people were more conscious of how this information might be exploited, I doubt most would change their behavior.

This reminds me of the classic “hamburgers for DNA” quip from security expert Bruce Schneier who once famously noted that:

If McDonalds in the United States would give away a free hamburger for an DNA sample they would be handing out free lunches around the clock. So people care about their privacy, but they don’t care to pay for it. In the United States we have frequent shopper cards, which will track down people’s purchases for a 5 cents discount on a can of tuna fish. I don’t think you can convince the public to care about it.

The key point here, as Berin Szoka and I noted in our recent paper on targeted online advertising, consumers vary widely in their attitudes towards the inherently nebulous concept of privacy. As our TLF colleague Jim Harper has demonstrated:

Privacy is a state of affairs or condition having to do with the amount of personal information about individuals that is known to others. People maintain privacy by controlling who receives information about them and on what terms. Privacy is the subjective condition that people experience when they have power to control information about themselves and when they exercise that power consistent with their interests and values. […] An important conclusion flows from the observation that privacy is a subjective condition: government regulation in the name of privacy is based only on politicians’ and bureaucrats’ guesses about what ‘privacy’ should look like.

In a nutshell, ask anyone if they care about their privacy and almost 100% of them will say, yes, absolutely. But then ask them about what they do both online and offline on a daily basis and most of them will reveal a very different set of preferences or values when it comes to what “protecting privacy” would mean in practice. That’s because privacy is, as Harper notes, a highly subjective condition, and that’s true even in a micro sense. We’re constantly making privacy trade-offs on the fly. Every time we enter a contest, sign up for a shopper discount card, enter absurd amounts of personal info on social networking sites, and so on, we are making privacy trade-offs. Sometimes we think them through carefully; other times we don’t. But most of the time people will trade away their supposed “privacy rights” in for even the most trivial things. A Big Mac, 5 cents off a can of tuna fish, or whatever else.

Online child safety — especially the fear of predators lurking on social networking sites (SNS) — continues to spur calls by state and federal lawmakers for regulation.  At first, some federal lawmakers advocated outright bans on SNS in schools and libraries via the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA).  Meanwhile, state and local lawmakers — specifically state Attorneys General (AGs) — have been even more vociferous in their calls for regulation in the form of mandatory age verification for social networking sites, which would cover a broad swath of online sites and activities according to their definitions of SNS. But the question that ultimately gets lost in this debate is: Just how much risk do social networking sites really pose for teens?  Which risks are real and which are overblown? And what’s the best way to deal with the risks that we find to be legitimate?

Nancy Willard devotes her life to answering those questions. Willard is one of America’s leading experts on online safety and risk prevention. She runs the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use and she is the author of two outstanding books, Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats and Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens.  In my opinion, Willard’s general approach to online child safety is the most enlightened, level-headed, and likely to be effective. That’s because Willard focuses on putting fears in perspective, identifying the actual risks that kids face online, and devising sensible strategies to deal with risks and problems as they are discovered. Her approach is holistic and built upon sound data, targeted risk-identification strategies, and time-tested education and mentoring methods. For my money, it’s the most sensible approach to online safety issues. In fact, when other parents ask me for “just one thing” to read on the topic, I usually recommend Willard’s work — especially her amazing book Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens. And her background in early childhood education, special education for “at risk” children with emotional and behavior difficulties, as well as experience in computer law, means she is uniquely suited to be analyzing these issues.  In sum, this is woman we should all be closely listening to on these issues.

Recently, Willard has been responding to criticisms that state AGs have leveled against the Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF) and its final report. [Disclaimer: I was a member of the ISTTF.] I’ve already outlined the ISTTF’s work at length here, but the three key takeaways from the report were that:

1. the risk of predation on social network sites has been over-stated; the data suggest that cyber-bullying is the bigger problem on SNS;
2. there is no silver-bullet technical solution to online child safety concerns, and mandatory age verification, in particular, would not make kids safer online but could even create bigger problems in the long-run;
3. education and empowerment are the real keys to keeping kids safer online.

The response from some state AGs to these findings was quite hostile, with some arguing that the ISTTF did not take online risks seriously enough, or that we relied on “outdated and inadequate” data in reaching our conclusions.  Willard addresses those arguments in a new white paper: “Research that is ‘Outdated and Inadequate?’ An Analysis of the Pennsylvania Child Predator Unit Arrests in Response to Attorney General Criticism of the Berkman Task Force Report.”  In this study, she analyzes data from arrest records from Pennsylvania’s Child Predator Unit to determine exactly how these individuals were operating online. Although it’s just one state’s worth of data — that’s all that seems to have been made publicly available in a single database at this time — it can give us a clue to what might be going on out there. The results are illuminating.

Here’s what Willard found:

The search yielded 143 responses. As noted by the Attorney General, 183 predators had been arrested. All of these arrests were described in the press releases dated from March 21, 2005 to January 13, 2009 – thus allowing for a full analysis of the arrests of sexual predators in the state Pennsylvania for the last 4 years by the Attorney General’s Child Predator Unit. The analysis of the arrests that involved predatory actions, excluding the arrests for child pornography, revealed the following:

• Only 8 incidents involved actual teen victims with whom the Internet was used to form a relationship.
  • In 4 of these incidents, teens or parents reported the contact. The other 4 cases were discovered in an analysis of the computer files of a predator who had been arrested in a sting operation. Five of the cases had led to inappropriate sexual contact. The other situations were discovered prior to any actual contact.
• There were 166 arrests as a result of sting activities where the predator contacted an undercover agent who was posing as a 12 – 14 year old, generally a girl.
  • The vast majority of the stings, 144, occurred in chat rooms. Eleven stings occurred through instant messaging. Nine of the arrests failed to specify the location, but the description bore significant similarity to the chat room incidents. One involved an advertisement that had been placed on Craig’s List.
  • There were only 12 reports of predators being deceptive about their age.
  • The descriptions of these chats incidents bear out what the research reviewed by the [ISTTF’s] Research Advisory Board found – that online predators are rarely deceptive about their interests.

Specifically,”Because the attorneys general have been focusing their attention on the social networking sites, MySpace and Facebook,” Willard made sure to give “special attention to any case that mentioned any activity occurring on either of these two sites.” Here’s what she found in that regard:

• One of the incidents involving an actual teen victim, communications took place on MySpace. This was a rearrest of a person who had already been arrested through a sting.
• A police officer who was arrested for sexual abuse of many teens with whom he had interacted with in the line of duty also had a MySpace account with friendship links to teen girl, but there was no assertion that these communications had led to sexual activity.
• One predator in a sting provided the agent with a link to his Facebook page.
• In 5 of the stings that took place in a chat room, reference was made to the fact that the predator had either looked at the teen’s MySpace account or suggested the teen look at his profile.

Importantly, Willard points out, “Despite the establishment of one or more public profiles on MySpace [by the PA Child Predator Unit], there has apparently not been one successful sting operation initiated on MySpace in the more than two years during which these sting profiles have been in existence.”

From these findings, Willard concludes that:

The insight gained through an analysis of the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s press releases on arrests for online sexual predation provide strong support for the validity of the conclusions of the Berkman Research Advisory Board and demonstrate the need for greater collaboration between law enforcement and researchers to address the actual risks to young people from sexual predators online.

In other words, the Pennsylvania data seem to confirm that predation is not as serious of a risk on SNS as some AGs had claimed. “It appears that chat rooms are far less safe than social networking sites and that there is limited inclination and ability of predators to use social networking sites to contact potential teen victims,” Willard notes. Consequently, she argues:

Attention must be paid to the obvious risks related to chat room communications, as well as the risk factors that are being manifested by the young people who may still be frequenting these chat rooms, especially the chat rooms where sexual relations are being discussed. It appears that rather than seek ways to discourage teens from participating in social networking sites, these sites are destinations that should be encouraged as much safe than the alternatives. A focus must be placed on improving the protective features of chat rooms that are frequented by minors.

We need to know more about which chat rooms are in question and why some youth visit those chat rooms. More importantly, how can we develop sensible messages for youth about the dangers of chat rooms that are targeted to adults and adult sexual activity?

But it is vitally important not to lose sight of the big picture here. As Willard summarizes it:

The incidents of online sexual predation are rare. Far more children and teens are being sexually abused by family members and acquaintances. It is imperative that we remain focused on the issue of child sexual abuse – regardless of how the abusive relationship is initiated.

Indeed, volumes of research on child abuse, child predation, and child abduction all point to this same conclusion: Your kids are actually more at risk from known acquaintances — especially family members — than they are from random strangers (including random strangers they might meet online).

Of course, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t continue to develop sensible educational messages for youth about proper online behavior and how to report legitimate problems or troubling interactions that they experience online. Again, Willard has done this elsewhere and many of us (including those of us involved in the Berkman Center task force) have long been pushing for increased resources for online safety education and media literacy efforts as the first, best step towards improving online youth safety. We need to get AGs and other policymakers to work together with us to get this important task started — now!

Finally, Willard correctly notes that the AGs and other law enforcement agencies need to be willing to release more data like the Pennsylvania AG did such that further analysis of this problem is possible. If the AGs’ primary complaint with the ISTTF report was that the data we used was somewhat dated, then the best solution to that problem is for the AGs and other law enforcement agencies to open up their records to the child safety community so that risk researchers like Willard can get a better feel for what’s going on out there and devise strategies to deal with it.  Unfortunately, there’s still too much horn-locking going on between these communities and, sadly, I think some AGs are using this issue to create an atmosphere of fear for political gain. We need to find ways to communicate actual risks — such as those that kids would face in some specific, adult-oriented chat rooms — without going overboard and making parents and the general public think that there’s a bogeyman on every cyber-corner of the Internet.

[ Further reading: As usual, my friend Anne Collier over at Net Family News.org has done a much better job summarizing an issue than I have. Read her discussion of Nancy Willard’s paper and its implications here.]

I haven’t been blogging much lately because, along with my PFF colleagues Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus, I’m working on a lengthy paper about the importance of Section 230 to Internet freedom. Section 230 is the sometimes-forgotten portion of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that shielded Internet Service Providers (ISP) from liability for information posted or published on their systems by users or other third parties. It was enshrined into law with the passage of the historic Telecommunications Act of 1996. Importantly, even though the provisions of the CDA seeking to regulate “indecent” speech on the Internet were struck down as unconstitutional, Sec. 230 was left untouched.

Section 230 of the CDA may be the most important and lasting legacy of the Telecom Act and it is indisputable that it has been remarkably important to the development of the Internet and online free speech and expression in particular. In many ways, Section 230 is the cornerstone of “Internet freedom” in its truest and best sense of the term.

In recent years, however, Sec. 230 has come under fire from some academics, judges, and other lawmakers. Critics raise a variety of complaints — all of which we will be cataloging and addressing in our forthcoming PFF paper. But what unifies most of the criticisms of Sec. 230 is the belief that Internet “middlemen” (which increasingly includes almost any online intermediary, from ISPs, to social networking sites, to search engines, to blogs) should do more to police their networks for potentially “objectionable” or “offensive” content. That could include many things, of course: cyberbullying, online defamation, harassment, privacy concerns, pornography, etc. If the online intermediaries failed to engage in that increased policing role, they would open themselves up to lawsuits and increased liability for the actions of their users.

The common response to such criticisms — and it remains a very good one — is that the alternative approach of strict secondary liability on ISPs and other online intermediaries would have a profound “chilling effect” on online free speech and expression. Indeed, we should not lose sight of what Section 230 has already done to create vibrant, diverse online communities. Brian Holland, a visiting professor at Penn State University’s Dickinson School of Law, has written a brilliant paper that does a wonderful job of doing just that. It’s entitled “In Defense of Online Intermediary Immunity: Facilitating Communities of Modified Exceptionalism” and it can be found on SSRN here. I cannot recommend it highly enough. It is a masterpiece. In the paper, Holland argues that Section 230 has helped give rise to our modern Web 2.0 world and that it “plays a vital role in [the] process of building heterogeneous communities that encourage collaborative production and communication.” Specifically, Holland argues that Sec. 230 immunity allows an online community:

to evolve and structure itself in the most efficient manner. To a limited extent, §230 immunity permits uncoordinated and uncoerced individual choice among different values and among different embodiments of those values. It further allows the intermediary to play an active role in facilitating the market in social norms and in creating enforcement mechanisms as a tool of self-governance. Those enforcement mechanisms can then themselves adapt. This allows not only for the development of distinct community values, but also for a means of tapping into incentives, adapting to evolving norms and conditions, and reducing costs associated with disputes. Within this framework, greater variations in community norms are possible. As communities grow, niche communities are formed at low cost. It… functions as a laboratory for testing social norms and values.

I think that is exactly right. Moreover, reading Professor Holland’s article got me thinking about something my favorite modern political philosopher, the late Harvard University philosophy professor Robert Nozick, said in his brilliant 1974 book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. In a sense, Section 230 and existing online liability norms have helped foster what Nozick called “a utopia of utopias.”

Because people are all complex and quite different from one another, Nozick argued that, “There is no reason to think that there is one community which will serve as ideal for all people and much reason to think there is not.” Consequently, as a normative matter, it would be preferable for government to allow spontaneous community formation such that individuals can pursue their own interests. Nozick elaborated in the closing chapter of his book as follows:

The conclusion to draw is that there will not be one kind of community existing and one kind of life led in utopia. Utopia will consist of utopias, of many different and divergent communities in which people lead different kinds of lives under different institutions. Some kinds of communities will be more attractive to most than others; communities will wax and wane. People will leave some for others or spend their whole lives in one. 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.

That last line almost perfectly encapsulates everything that is so wonderful about our modern Web 2.0 world. Netizens are free to pursue their own vision of a good life in a community of their choosing, free from centralized or coerced visions of what “a good life” should entail.

Web 2.0 is Nozick’s utopia of utopias, and Section 230 has been instrumental in fostering and protecting it. We shouldn’t forget that.

I’ve spent a lot of time in recent years trying to debunk various myths about online child safety or at least put those risks into perspective. Too often, press reports and public policy initiatives are being driven by myths, irrational fears, or unjustified “moral panics.”  Luckily, the New York Times reports that there’s another study out this week that helps us see things in a more level-headed light. This new MacArthur Foundation report is entitled Living and Learning with New Media: Summary of Findings from the Digital Youth Project. This white paper is a summary of three years of research on kids’ informal learning with digital media. The survey incorporates the insights from 800 youth and young adults and over 5000 hours of online observations. The information will eventually be contained in a book from MIT Press (“Hanging Out, Messing Around, Geeking Out: Living and Learning with New Media.”)

From the summary of the study on the MacArthur website:

“It might surprise parents to learn that it is not a waste of time for their teens to hang out online,” said Mizuko Ito, University of California, Irvine researcher and the report’s lead author. “There are myths about kids spending time online – that it is dangerous or making them lazy. But we found that spending time online is essential for young people to pick up the social and technical skills they need to be competent citizens in the digital age.”

Importantly, regarding the concerns many parents and policymakers have about online predation, Ms. Ito told the New York Times that, “Those concerns about predators and stranger danger have been overblown.” “There’s been some confusion about what kids are actually doing online. Mostly, they’re socializing with their friends, people they’ve met at school or camp or sports.”

In the report, according to the summary, the researchers “identified two distinctive categories of teen engagement with digital media: friendship-driven and interest-driven. While friendship-driven participation centered on “hanging out” with existing friends, interest-driven participation involved accessing online information and communities that may not be present in the local peer group.” The specific findings of the study are as follows:

• There is a generation gap in how youth and adults view the value of online activity.
  • Adults tend to be in the dark about what youth are doing online, and often view online activity as risky or an unproductive distraction.
  • Youth understand the social value of online activity and are generally highly motivated to participate.
• Youth are navigating complex social and technical worlds by participating online.
  • Young people are learning basic social and technical skills that they need to fully participate in contemporary society.
  • The social worlds that youth are negotiating have new kinds of dynamics, as online socializing is permanent, public, involves managing elaborate networks of friends and acquaintances, and is always on.
• Young people are motivated to learn from their peers online.
  • The Internet provides new kinds of public spaces for youth to interact and receive feedback from one another.
  • Young people respect each other’s authority online and are more motivated to learn from each other than from adults.
• Most youth are not taking full advantage of the learning opportunities of the Internet.
  • Most youth use the Internet socially, but other learning opportunities exist.
  • Youth can connect with people in different locations and of different ages who share their interests, making it possible to pursue interests that might not be popular or valued with their local peer groups.
  • “Geeked-out” learning opportunities are abundant – subjects like astronomy, creative writing, and foreign languages.

These findings are consistent with the much of the existing research already out there about online youth behavior and Internet interactions. As I have mentioned here before, over the past year, I have been serving on the Internet Safety Technical Task Force (ISTTF), which was formed following a January 2008 agreement between social networking website operator MySpace.com and 49 state Attorneys General. As part their “Joint Statement on Key Principles of Social Networking Safety,” MySpace promised the AGs it would expand online safety tools, improve education efforts, and expand its cooperation with law enforcement. Importantly, they also agreed to create the ISTTF to study online safety issues and technologies.

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School was tapped to run the ISTTF, and the Task Force included a wide diversity of child safety groups, non-profit organization, and Internet companies. During a session the Task Force held in Washington, DC on April 30th, we heard from several of the nation’s top researchers in the field of online child safety. The presentations were quite enlightening and the videos of the sessions — as well as supporting materials — have all been posted on a special Berkman Center website. I just wanted to share all of those links with you here so that you have access to these wonderful materials. As you will see, they tell the same story the new MacArthur report does: Almost everything the press and policymakers have told us about online child actions and safety has been wrong.

Anyway, read (or watch) for yourself and decide. (P.S. When the final ISTTF report comes out later this year, it will include a massive compendium of all the relevant surveys and academic research done in this field. It will be the definitive treatment of the issue. An early draft is online here. I will post the final link here once the Task Force wraps up.)

April 30, 2008 – ISTTF Child Online Safety Expert Panel

• Teens OnlineStranger Contact and Cyberbullying: What research is telling us Amanda Lenhart, Pew Internet & American Life Project Presentation in .pdf video
• Youth & Law Enforcement Surveys Janis Wolak, Crimes against Children Research Center Presentation in .pdf video
• Social networking sites, unwanted sexual solicitation, Internet harassment, and cyberbullying Michele Ybarra, Internet Solutions for Kids, Inc. Presentation in .pdf video
• Panel Q&A video
• Further reading
  • 1 in 7 Youth: The Statistics about Online Sexual Solicitations
  • Online “Predators” and Their Victims: Myths, Realities, and Implications for Prevention and Treatment
  • Internet Safety Education for Teens: Getting It Right
  • Internet Prevention Messages: Targeting the Right Online Behaviors
  • Teens, Stranger Contact & Cyberbullying
  • How Risky Are Social Networking Sites?
  • Updated Trends in Child Maltreatment, 2006

See my take on the election and the prospects for capitalism in today’s Wall Street Journal:

If Barack Obama ran for president by calling for a heavier hand of government, he also won by running one of the most entrepreneurial campaigns in history. Will he now grasp the lesson his campaign offers as he crafts policies aimed at reigniting the national economy? Amid a recession, two wars, and a global financial crisis, will he come to see that unleashing the entrepreneur is the best way to raise the revenue he needs for his lofty priorities?

Just FYI, the latest update of my booklet on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods” is now live. The new version, Version 3.1, provides minor updates to all sections of the book and a new appendix of relevant research in the field. I issue major updates early each year and 1 or 2 tweaks during the course of the year to reflect the evolution of the parental control and online child safety market and debate.

For those not familiar with the report, it explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education efforts, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety. I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As I conclude after evaluating that state of the market: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”

The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, and the previous editions of the report are housed there too in case you want to see how it has evolved over the past two years. For those interested in taking a quick look at the report, I have embedded it down below the fold as a Scribd file. Finally, as is always the case, I encourage readers to send me updates and suggestions for how to improve the report and I will incorporate them into future versions.

John Markoff had an interesting article in the New York Times this weekend entitled “Internet Traffic Begins to Bypass the U.S..” In the piece, Markoff notes that “The era of the American Internet is ending” since “data is increasingly flowing around the United States,” instead of all flowing though our country, as it once did. Markoff focuses on how that “may have intelligence — and conceivably military — consequences.” Indeed, it may. But what I also found interesting about this fact is the implications it will have for the future of content regulation. As Harvard’s Yochai Benkler told the Times, “This is one of many dimensions on which we’ll have to adjust to a reduction in American ability to dictate terms of core interests of ours.” Content controls are one way that lawmakers enforce what they perceive to be a country’s “core interests.” As less and less Internet traffic flows through the U.S., it could become increasingly difficult for American lawmakers to impose their particular vision or morality on the Internet.

And that’s both good and bad news.

That’s good news when we consider the ways in which American lawmakers might look to restrict online speech and commerce. For example: regulation of speech on social networking sites, or efforts to regulate online gambling. Our lawmakers shouldn’t be regulating those things, and as more traffic moves offshore, it might make it more difficult for them to do so. I discussed this point at greater length in my essay about the book I never finished: “The End of Censorship: The Future of Content Controls in a World of Media Convergence.”

But that is also bad news in the sense that, relatively speaking, the United States is a stronger defender of online free speech and commerce than most other countries on this planet. As more and more Net traffic begins to flow through other countries and continents, it may become more somewhat easier for repressive states to exert undue influence over the Web.

Then again, it may be the case that the game of regulatory whack-a-mole just becomes more challenging for those countries as well even as a greater percentage of traffic flows across their borders.

What do you think? Will less Net traffic flowing through the U.S. hurt or help the cause of online free speech and global commerce?

A few days ago, I posted an essay about the recent history of “moral panics,” or “technopanics,” as Alice Marwick refers to them in her brilliant new article about the recent panic over MySpace and social networking sites in general.

I got thinking about technopanics again today after reading the Washington Post’s front-page article, “When the Phone Goes With You, Everyone Else Can Tag Along.” In the piece, Post staff writer Ellen Nakashima discusses the rise of mobile geo-location technologies and services, which are becoming more prevalent as cell phones grow more sophisticated. These services are often referred to as “LBS,” which stands for “location-based services.”

Many of phones and service plans offered today include LBS technologies, which are very useful for parents like me who might want to monitor the movement of their children. Those same geo-location technologies can be used for other LBS purposes. Geo-location technologies are now being married to social networking utilities to create an entirely new service and industry: “social mapping.” Social mapping allows subscribers to find their friends on a digital map and then instantly network with them. Companies such as Loopt and Helio have already rolled out commercial social mapping services. Loopt has also partnered with major carriers to roll out its service nationwide, including the new iPhone 3G. It is likely that many other rivals will join these firms in coming months and years.

These new LBS services present exciting opportunities for users to network with friends and family, and it also open up a new world of commercial / advertising opportunities. Think of how stores could offer instantaneous coupons as you walk by their stores, for example. And very soon, you can imagine a world were many of our traditional social networking sites and services are linked into LBS tools in a seamless fashion. But as today’s Washington Post article notes, mobile geo-location and social mapping is also raising some privacy concerns:

what many users may not realize is that by sharing this information, they are creating often permanent records that can tell not only wireless providers, but also social networking sites, other users, and potentially law enforcement and civil attorneys every place they are and have been, as long as their phone and tracking device are on.

My friend Jim Dempsey of Center for Democracy & Technology was also quoted in the WP story raising additional concerns:

“How easy is it for the user to turn the location function on and off, and how easy it is for the user to delete past location information?” he said. “What are the companies collecting? Who are they sharing it with? How long do they store it? And what control does the consumer have over the information? These are the fundamental questions.” The wireless industry, through CTIA The Wireless Association, has issued guidelines for location-based services that stress consumer notice and consent and data security. But, Dempsey said, self-regulation is only part of the solution. What is needed, he said, is baseline federal legislation covering all firms that collect personal electronic data.

Moreover, when child safety advocates become more aware of this technology, you can imagine some of the other types of bogeyman scenarios that some people will conjure up: stalkers, jealous boyfriends, predators, etc, etc. So, I don’t think I’m going out on too much of limb here when I predict that mobile geo-location and social mapping will become America’s next great technopanic.

But before the hysteria begins, let’s step back and try to take a level-headed look at this issue and understand why we likely don’t have as much to fear as some privacy advocates or child safety advocates might suggest.

First, no one is forcing you to buy the phones equipped with LBS or purchase / download these technologies! These tools are luxuries that we are blessed to have at our disposal. These technologies are barely out of the cradle and we already have people hinting that preemptive regulation might be necessary based merely on hypothetical fears. That’s a recipe for destroying innovation.

Second, if you do choose to use LBS services, you will obviously first need to own a mobile phone. That means you pay money for that phone and a monthly plan. To the extent, therefore, this becomes a child safety issue, we have a very important tool for parents in place right up front: the power of the purse. As I have written in my book on parental controls and online child safety (p. 33), when media and communications technologies cost good money—and cell phones and mobile data plans certainly do!—parents have a very important additional check on the child’s media exposure or interactive communication capabilities. In the case of LBS, parents can first decide if they want to buy their kids phones with those technologies. If they do, then they will also be able to monitor and manage usage of such tools by keeping a close tab on the monthly statements. After all, the kids don’t pay the bills! Mom and Dad do.

Third, just as is the case with other child safety and privacy-based technopanics (social networking, Gmail, etc) the likely harm is being greatly over-stated and self-help tools and controls are being completely ignored. In this case, even if you do choose to purchase or use these services, you must take active steps to share your information to others.

Consider how Loopt works. Luckily, I have had the opportunity to play with the Loopt service and learn more about it. It’s very cool. But what really impresses me about Loopt is how the company has layered on safety and security controls. Loopt has put together a slick “privacy & security” website that summarizes the advice they give their customers. The best part about it is the “Be Safe Guide” that offers sensible guidance for safe and responsible use of this new technology. Loopt stresses that you should only open your network and share location-based information with a close circle of friends. And Loopt encourages users to confirm phone numbers with other users after they have open up their network to others. Because Loopt is a closed, private network, this process means it would be very difficult for privacy violations of any sort to occur. Here’s how they describe it:

To initiate a friend-request (or contact other users in any way), a subscriber must already know the other user’s mobile phone number. Even when a friendship request is successfully sent, the prospective friend must consent as well to a reciprocal “friendship connection” before any location sharing will occur. In other words, Loopt users only see where their established friends are, not strangers. Loopt is not an “open” social network and does not offer any browsing or searching of full profiles by non-friends.

And Loopt doesn’t retain all that “location history” over an extended period; just the most recent locational position such that users can connect when they want. So, in light of these many layers of protection, it is difficult for me to see how anyone can raise privacy concerns about how Loopt works.

Of course, it is true that there will be other rivals to Loopt in coming years, and they might have somewhat different policies or procedures. But remember three things:

First, the industry as a whole has been working together to develop a set of best practices on this front. As part of their effort to create and refine their “Wireless Content Guidelines,” the CTIA, the wireless industry’s trade association, has worked with its member companies to create privacy and safety guidelines for this emerging industry sector.

Second, the combination of that industry self-regulation and vigilant oversight / pressure from privacy groups and industry watchdogs will put enormous pressure on LBS providers to make sure they take steps to protect user privacy / safety. Consumers will come to expect a certain baseline level of privacy and security based on industry leaders like Loopt. Those who ignore the wishes of consumers will have hell to pay in the marketplace. And bad PR or grief from all those privacy and child safety advocates will be a real killer for LBS providers who don’t craft and enforce sensible policies.

Third, self-help tools exist that can help users (or parents) take additional steps to protect privacy. And consumer education / safety awareness efforts for younger users is increasing. I talk at length about those efforts in my book. While LBS providers certainly should take steps to help consumers protect privacy, personal responsibility has to play a role here too. We shouldn’t be rejecting every new innovation that hits the market just because there is some potential theoretical downside or some way that consumers could really screw up and do something stupid with it. People have to be responsible. And self-help tools are flourishing to help consumers protect their privacy in many different contexts. Just as those self-help tools represent a better, less-restrictive way of dealing with concerns about media content, so too do they offer a superior way of dealing with privacy concerns. (I often wonder why it is that some of the free speech groups out there defend the existence of such tools as the “less-restrictive means” of protecting children as compared to speech-stifling regulations, but when it comes to privacy regulation they never bother to mention those same self-help tools and methods. What gives? If the tools represent the better alternative to regulation in the free speech context then why not also in the privacy context?? It makes no sense to me, and in an upcoming PFF report, Berin Szoka and I are going to be discussing this issue at much greater length.)

Regardless, and in conclusion, before people go making a mountain out of a molehill and creating a technopanic around LBS and services like Loopt, I do hope they take a deep breath and consider these facts before they rush to regulate this exciting new technology and emerging industry sector.

Sean Garrett of the 463 Blog posted an excellent essay this week about the great moral panic of 1995, when Time magazine ran its famous cover “Cyberporn” story that included this unforgettable image. Unfortunately for Time, the article also included a great deal of erroneous information about online pornography that was pulled from a bogus study that found 83.5 percent of all online images were pornographic! The study was immediately debunked by scholars, but not before Congress rushed to judgment and passed the Communications Decency Act, which sought to ban all “indecent” online content. It was later struck down as unconstitutional, of course.

Anyway, Sean’s essay also brought to my attention this amazing new article by Alice Marwick, a PhD Candidate in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University: “To Catch a Predator? The MySpace Moral Panic“. The topic of “moral panics” is something I have done quite a bit of work on, but Marwick’s paper is absolute must-reading on the topic, especially as it pertains to the recent moral panic of MySpace and social networking sites. She sets forth a theory of “techopanics” based on earlier research about moral panics. Here are some nuggets from her gem of paper:

This paper is about moral panics over contemporary technology, which I call “technopanics.” I use two examples, the cyberporn panic of 1996 and the contemporary panic over online predators and MySpace, to demonstrate the links between media coverage and content legislation. In both cases, Internet content legislation is directly linked to media–fueled moral panics that concern uses of technology deemed harmful to children. This is of particular interest right now as a new Internet content bill, the Deleting Online Predators Act (DOPA), is being debated in Congress. The technopanic over “online predators” is remarkably similar to the cyberporn panic; both are fueled by media coverage, both rely on the idea of harm to children as the justification for Internet content restriction, and both have resulted in carefully crafted legislation to circumvent First Amendment concerns. While both panics have their roots in legitimate concerns, I am not primarily concerned with the extent of the purported harms. However, my research demonstrates that the legislation proposed (or passed) to curb these problems is an extraordinary response; it is misguided and in many cases masks the underlying problem.

She goes on to articulate her “theory of technopanics”:

The technopanic is an attempt to contextualize the moral panic as a response to fear of modernity as represented by new technologies. […] Technopanics have the following characteristics. First, they focus on new media forms, which currently take the form of computer–mediated technologies. Second, technopanics generally pathologize young people’s use of this media, like hacking, file–sharing, or playing violent video games. Third, this cultural anxiety manifests itself in an attempt to modify or regulate young people’s behavior, either by controlling young people or the creators or producers of media products.

She builds upon the work of other “moral panic” scholars, such as Erich Goode and Nachman Ben-Yehuda, who “specif[ied] three particular models of moral panic causality: grassroots, elite–engineered, and interest group.”

The first model presumes that public, grassroots anxiety over social stresses (new technologies, social changes, and so on) is mapped to a particular group which serves as a scapegoat. In the second model, elites or incumbents, including government actors, the wealthy, or socially influential persons, strategically create a moral panic to divert attention from social problems, in essence creating a distraction. In the third model, moral crusades by special interest groups, such as activist groups, community organizers or non–profits give unintentional rise to moral panics.

Sound familiar? It should. This is exactly what is going on in the debate over social networking with various media reports and regulatory-minded activists groups spinning horror stories about the “evils” that will befall our society if we let our children communicate online. As Marwick concludes:

the furor over MySpace is disproportionate to the amount of harm produced by the site. Indeed, the furor over online predators seems also to be disproportionate. Rather than focusing on nebulous “predators,” it seems that parents, teachers, and social workers should emphasize identifying and preventing abuse in specific, local community settings. This fits Goode and Ben–Yehuda’s model of moral panics.

And finally, in conclusion, she argues that:

The Deleting Online Predators Act is not a remedy for any of the concerns discussed in this paper and should not be considered a viable legal solution. First, while online predators do not represent an epidemic or socially significant problem, child pornography and child abuse are important social issues that require attention. However, they are not caused by minors using MySpace, and preventing children from using social networking sites will do nothing to end these problems. Second, the media should attend to their social responsibility when covering technology. While new discoveries almost always have both benefits and disadvantages, breathless negative coverage of technology frightens parents, prevents teenagers from learning responsible use, and fuels panics, resulting in misguided or unconstitutional legislation. Third, teenagers should be encouraged in their use of technology. Technological skills are advantageous both in terms of social capital and job prospects, and we should promote technological knowledge among young people rather than discouraging it. Finally, parents should work with their teens to teach responsible Internet surfing habits. Prohibiting teens from using MySpace will not prevent them from using the site, and instead will dissuade them from talking about any problems that occur. Taking a nuanced, informed, and gradual approach to the social integration of new technologies will do more to lessen harm and improve responsible user practice than a panicked, emotional response. DOPA, unfortunately, is an example of the latter.

Marwick’s essay is a masterpiece. I strongly encourage you to read every word of it. As I have noted in my book on parental controls and online child safety, we must break this endless cycle of moral panics and learn the importance of talking to our kids in an open, loving and understanding fashion about the realities of the world. And we must do so in a rational, level-headed fashion and be guided by the facts, not fanaticism.

Via ParisLemon… Here’s a really outstanding (albeit somewhat vulgar) slide show about the increasing importance of social media and how social networking is profoundly changing the way we humans communicate. Some great stats in there.

http://static.slideshare.net/swf/ssplayer2.swf?doc=whatthefissocialmedia070208-1215026815612657-8

| View | Upload your own

Wendy Tanaka of Forbes penned a nice article this week on “Making Social Sites Safer,” as in social networking sites. She interviews many members of the new Internet Safety Technical Task Force that is being chaired by John Palfrey of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. Wendy was also kind enough to call me for some comments.

Wendy wanted to know how far technology could go to solve online safety concerns. Specifically, as she notes in her piece, “The discussions have centered on whether identity technologies can make social sites safer, or whether consumer education works best. State attorneys general believe more technological solutions are necessary, but some task force members contend that identity technologies on the market aren’t adequate. And even if they were better, they likely can’t prevent every unwanted incident and they could block contact between friends and relatives.”

On that point, I told her that, even if the age verification technology worked as billed (and I have my doubts), we’d have other issues to grapple with:

“So, if he’s 16 and she’s 21, they shouldn’t talk? Maybe they’re brother and sister,” says Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Thierer also says that too many checks and restrictions could turn off users and hamper advertising on social networks. “There’s only so far the sites can go before undermining their business and cutting off their customer base,” he says. “At some point, it becomes an annoyance for users.”

What I meant by that is that there is a balance that must be struck between security and freedom on social networking sites because, if lawmakers (or even the site operators themselves) push too far and add too many layers of controls, their could be adverse consequences. In particular, users could flock elsewhere, including to offshore sites that have no safety guidelines or mechanisms in place. That would be a troubling outcome that could leave site users far less safe in the long-run. As I have pointed out in my big paper, “Social Networking and Age Verification: Many Hard Questions; No Easy Solutions,“Whatever their concerns are about current domestic sites, parents and policy makers should understand that those sites are generally more accountable and visible than offshore sites over which we have virtually no influence but that have the same reach as domestic sites.”

Moreover, we need to be aware of the privacy and speech-related issues that arise when governments seek for force users to surrender the online anonymity. I have written more extensively about that issue in my essay here on “Age Verification and Death of Online Anonymity.”

Finally, as I told Wendy, there is no substitute for education and awareness-building efforts as the real solution to these problems. “There are no easy technical fixes for complex human behavioral problems,” I told her. “We need to teach kids ‘Netiquette.’ ” That is, we need to do a better job teaching our kids proper online manners toward their peers while also making sure they understand what risks are out there and how best to deal with them.

Anyway, make sure to read Wendy’s Forbes article for additional insights from other Task Force members.

The debate over social networking safety is increasingly tied up with the question of whether (and how) users should be authenticated before they are allowed onto a social networking site, however that term of art is defined. Age verification proposals have been flying for the last two years that would use a variety of approaches to determine the age / identity of users. [I have discussed those proposals in detail here.]

So, when I heard the news that the Catholic church “will set up a Catholic social networking Web site akin to a Catholic Facebook” so that Pope Benedict can text message thousands of young Catholics on their mobile phones during World Youth Day in Sydney, Australia this July, I just couldn’t help but wonder if the Pope and all the site’s users will be required to somehow have their identities or ages verified before they go online?

I’m being entirely serious. If anyone has information on how the site will work and whether the Church plans to use identity screening mechanisms, please let me know. I try to keep tabs on how each social networking site polices their site for underage or inappropriate use. I am personally quite skeptical that most current approaches can work effectively, but I am always willing to learn more about new tools and techniques.

PFF has just releasing an updated edition of my booklet on “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods.” The new version, Version 3.0, includes two new appendixes and updates to each section to reflect new parental control tools and programs developed in the last nine months.

The updated report is timely as it comes on the heels of the recently-announced Internet Safety Technical Task Force, which is being chaired by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. I am privileged to serve as a member of the Task Force, which is evaluating various online safety technologies and strategies and then reporting back to state attorneys general with our findings.

Those issues and much more are covered in the latest edition of my report. The report explores the market for parental control tools, rating schemes, education efforts, and initiatives aimed at promoting online child safety. I believe that the parental controls and content management tools cataloged in the report represent a better, less restrictive alternative to government regulation. As I conclude after evaluating that state of the market: “There has never been a time in our nation’s history when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help them decide what constitutes acceptable media content in their homes and in the lives of their children.”

Version 3.0 of the special report, now over 200 pages, contains over fifty exhibits and numerous updates in all five sections of the book. Major updates have been made to the Internet, social networking, and mobile media sections, reflecting the growing importance of those sectors and issues. A greatly expanded section on video empowerment technologies has also been included. Finally, two appendices have also been added: a comprehensive legislative index cataloging over thirty bills introduced in Congress on these issues (complied with John Morris of Center for Democracy & Technology), and a glossary of 35 relevant terms and cases.

The report is available free-of-charge on the PFF website, as are the previous editions. And I am happy to provide hard copies to those who are interested.

The Financial Times posted an article this week about the ongoing push by state attorneys general to impose age verification regulation on social networking sites and followed it up with an outstanding editorial entitled “Out of MySpace.” They note:

Age verification… just will not work. The practical problems are considerable. Fourteen-year-olds do not have drivers’ licences and credit cards that can be checked via established agencies. The sites could insist on verifying the parents, but anyone who believes that a teenager will not “borrow” his father’s Visa has never been 14 years old. The consequences of successful age verification, meanwhile, would be even worse. Minors would be driven off mainstream sites such as MySpace and Facebook and on to unaccountable offshore alternatives or the chaos of newsgroups and minor bulletin boards. There they would be far more vulnerable than on MySpace, which now makes efforts to keep tabs on its users.

That’s exactly right and it very much follows what I have found in my own research. If you’re interested, check out my paper “Social Networking and Age Verification: Many Hard Questions; No Easy Solutions,” as well the transcript of an event I hosted in March on “Age Verification for Social Networking Sites: Is it Possible? Is it Desirable?”

As I wrote about here, the last big showdown in the states took place in North Carolina in July. But it won’t be the last.

PFF has just released my latest paper entitled “Parental Control Perfection? The Impact of the DVR and VOD Boom on the Debate over TV Content Regulation.” In the report, I focus on the extent to which new video technologies, such as digital video recorders (DVRs) and video on demand (VOD) services, are changing the way households consume media and are helping parents better tailor viewing experiences to their tastes and values. I provide evidence showing the rapid spread of these technologies and discuss how parents are using these tools in their homes. Finally, I argue that these developments will have profound implications for debates over the regulation of video programming. As parents are given the ability to more effectively manage their family’s viewing habits and experiences, it will lessen—if not completely undercut—the need for government intervention on their behalf.

This 16-page report can be found at: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop14.20DVRboomcontentreg.pdf