This weekend, The Wall Street Journal ran my short letter to the editor entitled, “We Can Protect Children and Keep the Internet Free.” My letter was a response to columnist Peggy Noonan’s April 9 oped, “Can Anyone Tame Big Tech?” in which she proposed banning everyone under 18 from all social-media sites. She specifically singled out TikTok, Youtube, and Instagram and argued “You’re not allowed to drink at 14 or drive at 12; you can’t vote at 15. Isn’t there a public interest here?”

I briefly explained why Noonan’s proposal is neither practical nor sensible, noting how it:

would turn every kid into an instant criminal for seeking access to information and culture on the dominant medium of their generation. I wonder how she would have felt about adults proposing to ban all kids from listening to TV or radio during her youth. Let’s work to empower parents to help them guide their children’s digital experiences. Better online-safety and media-literacy efforts can prepare kids for a hyperconnected future. We can find workable solutions that wouldn’t usher in unprecedented government control of speech.

Let me elaborate just a bit because this was the focus of much of my writing a decade ago, including my book, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods, which spanned several editions. Online child safety is a matter I take seriously and the concerns that Noonan raised in her oped have been heard repeatedly since the earliest days of the Internet. Regulatory efforts were immediately tried. They focused on restricting underage access to objectionable online content (as well as video games), but were immediately challenged and struck down as unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on free speech and a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But practically speaking, most of these efforts were never going to work anyway. There was almost no way to bottle up all the content flowing in the modern information ecosystem without highly repressive regulation, and it was going to be nearly impossible to keep kids off the Internet altogether when it was the dominant communications and entertainment medium of their generation. The first instinct of every moral panic wave–from the waltz to comic books to rock or rap music to video games–has often been to take the easy way out by proposing sweeping bans on all access by kids to the content or platforms of their generation. It never works.

Nor should it. There is a huge amount of entirely beneficial speech, content, and communications that kids would be denied by such sweeping bans. That would make such ban highly counter-productive. But, again, usually such efforts just were not practically enforceable because kids are often better at the cat-and-mouse game than adults give them credit for. Moreover, imposing age limitations of speech or content are far more difficult than age-related bans on specific tangible products, like tobacco or other dangerous physical products.

Acknowledging these realities, most sensible people quickly move on from extreme proposals like flat bans of all kids using the popular media platforms and systems of the day. Over the past half century in the U.S., this has led to a flowering of more decentralized governance approach to kids and media that I have referred to as the “3E approach.” That stands for empowerment (of parents), education (of youth), and enforcement (of existing laws). The 3E approach includes a variety of mechanisms and approaches, including: self-regulatory codes, private content rating systems, a wide variety of different parental control technologies, and much more.

Over the past two decades, many multistakeholder initiatives and blue-ribbon commissions were created to address online safety issues in a holistic fashion. I summarized their conclusions in my 2009 report, “Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree: Education, Empowerment & Self-Regulation Are the Answer.” The crucial takeaway from all these task forces and commissions is that no silver-bullet solutions exist to hard problems. Child safety demands a vigilant but adaptive approach, rooted in a variety of best practices, educational approaches, and technological empowerment solutions to address various safety concerns. Digital literacy is particularly crucial to building wiser, more resilient kids and adults, who can work together to find constructive approaches to hard problems.

Importantly, our task here is never done. This is an ongoing and evolving process. Issues like underage access to pornography or violent content have been with us for a very long time and will never be completely “solved.” We must constantly work to improve existing online safety mechanisms while also devising new solutions for our rapidly evolving information ecosystem. Nothing should be off the table except the one solution that Noonan suggested in her essay. Just proposing outright bans on kids on social media or any other new media platform (VR will be next) is an unworkable and illogical response that we should dismiss fairly quickly. No matter how well-intentioned such proposals may be, moral panic-induced prohibitions on kids and media ultimately are not going to help them learn to live better, safer, and more enriching lives in the new media ecosystems of today or the future. We can do better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Reading :

• “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment“
• “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer“
• “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“
• “Conservatives & Common Carriage: Contradictions & Challenges“
• “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“
• “A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“
• “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“
• “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“
• “The Not-So-SMART Act“
• “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

Older essays & testimony :

• Adam Thierer, “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age,” Catholic University Law School, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007): 431-482.
• Adam Thierer, Testimony at FCC’s Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era”, March 3, 2010.
• Adam Thierer, “FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment in the Information Age,” Federalist Society, Engage (Feb. 2009).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hot-tempered police offers, pushover judges, and vague laws make for a dangerous combination. In July, a controversy erupted in Renton, Washington (a Seattle suburb) when the town’s police department launched a legal assault on an anonymous YouTube user for merely uploading a few sarcastic videos poking fun at the department’s scandals.

One of my favorite topics lately has been the challenges faced by information control regimes. Jerry Brito and I are writing a big paper on this issue right now. Part of the story we tell is that the sheer scale / volume of modern information flows is becoming so overwhelming that it raises practical questions about just how effective any info control regime can be. [See our recent essays on the topic: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.]  As we continue our research, we’ve been attempting to unearth some good metrics / factoids to help tell this story.  It’s challenging because there aren’t many consistent data sets depicting online data growth over time and some of the best anecdotes from key digital companies are only released sporadically. Anyway, I’d love to hear from others about good metrics and data sets that we should be examining.  In the meantime, here are a few fun facts I’ve unearthed in my research so far. Please let me know if more recent data is available. [Note: Last updated 7/18/11]

• Facebook: users submit around 650,000 comments on the 100 million pieces of content served up every minute on its site.[1]  People on Facebook install 20 million applications every day.[2]
• YouTube: every minute, 48 hours of video were uploaded.  According to Peter Kafka of The Wall Street Journal, “That’s up 37 percent in the last six months, and 100 percent in the last year. YouTube says the increase comes in part because it’s easier than ever to upload stuff, and in part because YouTube has started embracing lengthy live streaming sessions. YouTube users are now watching more than 3 billion videos a day. That’s up 50 percent from the last year, which is also a huge leap, though the growth rate has declined a bit: Last year, views doubled from a billion a day to two billion in six months.”[3]
• eBay is now the world’s largest online marketplace with more than 90 million active users globally and $60 billion in transactions annually, or $2,000 every second.[4]
• Google: 34,000 searches per second (2 million per minute; 121 million per hour; 3 billion per day; 88 billion per month).[5]
• Twitter already has 300 million users producing 140 million Tweets a day, which adds up to a billion Tweets every 8 days[6] (@ 1,600 Tweets per second)  “On the first day Twitter was made available to the public, 224 tweets were sent. Today, that number of updates are posted at least 10 times a second.”[7]
• Apple: more than 10 billion apps have been downloaded from its App Store by customers in over 77 countries.[8] According to Chris Burns of SlashGear, “Currently it appears that another thousand apps are downloaded every 9 seconds in the Android Marketplace while every 3 seconds another 1,000 apps are downloaded in the App Store.”
• Yelp: as of July 2011 the site hosted over 18 million user reviews.[9]
• Wikipedia: Every six weeks, there are 10 million edits made to Wikipedia.[10]

• “Humankind shared 65 exabytes of information in 2007, the equivalent of every person in the world sending out the contents of six newspapers every day.”[11]
• Researchers at the San Diego Supercomputer Center at the University of California, San Diego, estimate that, in 2008, the world’s 27 million business servers processed 9.57 zettabytes, or 9,570,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of information.  This is “the digital equivalent of a 5.6-billion-mile-high stack of books from Earth to Neptune and back to Earth, repeated about 20 times a year.” The study also estimated that enterprise server workloads are doubling about every two years, “which means that by 2024 the world’s enterprise servers will annually process the digital equivalent of a stack of books extending more than 4.37 light-years to Alpha Centauri, our closest neighboring star system in the Milky Way Galaxy.”[12]
• According to Dave Evans, Cisco’s chief futurist and chief technologist for the Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group, about 5 exabytes of unique information were created in 2008. That’s 1 billion DVDs. Fast forward three years and we are creating 1.2 zettabytes, with one zettabyte equal to 1,024 exabytes. “This is the same as every person on Earth tweeting for 100 years, or 125 million years of your favorite one-hour TV show,” says Evans. Our love of high-definition video accounts for much of the increase. By Cisco’s count, 91% of Internet data in 2015 will be video.[13]

In the ongoing copyright debates, areas of common ground are seemingly few and far between. It’s easy to forget that not all approaches to combating copyright infringement are mired in controversy. One belief that unites many stakeholders across the spectrum is that more efforts are needed to educate Internet users about copyright. The Internet has spawned legions of amateur content creators, but not all of the content that’s being created is original. Indeed, a great deal of online copyright infringement owes to widespread ignorance of copyright law and its penalties.

For its part, Google yesterday unveiled “Copyright School” for YouTube users. As Justin Green explains on the official YouTube blog, users whose accounts have been suspended for allegedly uploading infringing content will be required to watch this video and then correctly answer questions about it before their account will be reinstated:

Of course, boiling down the basics of copyright into a four and a half minute video is not an easy task, to put it mildly. (The authoritative treatment of copyright law, Nimmer on Copyright, fills an 11-volume treatise.) Copyright geeks and fans of “remix culture” will appreciate that Google’s video touches on fair use and includes links to in-depth resources for users to learn more about copyright. It will be interesting to see how Google’s effort influences the behavior of YouTube users and the incidence of repeat infringement.

Update: EFF’s Corynne McSherry has an essay up on the Deeplinks blog arguing that YouTube’s Copyright School video omits several important facts about copyright. She raises several very good points, but the unfortunate reality of copyright law is that uploading content that’s not substantially original — even in cases that might constitute fair use — is legally risky, particularly for those who aren’t familiar with copyright law. While I’d love to see YouTube create a follow-up video that explains fair use doctrine in an accessible manner, Google’s decision to urge YouTube uploaders to err on the side of caution is quite reasonable in light of the severity of the statutory penalties for copyright infringement.

Last week, it was my great honor to speak at the 2011 State of the Net 2011 event, where I participated in a panel discussion about the future of the online video marketplace.  In an earlier essay, I mentioned how some of the discussion that day revolved around the Comcast-NBCU merger, which had just been approved by the FCC, but with unprecedented strings being attached.  The heart of the panel discussion, however, was a debate about the future of online video and regulation of the video marketplace more generally. Also joining me on the panel were Susan Crawford of Cardozo Law School, William Lehr of MIT, Marvin Ammori of Nebraska Law School, and Richard Bennett of ITIF.

During my response time on the panel, which begins around 28:45 of the video, I made a couple of key points:

• We’re living in the golden age of video. In considering the state of the video marketplace, we need to put things in some historical context. We should appreciate just how far we’ve come from the “age of scarcity,” in which we only had access to a handful of VHF and UHF broadcast channels in most communities, compared to present day. Indeed, we are today blessed today to live in a world of information abundance. By the FCC’s last count, 565 cable or satellite channels exist today and those channels and programs are available over more platforms (cable, satellite, telco, online, mail, etc) than ever before.
• Deregulation (or light-touch) rules helped. Video distribution and program diversity thrived as the FCC gradually loosened the regulatory chains or forebore from regulating emerging video platforms or programs.  By contrast, in the highly-regulated past, innovation, competition, and diversity were stagnant.
• “Gatekeeper” control fears are bunk. Content continues to flow over multiple platforms in an unprecedented manner. That only makes sense since content creators and distributors have every incentive to get as much content pushed out on as many platforms as possible in order to make money! No one ever got rich in this space by locking up all their content. Moreover,  vertical integration of programming by MVPDs is at its lowest point in the past 20 years. The percentage of channels owned by video distributors has fallen from 50% in 1990 to around 15% today.
• Youngsters today don’t “watch TV” anymore. They watch YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, Apple TV, Google TV, Amazon, XBox Live, PlayStation, Roku, etc.  The video market is highly dynamic and subject to seemingly constant disruptive technological change.
• Level the playing field in favor of more freedom. To the extent there is a regulatory asymmetry at work between the old media marketplace and the online or Internet video world, and to the extent policymakers are looking to “level the regulatory playing field” between them, I argued we should level the playing field in favor of freedom.
• Clean up the old mess now. Therefore, the old rules need to go. Those rules would include must carry mandates and other carriage requirements / compulsory licensing rules, retransmission consent rules, “localism” and other program content mandates, set-tob box regs, advertising limitations, etc.
• Or, at least don’t extend old mess to new world. If lawmakers refuse to get rid of the old rules, however, we should erect a high and tight firewall between the old and new worlds and not muck up the new online video ecosystem with rules and regulations that would stifle the wonderful developments and diversity we are witnessing today.

See the entire State of the Net 2011 panel on YouTube here.

Check out the Volokh post and the clip to which it links. The post is titled “Anything You Can Do I Can Do Meta.”

Today I am testifying at an FCC hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” [Speaker lineup here.] The purpose of the workshop is to explore:

• A brief history and overview of policies involving “public interest” requirements for commercial media and telecommunications companies;
• The state of local commercial broadcast TV and radio news and information; and
• The impact of media convergence and the emergence of the Internet, mobile technologies, and digital media on FCC media policy.

In my remarks, I focused on “Why Expansion of the FCC’s Public Interest Regulatory Regime is Unwise, Unneeded, Unconstitutional, and Unenforceable.” Down below I have attached my written remarks.

Why Expansion of the FCC’s Public Interest Regulatory Regime is Unwise, Unneeded, Unconstitutional, and Unenforceable

by Adam Thierer

I.       Introduction

Thank you for inviting me here today for this FCC workshop on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era.” I have been asked to discuss “the impact of media convergence and the emergence of the Internet, mobile technologies, and digital media on FCC media policy”^[1] on the FCC’s “public interest” regulatory regime.

In my remarks, I will outline both the normative and practical cases against the expansion of “public interest” notions and corresponding regulatory requirements. I will argue that such considerations counsel that the Commission exercise extreme caution as it looks to revise regulations that govern America’s media marketplace.

II.     The Normative Case against Expansion of Public Interest Regulation

A.     The Inherent Ambiguity of “the Public Interest” Notion

The normative case against expansion of public interest regulation begins with the fact that this notion has always been haunted by an inherent ambiguity that is fundamentally at odds with America’s First Amendment tradition. Indeed, while public interest regulation has been considered the cornerstone of communications and media policy since the 1930s, at no time during these seven decades has the term been adequately defined.

Former FCC Commissioner Glen Robinson has argued that the public interest standard “is vague to the point of vacuousness, providing neither guidance nor constraint on the agency’s action.”^[2] And Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase argued 50 years ago that “The phrase… lacks any definite meaning. Furthermore, the many inconsistencies in commission decisions have made it impossible for the phrase to acquire a definite meaning in the process of regulation.”^[3]

And that is still true today. Simply put, the public interest standard is not really a “standard” at all since it has no fixed meaning; the definition of the phrase has shifted with the political winds to suit the whims of those in power at any given time.

B.      None Dare Call it Elitism

Still, many policymakers continue to prop up public interest notions and regulations in the belief that they are directing the content or character of media toward a nobler end. At times, their rhetoric takes on a fairy-tale quality as lawmakers and regulators speak of the public interest in reverential and fantastic terms, again, all the while deftly evading any attempt to define the term.

But the fundamental problem here is that public interest proponents assume that their values or objectives—which, in their opinion, are consistent with the needs and desires of the public—should ultimately triumph within the public policy arena. Simply stated, what motivates much public interest regulation is a simple desire by some here in Washington to tell the American people what’s best for them.

Worse yet, how the term has been interpreted and applied by the FCC has often depended on the ideological disposition of whatever party is in charge at the time.  As Ford Rowan, author of Broadcast Fairness, once noted: “Many liberals want regulation to make broadcasting do wonderful things; many conservatives want regulation to restrain broadcasting from doing terrible things.”^[4] Consequently, during periods of liberal rule, the “public interest” has been seen as a method of politically engineering more “educational” and “community-based” programming. By contrast, in the hands of conservative appointees, the public interest has been seen as an instrument to curb “indecent” speech.

Few have dared to call this elitism—but I will.^[5] What else should we call it when a five unelected officials here at the FCC sit in judgment of acceptable media content and dictate media marketplace outcomes? The viewing and listening public, however, has a broad array of interests and desires that cannot be easily gauged by this agency. As media scholar Benjamin Compaine has rightly noted, “[i]n democracies, there is no universal ‘public interest.’ Rather there are numerous and changing ‘interested publics.’”^[6]

Perhaps what some are afraid to ask is this: Does the public really want to watch what some policymakers and regulatory advocates consider to be more “culturally enriching” or “civic-minded” content, or would they rather tune into something else? Given the choice, many viewers will opt for what many public interest regulatory supporters would consider to be “low-brow” offerings over the programming that policymakers feel the masses should be consuming. Public interest supporters may bemoan the lack of civic spirit, or claim that this represents the end of our culture as we know it, but these are voluntary choices made by the citizenry that must be respected by government officials. In particular, government should not censor Americans’ choice of content through open-ended public interest regulatory rationales.^[7]

C.      There’s More “Public Internet” Content Than Ever Before, But You Can’t Force Citizens to Consume It

Generally speaking, however, the media marketplace traditionally has reflected what the public on average really wants to see and hear. And that’s even truer today. Viewers and listeners are being offered a stunning array of diverse media inputs and options. Just because the American people sometimes make choices that policymakers find distasteful, it does not mean that citizens don’t have good choices at their disposal.

For example, we are blessed to be living in the golden age of children’s video programming.^[8] As I have documented in my ongoing PFF special report on Parental Controls & Online Child Protection [9] and in other filings to the Commission,[10] there’s never been more educational and enriching kids programming available to families than there is today. Similarly, consider the stunning diversity of programming available thanks to the 500-plus channel universe of multichannel video options now at our disposal.[11] Almost every conceivable interest or hobby is now covered by a video network.^[12]

And is there really any shortage political programming or “civic-minded” content from which to choose?  C-SPAN alone covers more activity in the course of a week than most of us probably came into contact with in our entire lives just 30 years ago. Consider these data points.[13] In the 2009 calendar year, C-SPAN provided the following amount of first run programming across their three channels:

• 8,438 overall hours of programming;
• 2,709 hours of House & Senate floor activity; and,
• 1,222 hours of House & Senate committee hearings.

Moreover, C-SPAN recently created the C-SPAN Video Library,[14] which archives 23 years worth (1987-on) of fully searchable (and free) video content, including:

• 161,000 overall hours of programming;
• 56,600 hours of House & Senate floor activity; and,
• 20,152 of House & Senate committee hearings.

Importantly, many people fail to realize that C-SPAN is a private, non-profit company that is provided as a public service by cable industry contributions. It receives no government or taxpayer contributions. From 1979-2009, total license fees paid by cable & satellite companies to support C-SPAN totaled $922 million.

And let’s not forget about what the Internet has made available to us. It has given us unprecedented access to public affairs information—local, state, national, and international.

But, again, you can’t make people watch, listen, or read if they don’t want to. “Today, the scarce resource is attention, not programming,” notes Ellen P. Goodman of the Rutgers-Camden School of Law. “Given the proliferation of consumer filtering and choice, these kinds of interventions are of questionable efficacy. Consumers equipped with digital selection and filtering tools are likely to avoid content they do not demand no matter what the regulatory efforts to force exposure.”^[15]

Absent truly repressive measures to limit choice or alter consumer media consumption patterns, it will be impossible for policymakers to force the masses to pay attention to what they want them to see or hear in an age of abundant media content and unrestricted choice. “[R]egulation cannot, in a liberal democracy, force viewers to consumer media products they do not think they want in the name of the public interest,” argues Goodman.[16] (This dilemma creates additional practical problems for proposals to expand public interest regulation, which will be discussed in Sec. II below.)

D.     Returning to First Principles

Yet now we face the prospect of this arbitrary regulatory regime being expanding to cover more platforms and speech.^[17] But, instead of first looking to expand regulation, we should use this as an opportunity to return to first principles—especially in light of the dubious constitutionality of the FCC’s existing public interest regulatory regime.^[18]

We should begin by recalling that, from the time of the republic’s founding, public interest regulation has never been applied to newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, or books. Instead, the First Amendment has reigned supreme.[19] And when policymakers attempted to apply such public interest obligations to print media, those edicts were ruled flatly unconstitutional.^[20]

The characteristics of broadcast radio and television, however, were considered sufficiently unique to justify a different regulatory approach and second-class citizenship status in terms of First Amendment rights.  Scarcity, of course, was the lynchpin of the regulatory regime imposed on the broadcast industry, and it yielded calls for public interest regulation of the medium. But whatever one thinks of the scarcity rationale for differential treatment of broadcasting—and, personally, I don’t believe it was ever a legitimate excuse for diminished First Amendment treatment—that era of scarcity is clearly over.^[21] We now live in an age of information abundance—even information overload.^[22] We have more media options and diversity at our disposal today than ever before, and generally at falling prices.^[23] And yet, at the Commission, it continues to be business as usual.

The courts, however, have acknowledged that the situation on the ground has changed, and changed radically. When policymakers have sought to expand broadcast-like regulatory requirements to newer media platforms in recent years, the Courts have pushed back. That has particularly been the case for the Internet^[24] and video game content.^[25] The jurisprudential Twilight Zone will live in today—in which we classify services and determine free speech rights based on technical characteristics or functional features—makes no sense and can’t last for much longer for reasons discussed next.[26]

III.  The Practical Case against Expansion of Public Interest Regulation

Let’s look beyond these normative concerns and instead focus on the practical considerations associated with any effort to expand the horizons of public interest regulation.

A.     The Scale & Volume Problem

As the title of this particular panel quite rightly noted, we now live in an age of media and technological convergence.^[27] All bits are coming together.^[28] Because convergence is now upon us, media can be distributed instantaneously across numerous platforms. Thus, a regulatory attack on one type of media outlet or technology might necessitate an attack on many other media outlets if it has any hope of being effective.

But how will this work? If we are to achieve regulatory parity in an age of convergence, we must come to grips with the sheer scale of the task at hand. The modern mediasphere is massive—and growing rapidly. Consider some statistics about online media activity:

• 1.73 billion Internet users worldwide as of Sept 2009; an 18% increase from the previous year.^[29]
• 81.8 million .COM domain names at the end of 2009; 12.3 million .NET names & 7.8 million .ORG names.^[30]
• 234 million websites as of Dec 2009; 47 million were added in 2009.^[31] In 2006, Internet users in the United States viewed an average of 120.5 Web pages each day.^[32]
• There are roughly 26 million blogs on the Internet^[33] and even back in 2007, there were over 1.5 million new blog posts every day (17 posts per second).^[34]
• In December 2009, 86% of the total U.S. online population viewed video content.^[35] The average online viewer watched 187 videos (up 95 percent from the previous year), while the average video length viewed grew from 3.2 to 4.1 minutes.^[36] The majority of online video viewing (52%) occurred at video sites ranked outside of the top 25, suggesting the increased fragmentation of online video and the emergence of sites in the “long tail.”^[37]
• YouTube reports that 20 hours of video are uploaded to the site every minute,^[38] and 1 billion videos are served up daily by YouTube, or 12.2 billion videos viewed per month.^[39]
• For video hosting site Hulu, as of Nov 2009, 924 million videos were viewed per month in the U.S.^[40]
• Developers have created over 140,000 apps for the Apple iPhone and iPod and iPad and made them available in the Apple App Store.^[41] Customers in 77 countries can choose apps in 20 categories, and users have downloaded over three billion apps since its inception in July 2008.^[42] Apple’s iTunes Store has a catalog of 12 million songs, over 55,000 TV episodes, and 8,500 movies. It has sold more than 10 billion songs.^[43]
• Social networking giant Facebook reports that each month, its 400+ million users upload more than 3 billion photos, and create over 3.5 million events. More than 3 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) are shared each week. There are also more than 3 million active Pages on the site.^[44]
• There are 10 million edits made to Wikipedia every seven weeks.^[45]

• Twitter users send out 50 million tweets per day, an average of 600 tweets per second.^[46]
• 4 billion photos hosted by Flickr as of Oct 2009.^[47]

Even in “traditional” media sectors, the scale and volume problem is formidable: [48]

• 565 cable TV channels^[49]
• over 2,200 broadcast TV stations ^[50]
• over 13,000 broadcast radio stations ^[51]
• over 20,000 magazines ^[52]
• over 276,000 books ^[53]

In sum, the mediasphere is bigger than ever and it begs the question how the FCC plans to wrap its public interest regulatory tentacles around all of it if analog era regulations are to cover digital era content, platforms, and technologies.

B.      The Definitional Problem: Who’s Covered (or Subsidized?)

Another intractable problem associated with expansion of public interest regulation will arise once policymakers are forced to define who or what counts as a “media entity” or a “journalist” in today’s wide-open media world. And this will be a problem whether public officials are regulating media entities or subsidizing them.

For example, will bloggers be regulated or, conversely, eligible for public media subsidies? Will foreign-owned news entities be regulated or be eligible for support?  What’s the public interest standard that applies to MySpace or Facebook? Are YouTube, Hulu, and Vimeo, and Joost “just like TV stations” and, therefore, regulated like one? There may well be rational ways to make cuts along these lines, but they could raise constitutional questions. Government preferences among speakers or classes of speakers are prior restraints, constitutional sins of the highest order.

Further, it would be just these sorts of choices that would open the door to the most abusive government intrusion into the production of journalism.  It is not hard to imagine that government regulators, even with the best of intentions and acting in the utmost good faith, would, perhaps unconsciously, favor speakers and classes of speakers to whom they felt the closest affinity.  And, because Administrations come and go, as do members of Congress, no particular class of speakers would ever be truly safe — no story would be reported without at least a glance by the author over her shoulder to make sure that she had not offended the “wrong” person.  This is not an approach consistent with a free press reporting to a free people.

C.      Expanded Regulation Will Kneecap Media Providers As They Are Struggling to Reinvent Themselves

Meanwhile, this inquiry comes at a time when many traditional media providers are fighting for their very existence. Audiences are fragmenting. Advertisers are fleeing. Revenues are shrinking.  And yet, again, here we are toying with the idea of expanding regulatory burdens while the media marketplace is experiencing unprecedented upheaval and gut-wrenching creative destruction.

And if the FCC’s intends to simply continue to impose public interest regulations on the narrow set of media operations they currently control—broadcast television and radio—that’s tantamount to the FCC signing a death warrant for those media operators. But, as noted below, any proposal to “spread the pain around” by burdening everyone equally is a recipe for even greater economic catastrophe, and it wouldn’t likely pass constitutional muster in the courts anyway.

This all begs the question: Do traditional media providers really have too much power, or do they actually have too little.  Indeed, the viability of traditional media operators is increasingly in doubt since they lack pricing power and the ability to control when, where, and how their content is delivered and consumed. They no longer have protected geographic markets or “protectable scarcity.” Meanwhile, advertising—the traditional lifeblood of the media sector^[54]—is increasingly being subjected to new scrutiny and regulation here in Washington.^[55] And copyright infringement has also made monetization more challenging and placed strains on many operators.  Regardless, with traditional media operators in such serious trouble, now certainly isn’t the time to impose new rules and red tape that could hamstring their ability to respond to new competitive pressures.

Perhaps the most destructive set of ideas floating around today are those that would essentially burn the village in order to save it. For example, some regulatory advocates have toyed with ideas like “public interest vouchers,”[56] broadcast spectrum taxes,[57] expanded ownership restrictions or forced media divestiture plans,[58] or even taxes on commercial advertising,^[59] consumer electronics, cell phone providers, and ISPs.[60] In each case, the cure would be worse than the disease that ails the body. We’re not going to get a more diverse media marketplace in this country by forcing private media providers to fund their non-commercial or public-subsidized competitors.  While some of these proposals are well-intentioned and aimed at addressing perceived deficiencies in the market for “public interest” content, there are better ways for policymakers to achieve that goal.

IV.  Using Existing Public Platforms to Promote Preferred Content Through a “Public Interest Portal”

Most obviously, support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) could be expanded. However, that should be achieved without skimming funds off of commercial advertising budgets or through “fees” on private media operators. Enhanced support for CPB and non-commercial media in general should be derived from general treasury funds, not special levies on commercial media operators.

If the FCC believes something more must be done to create—or drive citizens to—“public interest” or civic-minded content, the best approach would be for the agency to work with other federal and state entities and leverage existing government platforms and resources to accomplish this task.

Consider how federal agencies are already doing so in an effort to promote Internet safety and security. A dozen federal agencies and several private child safety organizations have collaborated^[61] to create the OnGuardOnline.gov website, which “provides practical tips from the federal government and the technology industry to help you be on guard against Internet fraud, secure your computer, and protect your personal information.”^[62] Among other things, the effort includes a “Stop-Think-Click” promotion that recommends “Seven Practices for Safer Computing.” In October 2009, OnGuardOnline also released a new online safety resource called Net Cetera: Chatting with Kids about Being Online . [63] This 54-page document, which is being widely distributed by the government (both online and offline), is an outstanding resource for parents and kids.

In a similar vein, the FCC could work with several other agencies to create a massive “Public Interest Portal” that aggregates and promotes the sort of the public interest programming and content that policymakers hope will gain more widespread distribution—whether produced by traditional programmers, niche professionals, or amateurs. The collaborating agencies might even be able to create a downloadable widget or toolbar for use on any web browser that could enable citizens to instantaneously access a wide variety of public interest content. Many organizations already offer similar portals for children’s content. (Examples include: KidZui,[64] Glubble,[65] Browser Buddy,^[66] KidRocket,^[67] KIDO’Z,^[68] Noodle Net,^[69] Hoopah Kidview Computer Explorer^[70] and Peanut Butter PC.^[71]) There’s no reason that model couldn’t be significantly expanded by the FCC and other government agencies if they put their resources behind it.

The success of this approach, of course, is by no means guaranteed since, as noted above, it is impossible to force a free people to consume content they do not demand.  Nonetheless, it would allow the government to at least accomplish the objective it has long sought to achieve through affirmative regulation of commercial media providers: increasing the availability and practical accessibility of public interest programming. Moreover, this approach would have the advantage of not raising serious constitutional objections or burdening commercial media operators with onerous new regulatory requirements or fees. If, however, policymakers reject this approach on the grounds that citizens would still “tune in” to other types of programming first, it would confirm the fundamental elitism that some of us have long suspected truly animates most “public interest” regulatory efforts.

V.    Conclusion: Regulate Up or Deregulate Down?

In light of the considerations addressed above, we must ask: To achieve regulatory parity, should we regulate up or deregulate down? To the extent that technological convergence leads to policy convergence, it should be done in the latter direction. In a world in which scarcity has been overthrown by abundance, we should strike the balance in favor of greater media freedom and stronger First Amendment protections for all speech however it is delivered. [72]

It is vital that the outmoded public interest rationales undergirding the broadcast regulatory regime be discarded, not only to spare broadcasters from more unfair, asymmetrical regulatory restrictions, but also to ensure that this contorted vision of the First Amendment is not extended to other media platforms.[73] While some policymakers and media critics propose extending the broadcast regulatory regime to cover new media outlets and digital technologies,^[74] if America is to have a consistent First Amendment in the Information Age, such efforts should be halted and the public interest regulatory regime should be relegated to the ash heap of history.

There are better ways for the Commission and Congress to accomplish “public interest” goals other than by regulating as if it’s still 1934.

[2] Glen O. Robinson, The Federal Communications Act: An Essay on Origins and Regulatory Purpose, A Legislative History of the Communications Act of 1934 3, 14 (Max D. Paglin ed., 1989). Likewise, Lawrence J. White has noted that, “The ‘public interest’ is a vague, ill-defined concept. Under the ‘public interest’ banner the Congress and the FCC have established far too many protectionist, anticompetitive, anti-innovative, inflexible, output-limiting regulatory regimes and have unnecessarily infringed on the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.” See Lawrence J. White, Spectrum for Sale, The Milken Inst. Rev. (June 2001) at 38. See also William T. Mayton, The Illegitimacy of the Public Interest Standard at the FCC, 38 Emory L. J. 715, 716 (1989).

[3] Ronald H. Coase, The Federal Communications Commission, 2 J. L. & Econ. 1, 8–9 (1959). Even supporters of broadcast regulation such as Paul Taylor and Norman Ornstein admit that, “neither in the 1927 [Radio] Act nor in the 1934 [Communications] Act, nor subsequently, did Congress define clearly what actions by broadcasters would represent managing their stations in the public interest.” Paul Taylor & Norman Ornstein, New America Foundation, A Broadcast Spectrum Fee for Campaign Finance Reform, Spectrum Series Working Paper No. 4, (2002) at 6.

[4] Ford Rowan, Broadcast Fairness (Longham, 1984), p. 39.

[5] See Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, What Unites Advocates of Speech Controls & Privacy Regulation?, Progress on Point 16.19, Aug. 11, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.19-unites-speech-and-privacy-reg-advocates.pdf. On occasion, even public interest regulatory advocates have admitted this. “One of the dangers in evaluating the media in a public interest framework is that it can easily take on an elitist tone.” David Croteau and William Hoynes, The Business of Media: Corporate Media and the Public Interest (2001) at 151.

[6] Benjamin M. Compaine, The Myths of Encroaching Global Media Ownership, Open Democracy.net, Nov. 6, 2001, at 5, www.opendemocracy.net/content/articles/PDF/87.pdf

[7] See Harry Kalven, Jr., Broadcasting, Public Policy and the First Amendment, J. L. & Econ. 15, 19 (1967) (“The mandate to grant licenses that serve the public [interest]… does not constitute the FCC the moral proctor of the public or the den mother of the audience.”)

[8] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, We Are Living in the Golden Age of Children’s Programming, Progress Snapshot 5.6, July 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2009/pdf/ps5.6-childrens-television-golden-age.pdf.

[9] Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods, Version 4.0 (2008) (“PFF Parental Controls Report”), www.pff.org/parentalcontrols.

[10] Comments of The Progress & Freedom Foundation and the Electronic Frontier Foundation In the Matter of Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape, Federal Communications Commission, MB Docket No. 09-194, Feb 24, 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2010/2010-02-24-PFF-EFF_Response_to_FCC_Empowering_Parents_Protecting_Children_NOI_MB_09-194.pdf; Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Comments in the Matter of Implementation of the Child Safe Viewing Act; Examination of Parental Control Technologies for Video or Audio Programming, Federal Communications Commission, MB Docket No. 09-26, April 15, 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/filings/2009/041509-%5BFCC-FILING%5D-Adam-Thierer-PFF-re-FCC-Child-Safe-Viewing-Act-NOI-%28MB-09-26%29.pdf.

[11] The number of channels available on multichannel video distribution platforms skyrocketed from just 70 in 1990 to 565 in 2006, the last year for which the FCC has released data. Federal Communications Commission, Thirteenth Annual Video Competition Report, MB Docket No. 06-189, Nov. 27, 2007, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-206A1.pdf.

[12] For an up-to-date list, see National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Cable Networks, www.ncta.com/Organizations.aspx?type=orgtyp2&contentId=2907, or Wikipedia, List of United States Cable and Satellite Television Networks,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cable_and_satellite_television_networks.

[13] All C-SPAN data confirmed by Peter Kiley, Vice President, C-SPAN Networks. Also see: Marking 30 Years. Covering Washington Like No Other, www.c-span.org/30Years/default.aspx.

[14] www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary

[15] Ellen P. Goodman, “Proactive Media Policy in an Age of Content Abundance,” in Philip M. Napoli, ed., Media Diversity and Localism: Meaning and Metrics (2007) at 370, 374.  And there is no reason to believe this situation has ever been different or will ever change. Writing in 1922, famed journalist Walter Lippmann noted that, “it is possible to make a rough estimate only of the amount of attention people give each day to informing themselves about public affairs,” but “the time each day is small when any of us is directly exposed to information from our unseen environment.” Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (1922), p. 53, 57.

[16] Id., at 374.

[17] Among the expanded public interest responsibilities regulatory advocates promote: Controls on speech (indecent or “excessively violent” content); expanding coverage of political campaigns, debates and developments; free (or lower-cost) campaign ad time; expanded “educational” or cultural programming (especially aimed at children); and expanded coverage of community affairs and public service announcements.

[18] See Randolph J. May, The Public Interest Standard: Is It Too Indeterminate to Be Constitutional? 53 Fed. Comm. L. Jour. (May 2001) at 427-68, www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v53/no3/may.pdf.

[19] Jonathan Emord, Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment (1991).

[20] Miami Herald v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241(1974).

[21] Even FCC officials have acknowledged this. See John W. Berresford, Federal Communications Commission, The Scarcity Rationale for Regulating Traditional Broadcasting: An Idea Whose Time Has Passed, FCC Media Bureau Staff Research Paper No. 2005-2, (March 2005) www.fcc.gov/ownership/materials/already-released/scarcity030005.pdf. Berresford refers to the scarcity rationale as “outmoded,” “based on fundamental misunderstandings of physics and economics,” and “no longer valid.”

[22] See Adam Thierer and Grant Eskelsen, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace (Summer 2008), www.pff.org/mediametrics; Adam Thierer, The Media Cornucopia, 17 City Journal 2 (Spring 2007) at 84-89, www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_media.html.

[23] See Benjamin M. Compaine, The Media Monopoly Myth: How New Competition is Expanding Our Sources of Information and Entertainment, New Millennium Research Council (2005) www.newmillenniumresearch.org/archive/Final_Compaine_Paper_050205.pdf.

[24] Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 US 844, 874 (1997); American Civil Liberties Union v. Gonzales, 478 F.Supp.2d 775, 795 (E.D.Pa. 2007).

[25] See, e.g., Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger, 556 F.3d 950, 965-967 (9th Cir. 2009); Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Blagojevich, 469 F.3d 641, 652 (7th Cir. 2006); Interactive Digital Software Association, et. al. v. St. Louis County, et. al., 329 F.3d 954 (8 Cir. 2003); American Amusement Machine Association, et al. v. Kendrick, et al., 244 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2001); Entertainment Software Ass’n v. Granholm, 426 F Supp 2d 646 (E.D. Mich. 2006); Video Software Dealers Association, et. al. v. Maleng, et. al., 325 F. Supp.2d 1180 (W.D. Wa. 2004).  See generally Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Fact and Fiction in the Debate Over Video Game Regulation, Progress on Point 13.7, March 2006, at 13-18 www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf (discussing cases striking down state video game laws); Henry Cohen, Constitutionality of Proposals to Prohibit the Sale or Rental to Minors of Video Games with Violent or Sexual Content or Strong Language, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Library of Congress (Jan. 12, 2006), http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9144/m1/1/high_res_d/.

[26] Adam Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting : Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age, Catholic University Law School, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007) at 431-482; http://commlaw.cua.edu/articles/v15/15_2/Thierer.pdf. Randy May as referred to these artificial distinctions as “techno-functional constructs.” Randolph J. May, Charting a New Constitutional Jurisprudence for the Digital Age, Engage (Oct. 2008) at 109.

[27] Henry Jenkins, founder and director of the MIT Comparative Media Studies Program and author of Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide, defines convergence as “the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want.” Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide (2006) at 2.

[28] Nicholas Negroponte, Being Digital (1995).

[29] Royal Pingdom, Internet 2009 in Numbers, Jan. 22, 2010, http://royal.pingdom.com/2010/01/22/internet-2009-in-numbers.

[30] Id.

[31] Id.

[32] Gavin O’Malley, Comcast Taps Hispanic Web Portal, MediaPost News, Online Media Daily, March 8, 2006, www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=40714

[33] Royal Pingdom, supra 29.

[34] David Sifry, The State of the Live Web, April 2007, www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000493.html

[35] comScore, The 2009 U.S. Digital Year in Review – A Recap of the Year in Digital Marketing 10, Feb. 2010, http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/2/comScore_Releases_2009_U.S._Digital_Year_in_Review.

[36] Id.

[37] Id. at 12.

[38] Ryan Junee, Zoinks! 20 Hours of Video Uploaded Every Minute!, Broadcasting Ourselves: The Official YouTube Blog, May 20, 2009, http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/05/zoinks-20-hours-of-video-uploaded-every_20.html

[39] Royal Pingdom, supra 29.

[40] Royal Pingdom, supra 29.

[41] Apple, 140,000 apps at your fingertips. From day one., www.apple.com/ipad/app-store.

[42] Press Release, Apple, Apple’s App Store Downloads Top Three Billion (Jan. 5, 2010), www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/05appstore.html.

[43] Press Release, Apple, iTunes Store Tops 10 Billion Songs Sold (Feb. 25, 2010), www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/02/25itunes.html.

[44] Facebook, Statistics, www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (last accessed Mar. 2, 2010).

[45] Katalaveno, Edit growth measured in time between every 10,000,000^th edit, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katalaveno/TBE (last accessed Mar. 2, 2010).

[46] Twitter Blog, Measuring Tweets, Feb. 22, 2010, http://blog.twitter.com/2010/02/measuring-tweets.html.

[47] Royal Pingdom, supra 29.

[48] Statistics derived from various sources, but all can be found in Adam Thierer and Grant Eskelsen, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Media Metrics: The True State of the Modern Media Marketplace (Summer 2008), www.pff.org/mediametrics.

[49] Federal Communications Commission, Thirteenth Annual Video Competition Report, MB Docket No. 06-189, Nov. 27, 2007, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-206A1.pdf.

[50] Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book, United States, www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html (data is from 2006).

[51] Id.

[52] Magazine Publishers of America, Magazines: The Medium of Action, A Comprehensive Guide and Handbook 2009/10, at 8, www.magazine.org/ASSETS/088C8564EB9E4E978A69B183881AEF58/MPA-Handbook-2009.pdf.

[53] Bowker, Bowker Reports U.S. Book Production Flat in 2007, May 28, 2008, www.bowker.com/index.php/press-releases/526.

[54] “Advertising is the mother’s milk of all the mass media,” Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg has noted. Walter Mossberg, Now You See ‘Em…, SmartMoney.com, June 15, 2000, available at http://web.archive.org/web/20061124235126/http://www.smartmoney.com/mossberg/index.cfm?story=20000615; And Harold L. Vogel, author of Entertainment Industry Economics, the definitive textbook for media market analysts, has noted, “Advertising is the key common ingredient in the tactics and strategies of all entertainment and media company business models. Indeed, it might further be said that advertising has substantively subsidized the production and delivery of news and entertainment throughout the last century.” Harold L. Vogel, Entertainment Industry Economics (Cambridge University Press, 7^th Edition, 2007) at 46.

[55] Adam Thierer & Berin Szoka, The Hidden Benefactor: How Advertising Informs, Educates & Benefits Consumers, Feb. 22, 2010, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/ps/2010/ps6.5-the-hidden-benefactor.html; Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Targeted Online Advertising: What’s the Harm & Where Are We Heading?, Progress on Point 16.2, April 2009, www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.2targetonlinead.pdf; Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer, Behavioral Advertising Industry Practices Hearing: Some Issues that Need to be Discussed, PFF Blog, June 18, 2009, http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/06/behavioral_advertising_industry_practices_hearing.html

[56] For example, Robert McChesney and John Nichols advocate a “Citizenship News Voucher” that would give every American adult a $200 voucher to donate money to the non-profit news medium of their choice. Of course, a number of restrictions would apply to eligible entities, including a ban on accepting advertising as a condition of receiving support from the program. Robert W. McChesney & John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism (2010) at 201-6.

[57] For a recent debate on the question of broadcast spectrum taxes, see: Resolved, Broadcasters Should be Charged a Spectrum Fee to Finance Programming in the Public Interest, Pro: Norm Ornstein, Con: Adam Thierer, in Richard J. Ellis and Michael Nelson, Debating Reform: Conflicting Perspectives on How to Fix the American Political System (2010) at 53-69. Also see McChesney & Nichols, supra 56 at 209-10.

[58] For example, Free Press calls for “government incentives to encourage local ownership and media divestiture.” They want to prevent private media operators from attaining greater scale at the exact time they probably need to do so. Instead, they would subsidize those media entities who went non-commercial and disaggregated to become more atomistic. Comments of Free Press In the Matter of News Media Workshops: From Town Crier to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age? Federal Trade Commission, Project No. P091200, Nov. 6, 2009, at 21, www.ftc.gov/os/comments/newsmediaworkshop/544505-00027.pdf.

[59] Free Press advocates channeling more money to public media by affixing “a small tax” on private commercial advertising. Comments of Free Press In the Matter of News Media Workshops: From Town Crier to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age? Federal Trade Commission, Project No. P091200, Nov. 6, 2009, at 18, www.ftc.gov/os/comments/newsmediaworkshop/544505-00027.pdf.

[60] McChesney & Nichols, supra 56 at 210-11. They advocate a 5% tax on consumer electronics and a 3% tax on monthly cell phone bills to channel money into a massive new “public works” program for the press.

[61] www.onguardonline.gov/about-us/overview.aspx

[62] www.onguardonline.gov/default.aspx

[63] www.onguardonline.gov/pdf/tec04.pdf

[64] www.kidzui.com

[65] www.glubble.com

[66] www.buddybrowser.com

[67] http://kidrocket.org

[68] www.kidoz.net

[69] www.noodlenet.com

[70] www.hoopah.com

[71] www.peanutbuttersoftware.com

[72] Brian C. Anderson & Adam D. Thierer, A Manifesto for Media Freedom (2008).

[73] See Adam Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting : Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age, Catholic University Law School, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007) at 431-482; http://commlaw.cua.edu/articles/v15/15_2/Thierer.pdf; Adam Thierer, FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment in the Information Age, Engage (Feb. 2009) www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20090216_ThiererEngage101.pdf.

[74] See Adam Thierer, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Thinking Seriously about Cable and Satellite Censorship: An Informal Analysis of S. 616, The Rockefeller-Hutchison Bill (2005) www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop12.6CableCensorship.pdf; Robert Corn-Revere, The Progress & Freedom Foundation, Can Broadcast Indecency Regulations Be Extended to Cable Television and Satellite Radio? (2005) www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop12.8indecency.pdf.

Adam Thierer (PFF) Remarks at FCC Hearing on Public Interest in Digital Era (3-4-10) http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf

Very cool little video here by Jess3 documenting Internet growth and activity. Ironically, Berin sent it to me as Adam Marcus and I were updating the lengthy list of Net & online media stats you’ll find down below. Many of the stats we were compiling are shown in the video. Enjoy!

• 1.73 billion Internet users worldwide as of Sept 2009; an 18% increase from the previous year.^[1]
• 81.8 million .COM domain names at the end of 2009; 12.3 million .NET names & 7.8 million .ORG names.^[2]
• 234 million websites as of Dec 2009; 47 million were added in 2009.^[3] In 2006, Internet users in the United States viewed an average of 120.5 Web pages each day.^[4]
• There are roughly 26 million blogs on the Internet^[5] and even back in 2007, there were over 1.5 million new blog posts every day (17 posts per second).^[6]
• In December 2009, 86% of the total U.S. online population viewed video content.^[7] The average online viewer watched 187 videos (up 95 percent from the previous year), while the average video length viewed grew from 3.2 to 4.1 minutes.^[8] The majority of online video viewing (52%) occurred at video sites ranked outside of the top 25, suggesting the increased fragmentation of online video and the emergence of sites in the “long tail.”^[9]
• YouTube reports that 20 hours of video are uploaded to the site every minute,^[10] and 1 billion videos are served up daily by YouTube, or 12.2 billion videos viewed per month.^[11]
• For video hosting site Hulu, as of Nov 2009, 924 million videos were viewed per month in the U.S.^[12]
• Developers have created over 140,000 apps for the Apple iPhone and iPod and iPad and made them available in the Apple App Store.^[13] Customers in 77 countries can choose apps in 20 categories, and users have downloaded over three billion apps since its inception in July 2008.^[14] Apple’s iTunes Store has a catalog of 12 million songs, over 55,000 TV episodes, and 8,500 movies. It has sold more than 10 billion songs.^[15]
• Social networking giant Facebook reports that each month, its 400+ million users upload more than 3 billion photos, and create over 3.5 million events. More than 3 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) are shared each week. There are also more than 3 million active Pages on the site.^[16]
• There are 10 million edits made to Wikipedia every seven weeks.^[17]
• Twitter users send out 50 million tweets per day, an average of 600 tweets per second.^[18]
• 4 billion photos hosted by Flickr as of Oct 2009.^[19]

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Gavin O’Malley, Comcast Taps Hispanic Web Portal, MediaPost News, Online Media Daily, March 8, 2006, www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=40714

[5] Royal Pingdom, supra.

[6] David Sifry, The State of the Live Web, April 2007, www.sifry.com/alerts/archives/000493.html

[7] comScore, The 2009 U.S. Digital Year in Review – A Recap of the Year in Digital Marketing 10, Feb. 2010, http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2010/2/comScore_Releases_2009_U.S._Digital_Year_in_Review.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. at 12.

[10] Ryan Junee, Zoinks! 20 Hours of Video Uploaded Every Minute!, Broadcasting Ourselves: The Official YouTube Blog, May 20, 2009, http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/05/zoinks-20-hours-of-video-uploaded-every_20.html

[11] Royal Pingdom, supra.

[12] Royal Pingdom, supra.

[13] Apple, 140,000 apps at your fingertips. From day one., www.apple.com/ipad/app-store.

[14] Press Release, Apple, Apple’s App Store Downloads Top Three Billion (Jan. 5, 2010), www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/05appstore.html

[15] Press Release, Apple, iTunes Store Tops 10 Billion Songs Sold (Feb. 25, 2010), www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/02/25itunes.html.

[16] Facebook, Statistics, www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics (last accessed Mar. 2, 2010).

[17] Katalaveno, Edit growth measured in time between every 10,000,000^th edit, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Katalaveno/TBE (last accessed Mar. 2, 2010).

[18] Twitter Blog, Measuring Tweets, Feb. 22, 2010, http://blog.twitter.com/2010/02/measuring-tweets.html.

[19] Royal Pingdom, supra.

By Berin Szoka & Adam Thierer

We learned from The Wall Street Journal yesterday that “Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski gets a little peeved when people suggests that he wants to regulate the Internet.” He told a group of Journal reporters and editors today that: “I don’t see any circumstances where we’d take steps to regulate the Internet itself,” and “I’ve been clear repeatedly that we’re not going to regulate the Internet.”

We’re thankful to hear Chairman Julius Genachowski to make that promise. We’ll certainly hold him to it. But you will pardon us if we remain skeptical (and, in advance, if you hear a constant stream of “I told you so” from us in the months and years to come). If the Chairman is “peeved” at the suggestion that the FCC might be angling to extend its reach to include the Internet and new media platforms and content, perhaps he should start taking a closer look at what his own agency is doing—and think about the precedents he’s setting for future Chairmen who might not share his professed commitment not to regulate the ‘net. Allow us to cite just a few examples:

Net Neutrality Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

We’re certainly aware of the argument that the FCC’s proposed net neutrality regime is not tantamount to Internet regulation—but we just don’t buy it. Not for one minute.

First, Chairman Genachowski seems to believe that “the Internet” is entirely distinct from the physical infrastructure that brings “cyberspace” to our homes, offices and mobile devices. The WSJ notes, “when pressed, [Genachowski] admitted he was referring to regulating Internet content rather than regulating Internet lines.” OK, so let’s just make sure we have this straight: The FCC is going to enshrine in law the principle that “gatekeepers” that control the “bottleneck” of broadband service can only be checked by having the government enforce “neutrality” principles in the same basic model of “common carrier” regulation that once applied to canals, railroads, the telegraph and telephone. But when it comes to accusations of “gatekeeper” power at the content/services/applications “layers” of the Internet, the FCC is just going to step back and let markets sort things out? Sorry, we’re just not buying it.

Chairman Genachowski may sincerely believe that a clear, bright line can be drawn between the “infrastructure layer” (which he’s certainly going to regulate) and what he likes to think of as “the Internet” (which he promises not to regulate). But as we warned last October, the day after the FCC launched this NPRM:

The promise made yesterday by the FCC—to only apply neutrality principles to the infrastructure layer of the Net—is hollow and will ultimately prove unenforceable. The reality is that regulation always spreads. The march of regulation can sometimes be glacial, but it is, sadly, almost inevitable: Regulatory regimes grow but almost never contract… The basic premise of neutrality regulation is already being proposed for other layers of the Internet….  whatever the FCC might say today, any large online intermediary with a popular platform potentially faces the threat of “network neutrality” mandates—because every platform is essentially a “network,” too. We’re not just talking about “search neutrality” (Google as well as Microsoft) but also about “device neutrality” (mobile handsets), “app neutrality” (Apple’s iTunes store, Facebook’s developers and Google’s Android mobile OS) and so on for social networking, email, instant messaging, online advertising, etc.

We explained how the intellectual foundations for this regulatory creep have already been laid by groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge and law professors like Columbia’s Tim Wu (father of “Net Neutrality”), Harvard’s Jonathan Zittrain (father of “API/device Neutrality”), and Seton Hall’s Frank Pasquale (father of “Search Neutrality”). Joining this intellectual vanguard of Internet regulation is George Washington law school professor Dawn Nunziato, whose new book, Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age, is a veritable manifesto for expansive neutrality regulation (especially of Google)—and how the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law…”) should be twisted not just to allow such regulation of speech platforms, but to require it! Even Wu, whose work blazed a trail for these others, is pretty clear about the breadth of his original vision for “neutrality” regulation, as his popular Net Neutrality FAQ makes clear:

The promotion of network neutrality is no different than the challenge of promoting fair evolutionary competition in any privately owned environment, whether a telephone network, operating system, or even a retail store. Government regulation in such contexts invariably tries to help ensure that the short-term interests of the owner do not prevent the best products or applications becoming available to end-users.

Zittrain, Pasquale, and Nunziato don’t pull any punches either: They don’t shy away from flirting with nebulous neutrality definitions and wide-ranging government powers to regulate. So we don’t have to imagine what the “slippery slope” might look like: There are plenty of very smart and highly influential legal academics out there hard at work sketching out precisely where the path Chairman Genachowski has started us down will ultimately lead.

It’s no less clear why we’ll wind up marching down that path, no matter what the current FCC leadership intends.

1. The current net neutrality rulemaking sets a profoundly dangerous legal precedent of essentially unlimited claims of “ancillary jurisdiction”: As our friends at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (who have a soft spot for net neutrality in theory) put it, “If ‘ancillary jurisdiction’ is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, it could just as easily be invoked tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the FCC dreams up (including things we won’t like).” Our PFF colleague Barbara Esbin carefully dissected this issue for the Commission in her recent filing in this proceeding.
2. As explained above, the general regulatory principle of controlling “gatekeepers” doesn’t end with infrastructure.
3. As EFF notes, “Experience shows that the FCC is particularly vulnerable to regulatory capture.”
4. Now that FCC has opened the door to micro-managing online business practices in the name of “neutrality,” the companies that have made America the leader in the Digital Revolution are already turning on each other in a dangerous game of brinksmanship, escalating demands for regulation and playing right into the hands of those who want to bring the entire high-tech sector under the thumb of government—under an Orwellian conception of “Internet Freedom” that makes corporations the real “Big Brother,” and government, our savior.

This strategy of political escalation will thus quickly steamroll over whatever promises made today to narrowly cabin the principle of neutrality regulation—and end in “Mutually Assured Destruction.” That’s why we referred to the day the FCC started down this path back in September as “The Day Internet Freedom Died.”

If that title sounds melodramatic, take a step back and consider that, back in 1996, Congress decided to enshrine in law the principle that the Internet is different from traditional media: Apart from an ill-considered effort to censor online indecency and obscenity (which was quickly struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional) and the enforcement of intellectual property and criminal laws, Congress decided to take a purely laissez-faire approach to the Internet.  As Barbara reminded the Commission in her net neutrality filing, “Section 230(b)(2) flatly declares that it is the policy of the United States ― to preserve the vibrant competitive free market that presently exits for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

So Chairman Genachowski’s decision to revert to the common carrier model of the railroad era marks a fundamental break with the approach Congress decided we would take to the Internet. The DC Circuit will likely soon rule that the FCC has vastly overstepped its authority in trying to set Internet policy without any clear grant of authority from Congress to do so.

Wireless Innovation & Investment Notice of Inquiry

In fact, the same kind of thinking is already being extended by this FCC in a number of other arenas using a flurry of innocuous-seeming “Notices of Inquiry.” While these notices purport only to ask questions, they either:

1. Foreshadow where the Commission intends to go in proposing new regulations based on its nearly limitless conception of its own regulatory authority;
2. Are intended to pressure Congress to give the agency more statutory authority; or
3. Are intended to intimidate industry into “playing ball” so the FCC won’t actually have to stick its neck out by trying to write rules to regulate Internet activities that are clearly beyond its existing authority and might well be unconstitutional even if Congress ever did expand that authority.

Exhibit A is the language in the Commission’s August 2009 Wireless Innovation and Investment Notice of Inquiry, (paragraph 60, pg. 21) that suggests the FCC is angling to become the Federal Cloud Commission:

As other approaches, such as cloud computing, evolve, will established standards or de facto standards become more important to the applications development process? For example, can a dominant cloud computing position raise the same competitive issues that are now being discussed in the context of network neutrality? Will it be necessary to modify the existing balance between regulatory and market forces to promote further innovation in the development and deployment of new applications and services?

Good morning, Google!  Hello, Facebook! Is anyone out there in the cloud listening to the rumbling thunder of federal regulation? What began as academic theory in a law school ivory tower is coming soon to a regulatory agency near you! But wait… there’s more!

National Broadband Plan Public Notice #21 (Cloud Computing)

Last November, as part of the Commission’s ongoing effort to develop a National Broadband Plan, the FCC released a request for information “on data portability and its relationship to broadband.”  (NBP Public Notice #21) “The Commission seeks tailored comment on broadband and portability of data and their relation to cloud computing, transparency, identity, and privacy,” the notice says.  Here was the second item on the list of things the Commission said it was investigating (p. 2):

When considering the portability of data, we also consider the processes through which data are moved. In this context, we seek comment on how to identify and understand cloud computing as a model for technology provisioning…. What types of cloud computing exist (e.g., public, hybrid, and internal) and what are the legal and regulatory implications of their use? … To what extent are consumers protected by industry self-regulation (e.g., the Cloud Computing Manifesto), and to what extent might additional protections be needed? … What specific privacy concerns are there with user data and cloud computing? What precautions should government agencies take to prevent disclosure of personal information when providing data? Is the use of cloud computing a net positive to the environment? Are there specific studies that quantify the environmental impact of cloud computing?

We suppose some might claim there’s nothing wrong with the FCC looking into these issues, and that the agency’s interest in cloud computing is entirely benign. (Never mind the fact that the Federal Trade Commission already enforces the privacy policies of cloud computing providers and is looking hard at online privacy.)  Seeing all these open-ended questions about something so obviously beyond the scope of the FCC’s authority just makes the potential for—and perhaps even inevitability of—regulatory creep hard to miss.  Eventually, when a regulatory agency asks enough questions, especially the sort of questions highlighted above… well, to paraphrase Master Yoda:

Open-ended inquiries about new regulations are the path to the Dark side. Inquiries lead to agency oversight. Agency oversight leads to regulation. Regulation leads to suffering for innovators and consumers alike.

Again, we’re not just inventing bogeymen here. It’s quite clear that regulatory advocates want to take neutrality regulation into “the Cloud.” As Jason Lanier, author of the popular book You Are Not a Gadget summarizes one of his key themes:

While there is a lot of talk about networks and emergence from the top American technologists, in truth, most of them are hoping to thrive by controlling the network that everyone else is forced to pass through. Everyone wants to be a “Lord of a Computing Cloud.”

In Lanier’s dystopia of techno-feudalism, the Lords oppressing the poor digital “peasants” certainly aren’t just those running broadband service providers. It’s the Google, Facebooks, and Twitters of the world. It’s similar to the “sharecropper” concern raised by Nick Carr in his book The Big Switch. Complaints like those will only grow in the years to come, and few will buy—or even pause to remember—the distinction Chairman Genachowski seems to stand on now between infrastructure and “the Internet.”

National Broadband Plan Public Notice #29 (Privacy)

The “Recovery Act” passed in January 2009 tasked the FCC with formulating “a detailed strategy for achieving affordability of such service and maximum utilization of broadband infrastructure and service by the public.” The FCC seized this as an opportunity to solicit suggestions as to how regulate the use and collection of data by the private sector on the grounds that concerns about privacy might somehow be slowing broadband adoption.

Chairman Genachowski’s flurry of open-ended inquiries about new regulation are clearly intended to give a bully pulpit to regulatory advocates to demand that the FCC issue the very sort of Internet regulations the Chairman purports to abhor (or that Congress give the agency authority to do so). But most of these notices at least appear to be objective requests for comments written independently of the groups the Commission seems so eager to hear beg for Internet regulation. But in this case, the Commission dispensed with that tedious formality and just outsourced the writing of the inquiry itself to one of the outside groups clamoring the loudest for data regulation in the name of “privacy”: our friends at the Center for Democracy & Technology, with whom PFF has worked closely on many free speech issues in the past.

CDT is on to something when they write that “Consumers will not embrace broadband if they have a sense that everything they do online will be watched by government officials.” We’ll join with them in the fight to protect consumers’ privacy from the Real Big Brother—government!—but once again, as with net neutrality, advocates of regulation see government as the protector of our digital liberties (if only we can forever make sure noble civil-libertarians are in charge of the regulatory apparatus of the state!). So CDT has it exactly backwards when they say: “Consumer privacy concerns encompass not only what companies do with their data, but also the extent to which the government accesses it.” And instead of just suggesting that the FCC’s National Broadband Plan include a recommendation that Congress clean up the antiquated laws intended to limit government surveillance, CDT pushes for sweeping regulations that would affect the ability of most online services and sites to collect and use the data they need to improve their services, innovate, and maybe even try to make some money on advertising to support all the free content and services they give away.

Thus, instead of focusing on the clear harm from government, the FCC’s outsourced inquiry goes after online operators as “privacy proxies” for concerns about government action. At least Congress actually asked for the FCC’s recommendations in this case, unlike all the other inquiries the agency has launched sua sponte. But as Berin noted in his comments on this inquiry, the Recovery Act allowed the FCC to “recommend only those policies that it concludes will, on net, help achieve “affordability” and ‘maximum utilization’ of broadband.” That means the Commission would actually have to consider the many trade-offs inherent in the private sector use of data before recommending regulation: If the Internet ecosystem is impoverished by government intervention, however well-intentioned it may be, users will have that much less reason to adopt and “utilize broadband.” So the FCC would have a lot of cost-benefit analysis to do before it could actually make the kinds of regulatory recommendations CDT wants. And we suspect that, on the whole, that analysis wouldn’t turn out the way CDT thinks it would.

Child Safe Viewing Act Notice of Inquiry

In a somewhat similar vein, Congress last year asked the agency to examine how well parental control technologies work to allow parents to filter objectionable content online. So while the FCC may have had, for once, the authority to ask broad questions, it’s startling just how broad those questions were. The Commission obviously has no authority over video games or virtual worlds, online video distribution networks or video hosting sites, mobile web content, MP3 players or iPods, P2P networks, VCRs or DVD players, PVRs or TiVo, Internet filters, safe search tools, laptops, and so on. And yet, all these things (and much more) were mentioned in the Commission’s Child Safe Viewing Act Notice of Inquiry.

The proceeding raises the prospect of what Adam has called “convergence era content regulation” since it opens the doors to FCC meddling on a number of new fronts in the name of “protecting children.” Although the Commission’s final report to Congress stopped short of calling for an substantive expansion of the agency’s content regulatory regime, it teed up another proceeding, discussed next. (And if Congress hasn’t moved more quickly to grant the FCC new power in this area, it’s probably because they’re busy trying to figure out how to get around a line of First Amendment cases that consistently require government regulation to yield to “less restrictive” alternatives like parental control tools and education.)

Empowering Parents & Protecting Children Notice of Inquiry

This wide-ranging inquiry reads like the ultimate “fishing expedition” by a regulatory agency—fishing for new jurisdictional authority to regulate, that is!  The questions asked are too broad, far-flung and various to catalog here (we’ll have a big filing coming in the matter soon), but the Commission asks about extending to Internet media the model of the 1990 Children’s Television Act, which imposes “public interest” obligations on broadcasters and cable operators to offer “education” content while also strictly limiting how much advertising may be shown during children’s TV. The Commission also alludes, ominously, to the V-chip model for requiring universal ratings for television and hints that it would really like for “current laws [to] be updated to reflect this convergence and to keep pace with changes in technology” (¶ 41).

The Commission mentions only in passing at the very end of the Inquiry that it “has varying degrees of statutory authority with respect to different media. We ask commenters, in proposing any action, to discuss the source and extent of the Commission’s authority to take the action, or whether new legislation would be needed to authorize such action” (¶ 58). Translation: “Uh, yeah… so… we know we don’t have a statutory leg to stand on here, but we think it’d be really cool if we did, so let’s just all, you know, kinda brainstorm about what kind of regulation we could be imposing here and what kind of law we’d need get Congress to pass to make it all legal. Or if you have any creative ideas on how we could get away with just making up the jurisdiction thing on our own, that’d be even better!”

YouTube, you’re first on the list of targets for the kind of online video regulation the FCC is hinting at here—and none too subtly. But why stop there? The FCC’s laundry list of complaints aren’t limited just to video, but could apply to essentially all online media. But this is all in the name of “protecting the children,” and Chairman Genachowski doesn’t want to regulate the Internet, so we really don’t need to worry—right?

Future of Media Notice of Inquiry

Most recently, in late January, the Commission launched the ambitiously-named “Examination of the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age.” The FCC asks a number of good questions about how government could get out of the way of media struggling to reinvent themselves in the digital era by scrapping outdated regulations. The inquiry also tips its hat to the vital importance of advertising in supporting media. But it’s otherwise pretty bad news as a harbinger of a “Chill Wind” for the future of a free press in this country, as Ken Ferree, PFF’s former president and current board member noted.

In particular, the Commission comes right out with a “trial balloon” about imposing public interest obligations on online operators—the very thing it hinted at slightly more delicately in the “Empowering Parents” inquiry mentioned above:

Broadcasters have certain public interest obligations, including that they provide programming responsive to the needs and issues of their communities and comply with the Commission’s children’s programming requirements. Cable and satellite operators have their own responsibilities…  Should such obligations be applied to a broader range of media or technology companies, or be limited in scope?

OK, so we’re not going to “regulate” online content operators; we’re just going to impose “public interest” obligations on them to provide certain kinds of content preferred by politicians. Right… and if Google News or YouTube don’t do enough to “serve the public interest,” what then? Will the Federal Search Commission take away Google’s search license or cloud computing license?

Of course, we don’t mean to suggest that even the “Federal Cloud Commission” would ever be so unsubtle as to create a formal licensing system when they can probably achieve the same ends with far less obvious regulation. But how is this all going to work, exactly? Again, this is exactly the kind of hopelessly vague regulatory morass Congress had in mind when it declared that the federal government would avoid “fettering” the “vibrant competitive free market … for the Internet and other interactive computer services” with regulation.

The FCC goes on to revive the kinds of broad net neutrality ideas discussed above in asking:

How would policies related to “open Internet” or “universal broadband” or other FCC policies about communications infrastructure affect the likelihood that the Internet will meet the information needs of communities? Are there search engine practices that might positively or negatively affect web-based efforts to provide news or information?

In other words, “Tell us why and precisely how we should start regulating search engines in order to help ‘save  news.'” Google, here’s looking at you, kid! You want to keep your search license, dontcha? Well, just do what the nice men from Washington want and there won’t be any trouble.

Finally, the Commission opens the door to the noxious proposal for a “public option” for media, which Adam has lambasted. Here’s what the Commission says:

In general, what categories of journalism are most in jeopardy in the digital era? What categories are likely to flourish? While much is still to be determined as media companies test various business models and payment approaches in the coming years, based on what is known now, are there news and information needs that commercial market mechanisms alone are unlikely to serve adequately?

Don’t worry, it’s not as if government will exercise control over the media companies it funds if the media-socialist fantasies of the neo-Marxist Robert McChesney and his ironically-named “Free Press” group actually come true. Nope, government’s just here to help!

We’d all do well to remember that subsidies always come with strings attached—namely, regulation. That’s the Golden Rule: “He who has the gold, makes the rules!”

Conclusion

Chairman Genachowski, with all due respect, if you don’t like people suggesting that the FCC may be positioning itself to regulate the Internet and digital media platforms, then you might want to take a careful look at what your agency has been doing. You should think hard both about the precedents that will be set by “neutrality” regulation for online content and services, and also about the quasi-regulatory effect that your agency’s flurry of open-ended inquiries will have on the operators you claim not to want to regulate.

What will future Chairmen do with these precedents? What will emerge from every “Pandora’s Box” you’ve opened with each new sweeping inquiry? The answer, we fear, is an endless parade of new Internet regulations—and the death by a thousand cuts of real Internet freedom.

Most of you have probably already seen this but Pingdom recently aggregated and posted some amazing stats about “Internet 2009 In Numbers.”  Worth checking them all out, but here are some highlights:

• 1.73 billion Internet users worldwide as of Sept 2009; 18% increase in Internet users since previous year.
• 81.8 million .COM domain names at the end of 2009; 12.3 million .NET & 7.8 million .ORG
• 234 million websites as of Dec 2009; 47 million were added in 2009.
• 90 trillion emails sent on the Internet in 2009; 1.4 billion email users worldwide.
• 26 million blogs on the Internet.
• 27.3 million tweets on Twitter per day as of Nov 2009.
• 350 million people on Facebook; 50% of them log in every day; + 500,000 active Facebook applications.
• 4 billion photos hosted by Flickr as of Oct 2009; 2.5 billion photos uploaded each month to Facebook.
• 1 billion videos served by YouTube each day; 12.2 billion videos viewed per month; 924 million videos viewed per month on Hulu in the US as of Nov 2009; + the average Internet user in the US watches 182 online videos each month.

And yet some people claim that digital generativity and online innovation are dead!   Things have never been better.

Over at Mashable, Ben Parr has a post (“Facebook Turns to the Crowd to Eradicate Offensive Content“) expressing surprise that Facebook has a crowdsourcing / community policing solution to deal with objectionable content:

Did you know that Facebook has a crack team of employees whose mission is to deal with offensive content and user complaints? Their ranks number in the hundreds. But while most websites have people on staff to deal with porn and violence, none of them have 350 million users to manage… Now the world’s largest social network found a way to deal with this shortage of manpower, though. Facebook has begun testing a new feature called the Facebook Community Council [currently invite-only]. According to a guest post on the Boing Boing blog by one of the council’s members, its goal is to purge Facebook of nudity, drugs, violence, and spam. The Facebook Community Council is actually a Facebook app and tool for evaluating content for various offenses… The app’s tagging system allows council members to tag content with one of eight phrases: Spam, Acceptable, Not English, Skip, Nudity, Drugs, Attacking, and Violence. If enough council members tag a piece of content with the same tag, action is taken, often a takedown.

What Facebook is doing here is nothing all that new.  Many other social networking sites or platforms such MySpace, Ning, and many others, do much the same. Video hosting sites like YouTube do as well. [See my summary of YouTube’s efforts down below]**

No doubt, some will be quick to decry “private censorship” with moves by social networking sites, video hosting sites, and others to flag and remove objectionable content within their communities, but such critics need to understand that:

1. Big communities require interest-balancing: Online communities like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc., are broad-based communities with diverse interests and sensitives. Some forms of community policing are, therefore, necessary to achieve a reasonable balance among those interests. You are always free to “move” elsewhere if you don’t like the standards set by a particular online community. The Internet is a big place; there’s a community out there for every taste and interest!
2. Private community policing beats public censorship: If larger, more popular online communities fail to take steps to establish private community standards, policymakers will suggest they should do it for them. Better that the various private online communities police themselves by “flagging & tagging” objectionable content than to have 5 unelected bureaucrats at the FCC (or FTC) regulating online speech for us.  As pointed out above, you can always escape private online communities. By contrast, you cannot escape blanket, one-size-fits all federal censorship efforts.

** In late 2008, YouTube created a new “Abuse and Safety Center” to make it easier for users to report abusive behavior or inappropriate content. The site also makes it easy for users to find helpful information from various expert organizations who deal with troubling behavior.

For example, if a YouTube user reports “hateful content,” they are directed to tips from the Anti-Defamation League. Similarly, information from the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is provided to those who report suicide concerns, and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children provides information and links about sexual abuse of minors. YouTube also has strict “community guidelines” governing appropriate behavior on the site.

Finally, in May 2009, YouTube announced a new “Filter Wrds” program that lets users block profanity and racial slurs. According to the site: “Users can opt into this by clicking on ‘Options’ next to the Comments header and checking the ‘Filter Wrds’ box. Users can also choose to hide comments altogether by clicking on ‘Hide Comments.’” Those user preferences will then be saved by the browser.  According to YouTube, the site uses “a combination of feedback from users, proprietary technology, and a commonsense collection of words in English to decide what to filter.” Incidentally, there’s also a free Firefox extension called “YouTube Comment Snob” that that filters out undesirable comments from YouTube comment threads.

Three months ago, when the DC Circuit struck down the FCC’s “Cable Cap”—which prevented any one cable company from serving more than 30% of US households out of fear that he larger cable companies would use their “gatekeeper” power to restrict programming—the New York Times bemoaned the decision:

The problem with the cap is not that it is too onerous, but that it is not demanding enough. Even with the cap — and satellite television — there is a disturbing lack of price competition. The cable companies have resisted letting customers choose, a la carte, the channels they actually watch…. [The FCC] needs to ensure that customers have an array of choices among cable providers, and that there is real competition on price and program offerings.

Perhaps the Times‘ editors should have consulted with the Lead Technology Writer of their excellent BITS blog.  Nick Bilton might have told him the truth: “Cable Freedom Is a Click Away.”  That’s the title of his excellent survey of devices and services (Hulu, Boxee, iTunes, Joost, YouTube, etc.) that allow users to get cable television programming without a cable subscription.

Nick explains that consumers can “cut the video cord” and still find much, if not all, their favorite cable programming—as well as the vast offerings of online video—without a hefty monthly subscription.  (Adam recently described how Clicker.com is essentially TV guide for the increasing cornucopia of Internet video.)  This makes the 1992 Cable Act’s requirement that the FCC impose a cable cap nothing more than the vestige of a bygone era of platform scarcity, predating not just the Internet, but also competing subscription services offered by satellite and telcos over fiber.  That’s precisely what we argued in PFF’s amicus brief to the DC Circuit a year ago, and largely why the court ultimately struck down the cap.

Bilton notes that “this isn’t as easy as just plugging a computer into a monitor, sitting back and watching a movie. There’s definitely a slight learning curve.”  But, as he describes, cutting the cord isn’t rocket science.  If getting used to using a wireless mouse is the thing that most keeps consumers “enslaved” to the cable “gatekeepers” the FCC frets so much about, what’s the big deal?  Does government really need to set aside the property and free speech rights of cable operators to run their own networks just because some people may not be as quick to dump cable as Bilton?  Is the lag time between early adopters and mainstream really such a problem that we would risk maintaining outdated systems of architectural censorship (Chris Yoo’s brilliant term) that give government control over speech in countless subtle and indirect ways?

If we were talking about just another subscription video service like satellite and telco fiber, the demise of cable as a unique “bottleneck” for programming might not be so obvious to the layperson (although MVPD competition is quite stunning, and means that “subscription service freedom is just a phone call or click away”).  But in the case of Internet video, the programming is à la carte by show and often free  (i.e., ad-supported), so consumers have a huge incentive to switch or can simply “put their toe in the water” before finally taking the plunge altogether.  As Bilton notes, he’s saving a fortune ($1,600/year):

Although the initial investment was costly, totaling $550, it took only a few months to recoup the money. Back in the olden days of cable we were forced to shell out a relatively standard $140 a month, for television service alone. This cost gave us access to a digital video recorder and hundreds of unwatched TV channels. Contrast this with today, where our only expense is $9 a month to stream Netflix videos from the Web and the $30 a month that we always spent on an Internet connection. O.K., maybe that’s not completely accurate. When the wireless keyboard died a few weeks ago I was forced to spend another $4 for two new AA batteries. We’ve not yet recovered from that financial loss… Tunes can get expensive. If you watch premium-cable television shows, you can pay more than $40 for the season of a single show. But even that is less than one month of cable. Since there are so many other entertainment options online, we just skip “Dexter” and “Weeds.” Trust me, there is a lot of great free or ad-supported content out there.

The experience isn’t that different, but it is richer:

We still come home from work and watch any number of shows, just like the people who continue to pay for cable. We just do it a little differently, starting the computer and then using services like Hulu, Boxee, iTunes and Joost. Another interesting twist to this experience is that we’re no longer limited to consuming traditional programming. With these applications we can spend an entire evening flicking through videos from YouTube, CollegeHumor or Web-only programs.

Mark my words: stories like this one will become increasingly representative of the mainstream, just as huge numbers of consumers have “cut the landline cord” in favor of cell phones.  By the time the FCC gets around to coming up with a new cable cap—using some inventively”fresh approach,” as the Times suggests, no doubt—stories like this one will be passé, and today’s world of cable TV subscriptions will have gone the way of the landline, rabbit ears, the fax machine, the mimeograph and the stereoscope.  The FCC, the Times’ editorialists, and all the other media reformista groups that keep screaming for regulation to slay phantoms of a bygone era will look mighty foolish, indeed.

On a final note, savvy observers will notice the similarity between Bilton’s slogan (“Cable Freedom Is a Click Away”) and Google’s mantra about its various services (“Competition is just one click away“).  Both run contrary to the prevailing assumption behind so much communications/Internet policymaking that users are too lazy, ignorant, stupid and/or helpless to find, explore, try, or even understand new tools, products, services or models.  One could raise legitimate questions about how competition plays out on the other side of these two-sided markets (advertising in the case of search and programming in the case of cable television), but to deny that consumers are capable of “clicking away” is to assume that they are mindless sheep.

The New York Times, to their credit and despite their editorial position on cable regulation, certainly seems to have a higher opinion of our intelligence—or they wouldn’t have bothered with Bilton’s excellent do-it-yourself guide.  In the case of television programming, the “sheep”  have begun overrunning  whatever “gates” once contained them and flooding into the verdant pastures of Internet video programming abundance.  More will soon follow in droves, and cable operators will do everything they can to keep their “grass” (programming choices) as “green” (abundant and diverse) as possible, just to compete.  The FCC’s continued meddling is simply unnecessary, counterproductive and dangerous as a precedent for outdated regulatory controls.

The disabled have much to give thanks for this year—but contrary to common assumptions, it’s not for paternalistic government accessibility mandates, regulations or subsidies (see, for example, the FCC’s November 6 Broadband Accessibility workshop), but for the good ol’ fashioned private sector ingenuity that has made America great. Five broad categories of examples suggest how constantly-improving computing power and innovation can make life easier for many, if not all, disabled users—and how market forces empower the disabled along with everyone else.

Video transcription. Last week, Google announced “the preliminary roll-out of automatic captioning in YouTube, an innovation that takes advantage of our speech recognition technology to turn the spoken word into text captions.” Google uses the same speech recognition technology it refined with its free Goog-411 and Google Voice services to automatically transcribe video dialog (which can also be automatically translated using Google’s translation engine). Why? Not because of any government mandate, but because of some combination of three factors: (i) it’s an easy way for Google to invest in its “reputational capital,” (ii) the underlying technologies of transcribing videos make videos easier to use for all users, not just the hearing-impaired, and (iii) those technologies also make it possible to contextually target advertising to the verbal content of videos.

It’s worth noting that Hulu currently offers closed captioning for some of its television programming but notes that “closed-captioning data that’s used for broadcast TV isn’t easily translated for online use.” The online television clearinghouse promises to offer more closed-captioning soon. Perhaps they ought to license Google’s algorithmic transcription?

Voice recognition for direct consumer use—most notably, Dragon NaturallySpeaking 10, the latest version of the leading voice recognition software, which was released in summer 2008 but only recently seems to have really hit critical mass. By many accounts, and my own personal experience over the last few months (having lost the use of my left hand due to cartilege damage), Dragon 10 is the first speech recognition program that is really “ready for prime time”—good enough that I will very likely continue using it, at least sometimes, even after my wrist heals in the coming months. (I used it to write this post.) It offers non-disabled consumers functionality like dictation-on-the go and points to a day when everyone gets their own personal transcription secretary—think: 1950s office culture meets artificial intelligence.

While Dragon standard currently retails for $50.99 on Amazon (list Price: $99.99), Microsoft’s new Windows 7 includes voice-recognition functionality that is not terribly far behind Dragon in quality among its built-in accessibility features (although, when it comes to voice-recognition, small differences in quality are well worth the cost).

Jon Morrow (Associate Editor of Copyblogger), whose muscular dystrophy rendered him quadriplegic, provides a definitive guide to speech recognition for bloggers, focusing on Dragon:

Voice recognition for search. Google Voice Search, initially launched on the iPhone a year ago, and more recently made available on other mobile devices. By allowing users to search from their phones without typing, the program makes search just that much more accessible for users who have difficulty typing—something I was very grateful for as I recovered from my wrist surgery, with only my Droid to keep me (and my one good hand) company—and allow me to blog! While this is a small step, it foreshadows a day in which all mobile devices will have the kind of speech recognition capability Dragon makes possible on the desktop today.  Given the rapid and constant increase in computing power made possible by Moore’s Law, it’s just a matter of time before this dream comes true.

What these first three product categories have in common, besides speech-to-text functionality, is that they are not exclusively geared to the disabled. Instead, each also offers functionality to a broader market.

Text-to-speech functionality. This is one of the accessibility highlights of Windows 7. Adobe has also improved the screen reader functionality in its Acrobat Reader 9 software. While these features are primarily geared towards the disabled, the quality of text-to-speech automation has improved to the point that it is actually being used for a mass-market.

• Exhibit A: AudioDizer, a service that aims to “enable newspapers, magazines, and blogs to distribute their content in MP3 format for every single article published.” While AudioDizer won’t replace good human readers anytime soon, such software will increasingly remove the absolute necessity—and cost—of having someone read text material you want to podcast. This, in turn, will revolutionize podcasting by making it nearly costless and effortless to put text into audio form.  The quality is probably not acceptable for most people yet, but for many other hard-core “listenists” (people who consume audio content as voraciously as the most dedicated readers), it’s simply revolutionary to have access to a library of audio content potentially as large as the text-Internet itself.  For me, this means I can make better use of the time I spend puttering around the house—or, in my two-arm days, folding laundry, going to the gym  or riding my bike. (I am a particularly big fan of the MIT Technology Review podcast, which will give you an idea of the quality of AudioDizer.) But for the visually impaired, AudioDizer could be far more profoundly important.  In either case, the “killer app” for text-to-speech will be the level of quality finally achieved in speech-to-text by Dragon NaturallySpeaking 10.
• Exhibit B: the text-to-speech capability in Amazon’s Kindle 2 reader device. While the Kindle itself is difficult for the visually impaired or blind to use, the mainstreaming of such functionality will ultimately benefit such disabled users by increasing the incentive to improve text-to-speech functionality. Sadly, after receiving (debatable) copyright complaints from the Author’s Guild, Amazon decided to turn this functionality off  for all books, unless activated by the publisher (an opt-in). If the technology were actually good enough to be a substitute for an audiobook, the Authors Guild’s complaint would be more understandable. Unfortunately, such an opt-in will probably delay the popular acceptance of text-to-speech functionality by average users.

Open source & open platforms.  Their growing success in the marketplace (not because of government, mind you!) likely means that disabled consumers will have more choices.

• Software: There are a slew of accessibility-oriented add-ons for the Firefox browser, and Mozilla makes it easy to find such tools by allowing users to group related add-ons into “Collections” such as this one. In particular, the Firefox Accessibility Extension has been downloaded nearly 150,000 times.
• Hardware: The success of open operating systems such as Google’s Android should make it easier for device manufacturers to build devices with specialty features, say, for the visually-impaired. Certainly, it would be easier to do so than to build such functionality into all iPhones. At the very least, a diversity of form factors will create more real options for the sometimes very specific needs of the disabled.  For example, I simply could not have typed effectively with one hand on my old HTC XV6800, but my new Motorola Droid, with its superior on-screen keyboard and different form factor allows me to type fairly effectively with just one hand (as does my partners iPhone).

Tying It All Together

That’s really the key lesson here: While many advocates for the disabled may complain that the iPhone isn’t as accessible as they might like, mandating accessibility features for all devices comes at a real costs for users: There’s only so much you can fit into a single device. If government mandates additional features, something has to give, because we live in a world of trade-offs: price, bulk, weight, etc. But a world with many devices and competing operating systems is a world in which niche markets are increasingly being served—primarily because Moore’s Law increasingly makes it cost-effective to do so.

The “disabled” are not a monolith but represent a wide spectrum of interface needs along the long tail of human ability-diversity. Rather than trying to stunt the functionality of all devices in the name of “fairness,” we ought to be focusing on the ways in which falling prices, increasing processing power and the increasing efficiency of small-scale consumer electronic device manufacturing make possible an increased degree, and diversity, of functionality previously inconceivable. We also ought to look for ways to make sure that government doesn’t inadvertently get away this ongoing process, such as through cumbersome device testing requirements or by restricting the exclusive handset arrangements that make it possible for wireless carriers to subsidize the cost of expensive devices. The latter is especially important for achieving the kind of scale in adoption of a device that could help make it worthwhile to develop and bring to market specialty devices—say, for the visually-impaired.

The offerings for the disabled will probably always lag behind those for average consumers, but complaining about that is a lot like complaining about the fact that the rich tend to be the only ones who can initially afford new inventions—from air travel to air conditioning to refrigerators to personal computing.  Just as the wealthy tends to fund the investments in these technologies, to the benefit of “average” consumers, so, too, will the mass market for functionalities like speech-to-text and text-to-speech drive the perfection of these technologies, which are particularly important for disabled users.

Of course, there are are indeed some accessibility functionalities necessitated by certain disabilities that may not have such ready dual-use among a mass audience. But I suspect that accessibility functionalities will become increasingly indistinguishable from tools developed for average users.  The main distinction will lie in the fact that for the disabled, these tools may be a life-changing “necessity,” while for most users, they may merely be “cool” or simply “useful.”  Case in point: the volume level on my new Droid’s speakerphone is so loud that it will likely make the phone “accessible” for many heart-of-hearing users who simply couldn’t hear previous smartphones. For me, it’s a nifty feature (and sometimes even annoyance), while for them it may be a fantastic relief.

More generally, it’s important to recognize the diversity of incentives that makes possible this diversity of functionalities for a diversely-capable citizenry: For some companies, like Nuance (maker of Dragon NaturallySpeaking) the disabled are a key market. And anticapitalist critic might claim that “they’re just in it for the money.”  But as Adam Smith said, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” In other words, it’s a good thing that there are companies out there who try to meet the needs of the disabled. (The Internet has made it easier than ever before for disabled consumers to find products that meet their needs.  Just Google the keywords “disabled products” and you’ll get over 57 million hits.) For some companies, the motive to  invest in accessibility innovation may be “philanthropic”—i.e., a down payment on consumer goodwill. And for other companies, the motive may be more mixed: Google clearly gains additional advertising audience by reaching the disabled, and also uses its accessibility technologies to serve ads better and making it easier for all users to conduct searches.

As for the broader subject of “neuro-diversity” (the broad spectrum of human cognitive abilities and not necessarily a “disability”), I highly recommend Tyler Cohen’s new book Create Your Own Economy (reviewed by Adam here), which celebrates the Internet as a great emancipating force for the neuro-diverse.

The Internet is massive. That’s the ‘no-duh’ statement of the year, right?  But seriously, the sheer volume of transactions (both economic and non-economic) is simply staggering.  Consider a few factoids to give you a flavor of just how much is going on out there:

• In 2006, Internet users in the United States viewed an average of 120.5 Web pages each day.
• There are over 1.4 million new blog posts every day.
• Social networking giant Facebook reports that each month, its over 300 million users upload more than 2 billion photos, 14 million videos, and create over 3 million events. More than 2 billion pieces of content (web links, news stories, blog posts, notes, photos, etc.) are shared each week. There are also roughly 45 million active user groups on the site.
• YouTube reports that 20 hours of video are uploaded to the site every minute.
• Amazon reported that on December 15, 2008, 6.3 million items were ordered worldwide, a rate of 72.9 items per second.
• Every six weeks, there are 10 million edits made to Wikipedia.

Now, let’s think about how some of our lawmakers and media personalities talk about the Internet.  If we were to judge the Internet based upon the daily headlines in various media outlets or from the titles of various Congressional or regulatory agency hearings, then we’d be led to believe that the Internet is a scary, dangerous place. That ‘s especially the case when it comes to concerns about online privacy and child safety. Everywhere you turn there’s a bogeyman story about the supposed dangers of cyberspace.

But let’s go back to the numbers. While I certainly understand the concerns many folks have about their personal privacy or their child’s safety online, the fact is the vast majority of online transactions that take place online each and every second of the day are of an entirely harmless, even socially beneficial nature.  I refer to this disconnect as the “problem of proportionality” in debates about online safety and privacy. People are not just making mountains out of molehills, in many cases they are just making the molehills up or blowing them massively out of proportion.

Go back to those Facebook numbers, for example. 300 million users uploading 2 billion pieces of content each week, plus 45 million user groups.  Now, how many “incidents” do you hear about in the course of an entire year involving privacy and child safety on Facebook? A couple? A dozen?  I doubt it’s that many, but for the sake of argument, let’s be preposterous and say the number of incidents is 10,000.  Doing some quick math: 10,000 “incidents” divided by 2 billion pieces of content shared each week = 0.001%   In other words, there would need to be hundreds of thousands of privacy or child safety “incidents” taking place on Facebook each week before one could legitimately claim the trend was statistically significant in proportion to the total volume of transactions.

Of course, there’s no way to be scientific about this since I can’t crunch the numbers to get an exact calculation for Facebook or the entire Internet since it’s hard to even define or collect info about online “incidents.” And this is not to say there are never any incidents online where some harm might come to an individual or a child.  Defining “harm” can be contentious, however, especially when it comes to what I regard as the conjectural theories about advertising or provocative media content “harming” us or our kids.

Of course, others could claim that the sheer volume of information that we put online about ourselves is problematic for a variety of other reasons. The best argument about potential harm coming of all this information being online is that the sheer volume of data sharing and collection opens up the door to identify theft, or that some government agencies could get their hands on it and use it to do nasty stuff to us.  That first problem can be a legitimate one, and deserves more attention and greater consumer education. But that latter problem should be addressed by putting more constraints on our government(s), not by imposing more regulations on the Internet. Government powers should be tightly limited when it comes to monitoring the habits of websurfers or collecting information about them.

Nonetheless, it is my contention that an infinitesimal percentage of all daily online transactions and interactions involve serious privacy violations or harm to children.  Until they can prove otherwise, we need to demand that our policymakers and folks in the press put these issues into some perspective before they jump to conclusion about online life.  Enough of the fear-mongering and techno-panics!

I really enjoyed my Second Life appearance on “Government’s Place in Virtual Worlds and Online Communities,” which was hosted by Metanomics.  You can watch the entire segment on the Metanomics site.  But the folks at Metanomics have also posted 6 clips from the show at YouTube that highlight some of the topics we discussed.  Here’s the list of clips and the videos:

Part 1: Are the Feds about to Regulate Second Life & Virtual Worlds?

Part 2: Global Communities, Local Values, Internet Governance & The Dangers of “Harmonization”

Part 3:  Virtual Child Pornography & Our Virtual Reality Future

Part 4: Why Speech Controls & Privacy Regulations are Two Sides of the Same Coin

Part 5: Privacy, Advertising, User Empowerment, and the “Free” Internet

Part 6: Virtual World Self-Governance and a “Utopia of Utopias”

Finally, here’s some of the background material I referenced during the show:

• “Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods [VERSION 4.0]“
• “Parents, Kids & Policymakers in the Digital Age: Safeguarding Against ‘Techno-Panics’“, Inside ALEC, July 2009.
• “Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree: Education, Empowerment & Self-Regulation Are the Answer,” PFF Progress on Point 16.13, July 8, 2009
• “Cyberbullying Legislation:  Why Education is Preferable to Regulation,” by Berin Szoka and Adam Thierer, PFF Progress on Point 16.12, June 19, 2009
• “COPPA 2.0: The New Battle over Privacy, Age Verification, Online Safety & Free Speech,” by Berin Szoka and Adam Thierer, PFF Progress on Point 16.11, May 21, 2009
• Web 2.0, Section 230, and Nozick’s “Utopia of Utopias”, Jan. 13, 2009, Tech Liberation Front

Last Wednesday, Holman Jenkins penned a column in The Wall Street Journal about net neutrality (Adam discussed it here). In response, I have a letter to the editor in today’s The Wall Street Journal:

To the Editor: Mr. Jenkins suggests that Google would likely “shriek” if a startup were to mount its servers inside the network of a telecom provider. Google already does just that. It is called “edge caching,” and it is employed by many content companies to keep costs down. It is puzzling, then, why Google continues to support net neutrality. As long as Google produces content that consumers value, they will demand an unfettered Internet pipe. Political battles aside, content and infrastructure companies have an inherently symbiotic relationship. Fears that Internet providers will, absent new rules, stifle user access to content are overblown. If a provider were to, say, block or degrade YouTube videos, its customers would likely revolt and go elsewhere. Or they would adopt encrypted network tunnels, which route around Internet roadblocks. Not every market dispute warrants a government response. Battling giants like Google and AT&T can resolve network tensions by themselves. Ryan Radia Competitive Enterprise Institute Washington

To be sure, the market for residential Internet service is not all that competitive in some parts of the country — Rochester, New York, for instance — so a provider might in some cases be able to get away with unsavory practices for a sustained period without suffering the consequences. Yet ISP competition is on the rise, and a growing number of Americans have access to three or more providers. This is especially true in big cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Washington D.C.

Instead of trying to put a band-aid on problems that stem from insufficient ISP competition, the FCC should focus on reforming obsolete government rules that prevent ISP competition from emerging. Massive swaths of valuable spectrum remain unavailable to would-be ISP entrants, and municipal franchising rules make it incredibly difficult to lay new wire in public rights-of-way for the purpose of delivering bundled data and video services.

The Google juggernaut’s revenue growth has slowed steadily in the last five years, causing the Wall Street Journal to caution investors about buying Google stock. While much of the slow-down in Google’s revenue may be attributed to the recession, the WSJ cautions that:

• Microsoft is offering stiffer competition in search, which will only intensify once antitrust regulators approve its partnership with Yahoo! and the two companies actually implement their partnership (which could take another year);
• YouTube’s promise as an ad platform remains uncertain;
• Google lags behind Apple and Research in Motion in developing mobile phone operating systems, with Android still unproven;
• It remains unclear how successful the company will be in expanding beyond its existing lead in small text  ads into the potentially lucrative realm of banner ads.

Somehow I doubt Google’s fall to Earth will do much to allay the concerns of those who see Google as the kind of evil monopolist Microsoft was made out to be in the 90s.

As the Journal concludes, “It would be foolish to predict that Google won’t have another business success, of course… Google may itself discover the next Google-like business.” As long as someone’s out there working to turn today’s idle fantasies into tomorrow’s multi-billion dollar businesses, consumers win—whoever that bold innovator might be.

“Liberty upsets patterns.” That was one of the many lessons that the late Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick taught us in his 1974 masterpiece “Anarchy, State, and Utopia.” What Nozick meant was that there is a fundamental tension between liberty and egalitarianism such that when people are left to their own devices, some forms of inequality would be inevitable and persistent throughout society. (Correspondingly, any attempt to force patterns, or outcomes, upon society requires a surrender of liberty.)

No duh, right? Most people understand this today–even if some of them are all too happy to hand their rights over to the government in exchange for momentary security or some other promise.  In the world of media policy, however, many people still labor under the illusion that liberty and patterned equality are somehow reconcilable. That is, some media policy utopians and Internet pollyannas would like us to believe that if you give every man, woman, and child a platform on which to speak, everyone will be equally heard.  Moreover, in pursuit of that goal, some of them argue government should act to “upset patterns” and push to achieve more “balanced” media outcomes. That is the philosophy that has guided the “media access” movement for decades and it what fuels the “media reformista” movement that is led by groups like the (inappropriately named) Free Press, which was founded by neo-Marxist media theorist Robert McChesney.

Alas, perfect media equality remains an illusive pipe dream. As I have pointed out here before, there has never been anything close to “equal outcomes” when it comes to the distribution or relative success of books, magazines, music, movies, book sales, theater tickets, etc.  A small handful of titles have always dominated, usually according to a classic “power law” or “80-20” distribution, with roughly 20% of the titles getting 80% of the traffic / revenue.  And this trend is increasing, not decreasing, for newer and more “democratic” online media.

For example, recent research has revealed that “the top 10% of prolific Twitter users accounted for over 90% of tweets” and  “the top 15% of the most prolific [Wkipedia] editors account for 90% of Wikipedia’s edits.” As Clay Shirky taught us back in 2003 in this classic essay, the same has long held true for blogging, where outcomes are radically inegalitarian, with a tiny number of blogs getting the overwhelming volume of blogosphere attention.  The reason, Shirky pointed out, is that:

In systems where many people are free to choose between many options, a small subset of the whole will get a disproportionate amount of traffic (or attention, or income), even if no members of the system actively work towards such an outcome. This has nothing to do with moral weakness, selling out, or any other psychological explanation. The very act of choosing, spread widely enough and freely enough, creates a power law distribution.

The latest proof of the persistence of power laws in the media world comes from Slate’s Chris Wilson, who recently analyzed traffic distribution over on YouTube to answer the question: “Will My Video Get 1 Million Views on YouTube?” Alas, YouTube proves every bit as anti-egalitarian as every other media platform throughout history:

This is the great promise of YouTube: Your video can soar in popularity through sheer word-of mouth—or rather, click-of-mouth—until eventually people are making T-shirts about it. No one ever said this was going to happen for everyone. So, what are your chances of achieving YouTube stardom? I crunched the numbers to find out what percentage of YouTube videos hit it big, cracking even 10,000 or 100,000 views. The results: You might have better odds playing the lottery than of becoming a viral video sensation.

And after he runs the numbers to show how such a small percentage of videos dominate YouTube, Wilson goes on to note:

These figures certainly don’t ratify the grand promise of social media. Not everyone uses YouTube to launch their showbiz or political career, but the potential to do so is central to the Web 2.0 narrative that figures in so many newsmagazine panegyrics. When the odds of even 1,000 people viewing your video in a month’s time are only 3 percent, however, it’s tough to argue that hitting it big on YouTube is anything more than dumb luck. You could argue that this is the way it’s always been in show biz, and you’d be right. But wasn’t the Web supposed to change all that?

Indeed, why is that?  After all, as Wilson suggests, the Internet, blogs, social networks, Twitter, YouTube, and so on, were the revolutionary platforms that were supposed to democratize all media and give everyone a fighting chance to be heard.  Instead, power laws and media inequality have proven relentlessly persistent.  Here’s how I explained why this is the case in an earlier essay:

There are several reasons that power laws always exist in all media contexts. We used to think it was because the economics of media are quite different than most other industries. Namely, media industries typically exhibit “public good” qualities; high fixed (production costs), but lower distribution costs.  But the primary reason why power laws are probably more prevent in media industries than other sectors of the economy is because the creation and consumption of news and popular culture is a truly social phenomenon. Think of it as the economics of popular choice and the sociology of fashion and fads. People (and consumers) react to what others are reading or watching. Word-of-mouth counts. Bandwagon effects exist. First-mover advantages are significant. And so on.  The end result is a hopeless imbalance of outcomes or outputs.  Media egalitarianism is simply an impossibility.

OK, so now that I’ve said all this and rained on the New-Media-Will-Produce-Perfect-Outcomes-Parade, let me explain why NONE OF THIS MAKES A DAMN BIT OF DIFFERENCE.   What is really important is equality of media opportunity, not equality of media outcomes.  A focus on the latter is both foolish and destructive. It is foolish because media equality is an impossibility absent extreme measures, which in turn explains why it is destructive. We would need totalitarian government controls on media outputs and consumption in order to achieve anything remotely close to “balance” or “equality” in terms of media results.

Again, all that really counts is that people have a chance to be heard, not whether millions are listening.  New media platforms really do change some things for the better because at least we now all have an equal chance to make a go at it and grab a bit of that audience. That’s certainly more than could be said back in the old analog media world, in which we suffered from outlet scarcity and information poverty. Today, by contrast, will live in a wonderful world of media abundance, where every man, woman, and child really does have a soapbox on which to stand and speak to the world.

Of course, no one may be listening.  And there will always be someone else who will nab greater audience share than you.

Get used to it. It is the way the media world has always worked, and it is the way every media platform will work until the end of time.  So long as citizens are free to choose, media inequality is inevitable.

According to respected Guatemalan lawyer Rodrigo Rosenberg, Guatemala’s government is infested with corruption. His message is carried very powerfully to fellow Guatemalans and the world in a video he taped before his murder last week.

YouTube has a role as a powerful engine of dissent and government transparency. It’s a commercial, profit-making business, and it is laying bricks on the path to human rights and the rule of law worldwide.

The Cato Institute’s Juan Carlos Hidalgo writes briefly about developments since then on the Cato@Liberty blog.

The Library of Congress now has a YouTube channel. Among the gems you can find there, the first moving image ever made. It’s a man named Fred Ott, sneezing:

Google’s new “Interest Based Advertising” (IBA) program represents the company’s first foray into what is generally called “Online Behavioral Advertising” (OBA):  In order to deliver more relevant advertising, Google will begin tailoring ads delivered through AdSense on the Google Content Network (GCN) and YouTube.com (but not Google.com).  This tailoring will be based on a profile of each user’s interests created by tracking their browsing activity across sites that use AdSense-but not search queries or other user information.  Until now, (i) AdSense has delivered essentially “contextual” advertising by choosing which ad to display on a page based on an algorithmic analysis of keywords on that page; and (ii) Google has tracked users’ browsing only for analytics purposes-to limit the number of times a user sees a particular ad (to prevent overexposure) and to allow sequencing of ads in campaigns where one ad must follow another. 

Google is sure to be attacked for crossing a “line in the sand” drawn by some privacy advocates between contextual and behavioral advertising-even though Google’s closest competitor, Yahoo!, already offers a similar program, and the concept in general is hardly new.  Google’s position as the leading search engine and third party ad-delivery network will no doubt cause paroxysms of privacy hysteria among those who consider targeted advertising inherently invasive, unfair or manipulative.

But those whose first priority is advancing consumer privacy, not advancing a political or regulatory agenda, should applaud Google for excluding sensitive categories and for putting the new Ad Preference Manager at the core of the company’s new IBA program.  The Ad Preference Manager sets a new “gold standard” for implementing the principles of Notice and Choice, which have formed the core of both OBA industry self-regulation and the various regulatory proposals made in recent years.  Indeed, Google has done precisely what Adam Thierer and I have called for:  giving consumers more granular control over their own privacy preferences by developing better tools.

How Google’s Ad Preference Manager Works

For years, debates about how OBA should be regulated (whether by industry or by government) have revolved around two key questions: 

• Notice: How should consumers best be informed about the data that’s being collected about them, how it’s being used, by whom, and so on?
• Choice: How should consumers be given the ability to opt-out of tracking for OBA purposes?

While there are significant philosophical disagreements about some aspects of these debates-such as whether the default should be opt-in or opt-out-much of the debate has come down to questions of implementation that may seem trivial or easily-solved to lay people:  Where should notice be provided?  If notice is provided in ads themselves, what should the link say and how big should it be?  By what technological means should users be able to opt-out of tracking?  Google has provided an elegantly simple solution to these questions. 

Google provides “notice” to users in two ways:

• In the ads.  In the bottom left corner of each AdSense ad on sites in the GCN, users will see the URL for the advertiser’s website.  This is already the case for all text ads, but not for display ads.  In the bottom right corner of both display and text ads, users will see an “Ads by Google” link.  Thus, the ad itself provides the user notice of (i) who’s paying for the ad and (ii) who’s serving it. 
• In the Ad Preference Manager.  If the user clicks the “Ads by Google” link, they will see which of the ~20 categories and ~600 subcategories have been associated with the tracking cookie in their browser.  Thus, Google provides notice to the user of what’s in their so-called “digital dossier.”

Google provides “choice” to the user in two ways:

• Editing categories.  The Ad Preference manager not only shows the profile that has been algorithmically assembled of their likely interests, but it lets them decide for themselves which categories they’re really interested in.  If a user finds that they have been placed in the “Automotive > Motorcycles” category but actually owns a SUV, they could select “Automotive > Trucks & SUVs”-or no Automotive category at all.  
• A persistent opt-out.  Users can decide to opt-out completely from having their data collected for IBA purposes.  That choice will be respected in the future, and will therefore be “persistent.”

The Persistent Opt-Out Plug-in

For roughly a decade, the OBA industry has operated under a self-regulatory scheme developed by the Network Advertising Initiative (NAI).  NAI lets users opt-out of receiving ads based on OBA targeting.  But privacy advocates have objected on three grounds:

First, privacy advocates argue that it’s currently too hard for users to find the NAI opt-out tool since users don’t know which ad network is serving which ads and there’s no obvious way to get from an ad to the opt-out option.  Google moots this argument by making its opt-out easily accessible to anyone who clicks on the “Ads by Google” link that appears beneath every IBA-targeted ad.

Second and most importantly, privacy advocates decry NAI’s opt-out because it isn’t “persistent”- i.e., it requires the placement of a special “opt-out cookie” on the user’s computer, which may be inadvertently deleted when users delete all their cookies.  Indeed, many users do precisely that on a regular basis through either their browser or antivirus software-thus erasing their own opt-out choice.  Google moots this argument too:  While Google’s opt-out also relies on a special opt-out cookie, Google has created an easily installed plug-in for the two most common Web browsers, Internet Explorer and Firefox, that ensures that the opt-out cookie is automatically recreated even if a user deletes their cookies.  For the Chrome and Safari Web browsers (which do not support plug-ins), Google has outlined a simple procedure whereby users can achieve the same result.

Third, many critics worry that any cookie-based opt-out mechanism still involves sending data to ad networks that the ad networks could use to track users-despite promises in their privacy policies not to do so.  Even though the FTC can enforce such policies, it may be difficult for users to determine what the ad networks are doing with the data they receive from users that have opted out of tracking.  Although Google’s system seems to be no different in this regard from how other NAI member companies handle opt outs, truly privacy-sensitive users could easily address this concern by configuring their Web browser to not send any data to these networks and/or not allow any persistent cookies, as we’ve discussed in our Privacy Solutions Series.   

A Superior Solution to a “Do-Not-Track” Registry

The privacy advocates who lambaste the inadequacies of the NAI opt-out system have demanded the creation of a government-run “Do-Not-Track” registry loosely modeled on-but very different in practice from-the FTC’s Do-Not-Call registry, by which over 170 million Americans have opted out of receiving telemarketing calls.  Google’s Ad Preference Manager provides a better system.

First, it proves that the “persistency” problem can be solved.  In fact, since Google’s plug-in is open source, these privacy advocates may be able to use it to create a browser plug-in that works for opt-out cookies from other NAI member companies.  Indeed, given how simple Google’s plug-in is, one wonders why they didn’t do this when NAI’s Opt-Out Tool was first made available.  Perhaps the technologists at these organizations have spent a little too much time developing elaborate regulatory solutions and too little time focusing on empowering users.  Or perhaps these organizations simply decided that creating such a tool would undercut their argument that only government intervention could protect users’ privacy.  Ironically, some of the organizations pushing Do-Not-Track have joined us in emphasizing the effectiveness of user empowerment tools in other contexts-such as online child protection, where parental control software offers a more effective alternative to government regulation of Internet content that also does less to restrict constitutionally protected speech.  Even more ironically, their Do-Not-Track proposal specifically calls for the development of browser-based tools to implement the government-maintained Do-Not-Track database.  In an era when anyone can write a browser plug-in that can achieve wild popularity (such as the roughly 43 million downloads of the Firefox plug-ins AdBlock Plus and NoScript), these advocacy organizations have little excuse for not practicing what they preach. 

Second, Google has set a new standard in both Notice-by including a link to the opt-out in every ad-and Choice-by respecting user’s opt-out preferences.  Other ad networks now face intense pressure to catch up with, or outpace, Google by implementing the same kind of Notice and Choice.  Indeed, NAI will now be expected to improve its own opt-out system with a browser plug-in capable of preserving opt-out preferences for all of its members’ ad networks.  To the extent that this plug-in might work better with cooperation from the ad networks, that cooperation should now be more forthcoming than ever. 

Third, if these privacy advocates’ real objection to any cookie-based opt-out system-whether the NAI opt-out tool or Google’s plug-in-is uncertainty as to whether opt-out preferences would really be respected by ad networks that continue to collect tracking data (as discussed above), who better than Google to lead the market in setting higher standards for privacy protection?  Ultimately, these standards will be, and should be, enforced by the FTC under its existing authority to punish unfair and deceptive trade practices.

What This Episode Says About Google

Some privacy advocates will argue that Google is just too big-and therefore too “scary”-to be allowed to engage in OBA, and may try to paint Google’s entry in the OBA marketplace as a net loss to privacy, notwithstanding the extremely pro-privacy way in which Google has implemented its “IBA” service.  But if this incident demonstrates anything about Google, it’s the following:

First, it’s no accident that Google is now leading the pack of third party ad networks by developing innovative solutions that respect consumer privacy.  Unlike most third party ad networks, Google is directly focused on the demands of consumers:  In addition to the ad network they acquired from DoubleClick, of course, Google offers consumers a wide array of other online services (search, email, maps, etc.).  Because these services (and their competitors) are all free, Google has to compete in what economists call “non-price terms”-such as privacy.  So, Google has a lot to lose by alienating its users and a lot to gain by being seen as a leader in privacy protection.  Would an independent DoubleClick have taken so much care to address privacy concerns?  As the developer of a competing search engine once said about the Internet search industry, ”you earn your right to be in business every day, page view after page view, click after click.”  

Second, it’s no accident that Google was a late-comer to the OBA market, lagging behind Yahoo! in particular.  The most likely reason Google has taken its time in rolling out an OBA product is that Google is subject to a unique level of scrutiny by privacy advocates by virtue of its size.  Being the “big kid on the block,” Google has to be especially careful not to appear to be “Big Brother.”  This reputational check on Google should allay some concerns about Google’s size.

Third, this episode also demonstrates the advantages of having a player like Google large enough to be able to singlehandedly set a new paradigm in privacy protection.  Google risks alienating some advertisers and publishers with its bold empowerment of users, but was willing to take those risks because of its incentives as a consumer-facing company and able to do so because of its leadership in the marketplace.  Uncomfortable as this reality may be for those who fret about antitrust issues and indeed for Google itself, the simple reality is that sometimes it takes “big dogs” to make self-regulatory systems truly effective.  For example, the video game industry’s highly effective content rating system has worked because the titans in that field were big enough to push through a tough system and keep it working.  Similarly, Microsoft has led the way for years in empowering users by offering in Internet Explorer the most sophisticated cookie management tools available in any browser, as we’ve discussed.  In a nutshell, privacy leadership requires scale. 

Conclusion

Google’s Ad Preference Manager, with its persistent opt-out plug-in, offers precisely the kind of robust opt-out that privacy advocates have always demanded.  Google deserves a rousing “Amen!” from privacy advocates.  But those who respond to this program by insisting that “more needs to be done on how to educate people and tell them how to opt out,” are right in two senses.  First, Google has shown other ad networks how to do more to empower users.  I am confident that they will rise to that challenge by continuing to refine self-regulation through technological innovation.  Second, this is by no means the last word in privacy protection from Google, which operates in the midst of continually-evolving privacy standards.  I expect Google and competing ad networks will continue to innovate in developing technologies that empower users to manage their own privacy-and that this competitive “race to the top” will improve online privacy protection in a broader sense beyond just advertising by putting pressure on other online service providers to improve their privacy practices and policies.

But I fear that too many privacy advocates will instead see this as just another reason for the government to intervene-perhaps because of fear of Google engaging in OBA or  because they think the government, not Google, should be developing privacy solutions.  Or perhaps they think Google’s system shows that a system of government-mandated solutions really could work.  To the contrary, Google’s approach is precisely the kind of innovation that would be discouraged by pre-emptive government regulation.  Worse, those who would freeze privacy protection in place would also freeze in place much of the Internet itself, precluding development of new business models that would compete with Google, allaying concerns about competition and benefiting consumers.  Why preclude broadband providers, for example, from figuring out how to deploy ad-targeting technologies in a manner that does as much to empower users with better privacy controls as Google has-especially when this could create a new source of funding for “free” content and services and even discounts on broadband? 

I hope instead that the effectiveness of Google’s approach will shift the policy debate about protecting user privacy back to an emphasis on the layered approach Adam Thierer and I have outlined, supplementing consumer education, industry self-regulation, existing state privacy tort laws, and  FTC enforcement of corporate privacy policies with increasingly powerful technological “self-help” tools that allow privacy-wary consumers to take privacy into their own hands.

I finally got around to reading Planet Google: One Company’s Audacious Plan to Organize Everything We Know, by Randall Stross. It’s very well done. Stross is a frequently contributor to the New York Times and the author of several other interesting books on the technology industry. He knows how to weave a story together, and it helps that Google’s story is a pretty amazing one.

Each chapter discusses a different part of Google’s growing family of services — GMail, Google Maps, Google Earth, Book Search, and YouTube. Of course, it all started with search and Stross does a good job explaining how the ingenious Google search algorithm has grown from dorm room project to the greatest aggregator of human knowledge that the world has ever known. This, in turn, has powered Google’s hugely successful online advertising system. The real secret of their success with online advertising, Stross argues, is that “Google’s impersonal, mathematical approach search also provides you with the ability to serve advertisements that are tailored to a search, rather than to the person submitting the search request, whose identity would have to be known.”

Despite the benefits of such generally anonymous searching, as Google has grown and added new services and capabilities, concerns about the sheer volume of data that the company collects have led to heightened privacy concerns. Indeed, privacy is a core theme that Stross uses in the book to tie many of the chapters and issues together. Google is constantly struggling to strike the right balance between providing more access to the world’s information while also being careful not to raise privacy concerns. But it’s unclear exactly how much more information collection that users (or public officials) will tolerate before advocating stricter limits on Google’s reach.  As Stross points out:

Guided by its founding mission, to organize all the world’s information, Google has created storage capacity that allows it to gain control of what its users are you doing in a comprehensive way that no other company has done, and to preserve those records indefinitely, without the need to clear out old records to make way for new ones. Moreover, Google differentiates its service by refining its own proprietary software formula to mine and massage the data, technology that it zealously protects from the sight of rivals. This sets up a conflict between Google’s wish to operate a “black box” (completely opaque to the outside) and its users’ wish for transparency.

At the very least, users would like Google to disclose what protections are in place to safeguard their privacy. It is also natural that users would be curious about the machines that hold their personal data, as well as about which employees within Google have access to that data, and about the risks that it might be leaked, stolen, or transferred, for example, to a government agency that requests it. (p. 62)

Personally, I think most of these privacy fears are overblown. The mundane, trivial aspects of our daily lives aren’t really of much interest to Google. And to the extent users are concerned about their privacy, there are plenty of ways they can take steps to better protect their personal information or web-surfing habits.  Blocking ads, rejecting cookies, and using encryption are three steps that privacy-sensitive users can take to better shield the personal info or surfing habits. Finally, the concern about government access to data is best remedied by limits on what government can access in the first place. We shouldn’t be regulating Google or other companies to limit information collection based on a fear of government access; we just need to tightly limit the government’s ability to enlist private companies as agents of the state.

Still, as Stross points out, privacy concerns persist:

How can users be certain that their personal information won’t be put to uses to which an individual would never willingly consent? Privacy concerns extend across all Internet companies, but those concerns of our greatest where personal information is gathered in the largest pool. This makes the stewardship of Google’s machine a subject of public interest. Whatever is behind a door that is intentionally kept closed will appear sinister, whether deservedly so or not. For the sake of improving its public image, it’s possible that Google may relent and open its doors, at least enough to afford a peek inside. (p. 62)

I think that’s a fair point and this is something Google is really going to struggle with in coming years, especially as its search algorithm and other applications grow more powerful and comprehensive.  A good example of that is already seen with Google’s amazing “Street View” technology, which provides panoramic street-level views of maps searched via Google Maps. “What neither Google nor its critics realized,” Stross says, “was that our anonymity while walking about in public space in the predigital age was protected not by law but by the crude state of technology–we felt invisible only because cameras were not in place to capture our images.” (p. 145)

As a society, we had better get used to this because Street View is just the beginning of what will eventually grow into a far more sophisticated set of technologies as geo-mapping, geo-location, and image retrieval are married to virtual reality technologies. We’re really not that far away from Star Trek “holodecks” being projected into our living rooms, and once those holodecks let us walk down any street in the world, things are going to get both really exciting and a little bit creepy at the same time. But even if Google abandoned Street View tomorrow, somebody else would pick it up and run with it. Innovation in this space cannot be frozen. (Microsoft’s recent launch of Photosynth shows us that).  Google has already taken steps to protect privacy on Street View by blurring facial images and letting users flag “inappropriate or sensitive imagery for blurring or removal.”  That’s about all we can ask for.

Another theme that Stross develops nicely in the book is the ongoing war between Google and Microsoft. He argues that “Google’s ascendance has been accompanied by Microsoft’s decline.” (p. 195)  But that does not mean Google will be able to hold their current lead. As Stross rightly points out:

No computer company has ever been able to enjoy pre-eminence that spans two successive technological eras. IBM in the mainframe era could not head off the ascent of Digital Equipment Corporation in the minicomputer era, which, in turn, could not head off the ascent of Microsoft in the personal computer era.

And now Google has “succeeded in pushing Microsoft into a defensive crouch” and made life very difficult for that supposed “monopolist” of the PC era.  As a result, some Google critics claim this latest King of the Tech Hill cannot be toppled and that Google is the new “monopoly” we need to worry about.  But these fears are also overblown. Google faces threats today from many different providers and doesn’t really even have its act together in other areas. For example, Stross points out how Facebook and other social networking sites have been a real pain for Google. Facebook, in particular, is creating a massive walled garden that is largely outside Google’s search and information retrieval capabilities. “In a twinkling,” Stross argues, “Facebook became a miniature Web universe–behind a wall, inaccessible to Google.” (p. 30)  Meanwhile, in recent months, Google has annouced layoffs and has scuttled a variety of programs and projects which haven’t panned out, including experiments in social networking, virtual worlds, and a Twitter competitor.

But it is tomorrow’s providers and technologies that will pose the most serious challenge to Google’s current hegemony. No one can predict what big application(s) or competitor(s) will emerge next, but it all could happen faster than you think.  After all, let’s not forget that most of us hadn’t even conducted our first Google search 10 years ago, and no one considered Google a serious threat to Microsoft back in 1999.  Just a decade later, Google has Microsoft wondering if they have a future at all. Things can change that rapidly in the digital world and it should make us question the wisdom of government intervention into such a fast-moving field.

Moreover, government micromanagement of the services Google provides–especially search–is troubling to imagine. I don’t even want to think about how a DOJ consent decree would seek to control Google’s algorithm or the search business in general. But some critics are already speaking of “Googleopoly” and calling for a “Federal Search Commission,” foreshadowing the fight to come.  Google’s rapid growth and sheer size may end up tilting both policymakers and public opinion against them more and more in coming years as such “Googlephobia” increases. Stross notes that:

Google’s future will be determined to no small degree by the view that its users hold of the company itself. Google has enjoyed mostly favorable public notice in its first ten years, but maintaining a cuddly, anticorporate image when it stands among the U.S. companies with the largest market capitalization may pose an increasingly difficult challenge. (p. 18)

Indeed, Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” motto is already wearing a little thin in some quarters. And some of us still aren’t even sure what it means. As Google grows bigger and makes buckets more money in coming years–and they likely will–I think Stross is correct in arguing that Google’s honeymoon with the public and policymakers will likely come to an end. That doesn’t mean they won’t still be a great company doing great things, it’s just that they’ll be antagonizing even more competitors, lawmakers, and other groups than they already do today. And that will likely spell serious trouble for them. It’s never good to have so many enemies. Just ask Microsoft!

In the meantime, we shouldn’t lose sight of what an amazing capitalist success story Google has been and how lucky we are that they have been at least a little bit successful in their mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”  It’s an incredible story, and Planet Google is a fine early history of the company and the new era of computing it has ushered in.

This ongoing series has focused on the growing substitutability of Internet-delivered video for traditional video distribution channels like cable and satellite.  YouTube has recently begun exploring adding traditional television programming to its staggering catalogue of mostly amateur-generated content.  

But now YouTube is going one step farther by exploring  the possibility of signing Hollywood professionals to produce “straight-to-YouTube” content:

The deal would underscore the ways that distribution models are evolving on the Internet. Already, some actors and other celebrities are creating their own content for the Web, bypassing the often arduous process of developing a program for a television network. The YouTube deal would give William Morris clients an ownership stake in the videos they create for the Web site.

This kind of deal would make Internet video even more of a substitute for traditional subscription channels—thus further eroding the existing rationale for regulating those channels.  

But what’s even most interesting about this development is that YouTube’s interest seems to be driven primarily by the possibility of reaping greater advertising revenues on such professional content than on its currently reaps from its vast, but relatively unprofitable, catalogue of user-generated content:  

YouTube’s audience is enormous; the measurement firm comScore reported that 100 million viewers in the United States visited the site in October. But, in part because of copyright concerns, the site does not place ads on or next to user-uploaded videos. As a result, it makes money from only a fraction of the videos on the site — the ones that are posted by its partners, including media companies like CBS and Universal Music. The company has shown interest in becoming a home for premium video in recent months by upgrading its video player and adding full-length episodes of television shows. But some major television networks and other media companies are still hesitant about showing their content on the site. The Warner Music Group’s videos were removed from the site last month in a dispute over pay for its content.

Chris Soghoian called out a problem and now takes credit for a fix to the way the Whitehouse.gov Web site delivered third-party cookies – specifically YouTube cookies.

The use of YouTube videos on the President’s site is a Web 2.0-ish improvement, which is welcome, but embedding videos meant that YouTube was placing cookies on the computers of visitors to Whitehouse.gov and – as a natural result – collecting records of people’s visits to that site.

Things got weird when the Whitehouse.gov privacy policy exempted YouTube cookies from the general ban on persistent cookies on federal Web sites.

For videos that are visible on WhiteHouse.gov, a ‘persistent cookie’ is set by third party providers when you click to play a video. . . . This persistent cookie is used by YouTube to help maintain the integrity of video statistics. A waiver has been issued by the White House Counsel’s office to allow for the use of this persistent cookie.

A government entity should not show preference for a particular service provider in a policy like this and the White House should either exempted third-party cookies generally, or not at all.

The federal government’s June, 1999 policy on cookies (formerly found here, but apparently moved) reflects June, 1999 thinking about cookies – as sinister and dastardly. It was a little silly back then, and is more so today.

And that’s the one small difference I have with the way Chris characterizes the problem. He says, “the decision to embed YouTube videos . . . also enabled the Google owned video sharing site to sneakily collect data on the millions of people who visit whitehouse.gov.”

Cookies aren’t sneaky. First- and third-party cookies are placed by more sites than not, and they exist in droves. They are used for tracking, recordkeeping, and customer service functions of various kinds. To someone who knows how the Internet and browsers work, they’re anything but sneaky. They’re integral.

I agree that Whitehouse.gov policy and practice were out of step with one another, and exempting YouTube from the policy was not a good fix. But Web sites using cookies to gather information online is about as sneaky as humans using eyeballs to gather information on the street. As with controlling what you reveal when you walk down the street, the onus should be on Internet users to be aware of cookies, their purpose and function, and how to control them.

I, for one, ask my browser to prompt me about first- and third-party cookies, refusing most of them. (It’s quite easy once you’re in the habit.) User education and personal responsibility are the solutions to the cookie “problem.” That’s not easy – it’ll take one generation – but the result will be much better than chasing Web site after Web site trying to insulate a supine user community from their own profligacy with information.

Of the titles I included in a mega-book review about Internet optimists and pessimists that I posted here a few months ago, I mentioned Lee Siegel’s new book, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob.  It is certainly the dourest of the recent books that have adopted a pessimistic view of the impact the Internet is having on our culture, society, and economy. Because Siegel’s book is one of the most important technology policy books of 2008, however, I decided to give it a closer look here.

Siegel’s book essentially picks up where Andrew Keen’s leaves off in Cult of the Amateur: How Today’s Internet is Killing our Culture (2007).  I posted a two-part review of Keen’s book here last year [Part 1, Part 2], but here’s a quick taste of Keen’s take on things.  He argues “the moral fabric of our society is being unraveled by Web 2.0” and that “our cultural standards and moral values are not all that are at stake.  Gravest of all,” Keen continues, “the very traditional institutions that have helped to foster and create our news, our music, our literature, our television shows, and our movies are under assault as well.”

As I noted in my earlier “Net optimists vs. pessimists” essay, after reading Cult of the Amateur, I didn’t think anyone else could ever be quite as over-the-top and Chicken Little-ish as Keen. But after working my way through Siegel’s Against the Machine, I realized I was wrong. It made Keen seem downright reasonable and cheery by comparison! Keen and Siegel seem to be in heated competition for the title “High Prophet of Internet Doom,” but Siegel is currently a nose ahead in that race.

Keen and Siegel are both essentially channeling the ghost of the late Neil Postman, the one-time dean of the modern school of techno-pessimism. Postman’s 1992 book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, was the first major anti-Digital Age diatribe and it remains the reigning champion of anti-technology screeds. “Information has become a form of garbage,” Postman argued, “not only incapable of answering the most fundamental human questions but barely useful in providing coherent direction to the solution of even mundane problems.” If left unchecked, Postman argued, America’s new technopoly — “the submission of all forms of cultural life to the sovereignty of technique and technology” — would destroy “the vital sources of our humanity” and lead to “a culture without a moral foundation” by undermining “certain mental processes and social relations that make human life worth living.”

Although Lee Siegel doesn’t bother citing him, he owes much to Postman’s brand of social criticism. Indeed, in large part, Siegel is simply bringing Postman’s critique of the Information Age up to date. Like Postman and Keen, Siegel is concerned about the “destructive side” of the Internet and the Information Age, which they all feel is being overlooked. Specifically, the attack these authors mount on the Information Age and the Net can be boiled down to two major themes:

1. The Net is destroying (or at least greatly diminishing) the role of experts, authority, “truth”, and traditional societal norms and institutions. This is having (or eventually will result in) dangerous ramifications for our culture, economy, and democracy.
2. The personalization and customization that the Information Age and the Internet have spawned is an unambiguously negative development for our society and culture. Moreover, in large part, the entire Web 2.0 experience is largely just about commercial interests furthering their ends.

Let’s take a closer look what Siegel says about each.

Experts, Authority, and “Truth”

Like Postman and Keen, Siegel doesn’t mix words when it comes to his contempt for the disintermediating influences of modern information technology. He is particularly concerned about the loss of “truth” and “authority” in our new environment. “Culture needs authoritative institutions like a powerful newspaper; it needs them both to protect its critical, independent spirit and to make sure that culture’s voices heard in the louder din of more powerful economic and political entities.” (p. 140-1) By empowering the masses to have more of a voice, Siegel says, “unbiased, rational, intelligent, and comprehensive news… will become less and less available.” (p. 165) “[G]iving everyone a voice,” he argues, “can also be a way to keep the most creative, intelligent, and original voices from being heard.” (p. 5)

Like many other Net skeptics, Siegel views Wikipedia, YouTube, blogs, and almost all user-generated content with a combination of confusion or contempt. “[S]elf-expression is not the same thing as imagination” or art, he argues. (p. 52)  Instead, he regards the explosion of online expression as the “narcissistic” bloviation of the masses and argues it is destroying true culture and knowledge. “Under the influence of the Internet,” he says, “knowledge is withering away into information.” (p. 152) Our new age of information abundance is not worth celebrating, he says, because “information is powerlessness.” (p. 148).

One reason Siegel gets nostalgic about the age of scarcity is because elites like him — and others who were lucky enough to have access to mainstream media — had a more privileged place in the old media world.  As a social / cultural critic, he can’t be happy with all the competition he now faces in that field from the blogosphere and online media outlets.

But it’s difficult to sympathize with Siegel’s position that others should be excluded from having a voice now in an effort to preserve the old order. After all, for the past seven decades, public policy has largely been preoccupied with getting society out of the scarcity mess (even though public policy created much of that mess!) by ensuring that citizens had more choices and outlets. Now that we have more options, some people like Keen and Siegel aren’t happy about the fact that the hoi polloi have been empowered. But, even if some traditional institutions lose the dominant position they once held in society, plenty of “authoritative” and “professional” media options and outlets continue to exist. Our new Information Age simply empowers millions of other voices to join the conversation and offer alternative perspectives and input.

But Siegel also disputes what he regards as such romanticized notions of “online participation” and “personal democracy.” To him, everyone is just in it for the money. “Web 2.0 is the brainchild of businessmen,” and the “producer public” is really just a “totalized ‘consumerist’ society.”  But what about all those bloggers who (like me!) are in it for the love of the conversation and debate?  Well, says Siegel, we just don’t realize the harm we are doing by trying to have our say!  “[T]he bloggers are playing into the hands of political and financial forces that want nothing more than to see the critical, scrutinizing media disappear.” (p. 141) And as for those true believers and Net evangelists who believe that something truly exciting is happening with our new online conversation, according to Siegel, they are simply “in a mad rush to earn profits or push a fervent idealism.” (p. 25-6)

It’s difficult for me to imagine anything more insultingly stupid than those last two statements.  The insulting part about them is that Siegel is essentially telling us all to shut up!  We all need to put down our pens — or, rather, our keyboards — and understand that we are doing great harm to those journalists, institutions, or other enlightened few who are really providing the “critical, scrutinizing” function so essential for a healthy democracy and culture. It’s just blatantly elitist for Siegel to suggest that only a select few have any business sharing their views with the world, and he even acknowledges that several times in the book. But he wears that elitist tag like a badge of honor as he stares down his nose at the newly empowered masses, snorting in disgust at everything he sees.

And the stupid part about those statements above is that the vast majority of bloggers or online participants are absolutely not in it for the money, or even out to take down mainstream media. They just want to be heard. But, again, Siegel believes that what you all have to say is not worth hearing anyway.

The Supposed Perils of Personalization

Indeed, Siegel’s primary gripe with the Web 2.0 world is that while most of us appreciate the growing personalization of information and content as well as the increasingly participatory nature of the Internet, he sees that as an unmitigated evil.  “The Internet is the first social environment to serve the needs of the isolated, asocial individual.” (p. 6)  The “Daily Me” (personalized, instantaneously delivered content) that Nicholas Negroponte predicted and longed for in his prescient 1995 book Being Digital, is viewed by Siegel as nothing more that the creation of a “narcissistic culture” in which “exaggeration” and the “loudest, most outrageous, or most extreme voices sway the crowd his way; the cutest, most self-effacing, most ridiculous, or most transparently fraudulent of voices saw the crowd of voices that way.” (p. 79)  He goes so far as to refer to it as our “democracy’s fatal turn” in that, instead of “allowing individuals to create their own cultural and commercial choices,” Web 2.0 has instead created “a more potent form of homogenization.” (p. 67)

In this regard, Siegel is channeling another Net skeptic, the prolific Cass Sunstein of the University of Chicago Law School.  In his 2001 book Republic.com, Sunstein also referred to Negroponte’s “Daily Me” in contemptuous terms, saying that the hyper-customization of websites and online technologies was causing extreme social fragmentation, isolation, and alienation, and could lead to political extremism. “A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. As I said in my review of his book in Regulation magazine that year, Sunstein was essentially saying that the Internet is breeding a dangerous new creature: Anti-Democratic Man. “Group polarization is unquestionably occurring on the Internet,” he proclaimed, and it is weakening what he called the “social glue” that binds society together and provides citizens with a common “group identity.” If that continues unabated, Sunstein argued, the potential result could be nothing short of the death of deliberative democracy and the breakdown of the American system of government.

Siegel continues this line of reasoning in Against the Machine but, like Sunstein, completely fails to offer anything more than a few random anecdotes in defense of their thesis that the Net is leading to close-mindedness, homogenization, and the death of deliberative democracy. Worse yet, they also both completely fail to look at the other side of the story, which is that the Internet and Web 2.0 may be having the exact opposite effect. I made that argument in my 2005 book, Media Myths: Making Sense of the Debate over Media Ownership (p. 39):

The reality is that citizens do face an overwhelming number of media choices today, and that probably does make it somewhat more difficult for them to have “shared experiences” involving any individual news or entertainment program. But that isn’t really such a lamentable development. Government need not take steps to make sure everyone watches or listens to the same programs each night so they can all talk about them around the watercooler at work the next day. It’s just as good that everyone can discuss something different that they saw or heard the night before. And the very fact there are so many distinct media options available to citizens is better for a healthy democracy than a limited range of media options. Again, regardless of who owns what, the fact remains that we have more sources of news, communications, and entertainment than ever before in this country. Still, some media critics wax nostalgic about a mythical time — a supposed “Golden Age” of newspapers, radio, or television — when the populace was more closely linked or unified in some grand sociological sense by common reporting or programming options. But that is a stretch. The days when William Randolph Hearst dominated media, or when only three TV networks brought us our news at a set time each night, could hardly be labeled the “Golden Age” of those respective mediums. If that’s the world media critics want us to return to, then this represents, as Jonathan Knee argues, “an argument for homogeneity hiding under the pretext of diversity.”

And, indeed, that’s exactly what Siegel is proposing in his book, as Keen also does in his. They want to roll back to clock and return us to the mythical “good ‘ol days” of media. Again, when were those days? I simply cannot fathom how anyone can claim that the age of media scarcity — with its limited outlets and opportunities — was truly better than the world we find ourselves in today. As I noted in the first part of my two-part review of Keen’s book, which was entitled “Why an Age of Abundance Really is Better than an Age of Scarcity”:

What Keen doesn’t seem willing to tolerate is that when everyone has a voice, a lot more silly things are going to be said and heard. Back in the days before we all had our own soapboxes (websites, blogs, social networks, YouTube posts, etc.) we all had opinions, but we had few ways to get those opinions out. Now that the Internet has become the great leveler and given everyone the ability to be a one-person newspaper or broadcaster to the world, the dream of a more fully empowered citizenry is slowly becoming a reality. The upside is that everyone gets an equal chance to be heard. But the downside is that everyone gets an equal chance to be heard! That is, with the good comes some bad. There are wonderful contributions to culture and human communications being made by average Joes and Janes across the globe because of the Web. But let’s face it, there’s a lot of crap out there too. Cutting through the cultural clutter can been a real challenge, and even with the best search tools in the world at your disposal, it can still be difficult to find that diamond in the rough. But aren’t we better off as a society because of the opportunities now at our disposal? Isn’t an age of media and cultural abundance — warts and all — still preferable to the age of scarcity which preceded it?

I believe it is. And as I concluded in my review of Keen’s book, which seems like an equally sensible way to conclude this review of Lee Siegel’s tedious screed:

I think we are definitely better off because of this seismic shift in our communications and media environment. The human conversation is more diverse than ever before, and we have been empowered to experience the full range of culture and human creativity (for better and for worse!)

Back in the mid- and even late 1990s, I was engaged in a lot of dreadfully boring telecom policy debates in which the proponents of regulation flatly refused to accept the argument that the hegemony of wireline communications systems would ever be seriously challenged by wireless networks. Well, we all know how that story is playing out today. People are increasingly “cutting the cord” and opting to live a wireless-only existence. For example, this recent Nielsen Mobile study on wireless substitution reports that, although only 4.2% of homes were wireless-only at the end of 2003…

At the end of 2007, 16.4 percent of U.S. households had abandoned their landline phone for their wireless phone, but by the end of June 2008, just 6 months later, that number had increased to 17.1 percent. Overall, this percentage has grown by 3-4 percentage points per year, and the trend doesn’t seem to be slowing. In fact, a Q4 2007 study by Nielsen Mobile showed that an additional 5 percent of households indicated that they were “likely” to disconnect their landline service in the next 12 months, potentially increasing the overall percentage of wireless-only households to nearly 1 in 5 by year’s end.

And one wonders about how many homes are like mine — we just keep the landline for emergency purposes or to redirect phone spam to that number instead of giving out our mobile numbers.  Beyond that, my wife and I are pretty much wireless-only people and I’m sure there’s a lot of others like us out there.

Anyway, I’ve been having a strange feeling of deva vu lately as I’ve been engaging in policy debates about the future of the video marketplace.  Like those old telecom debates of the last decade, we are now witnessing a similar debate — and set of denials — playing out in the video arena.  Many lawmakers and regulatory advocates (and even some industry folks) are acting as if the old ways of doing business are the only ways that still count.  In reality, things are changing rapidly as video content continues to migrate online.

I was reminded of that again this weekend when I was reading Nick Wingfield’s brilliant piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Turn On, Tune Out, Click Here.”  It is must-reading for anyone following development in this field.  As Wingfield notes:

In the past two years, nearly every major network show and many of the biggest cable programs have become available on the Internet. The virtual library of content includes everything from “Desperate Housewives” and “CSI” to “The Colbert Report” and “Mad Men.” Some of the biggest hits online are memorable TV moments. More than half of the people who saw recent “Saturday Night Live” skits featuring comedian Tina Fey as vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin watched the skits over the Internet, according to a survey of 500 viewers on Monday by Solutions Research Group. Nearly a quarter saw them on YouTube and 21% saw them on NBC.com or Hulu.com. Many shows can be viewed for free and are accompanied by a dollop of ads that’s small when compared with the number of commercial breaks on television. As a result, some cost-conscious consumers are ditching their cable subscriptions altogether.

And the migration of video online is really picking up speed as a result.  According to Wingfield, “Complete episodes of about 90% of prime-time network television shows and roughly 20% of cable shows are now available online, according to Forrester Research analyst James McQuivey.”  However, Wingfield points out that “the number of people watching all of their programs online is still small; some estimates put the number at just 1% of the total television audience. In part, that’s because watching online isn’t as easy as channel surfing on the couch, TV remote in hand. Viewers must either watch shows on their personal computers, or use a device like Apple TV, which allows them to download shows from the Internet onto their television sets.”  That being said, he goes on to note that:

Within the next several years, however, media and technology executives say that a host of new technologies will make television access to online video a mainstream phenomenon. Vudu Inc. already sells a $299 set-top box with a remote control that allows users to download television shows for $1.99 per episode. Microsoft and Sony both sell television shows that users of their Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 videogame consoles can download over the Internet for viewing on television sets. Netflix subscribers can buy a $99 set-top box from Roku Inc. that streams videos on their television sets. The service is included at no extra charge in the monthly Netflix fee for renting DVDs.

And that’s just what’s happening today.  There will be a lot more options coming online soon.  Remember, most of these changes have all taken place in just the past couple of years.  If you look at the FCC’s last “Annual Video Competition Report” from two years ago, you won’t find much discussion of these new developments. But, if the FCC ever gets around to releasing another annual report, the regulators won’t be able to ignore these trends and developments any longer.

OK, so the point is clear: The video marketplace is changing rapidly. Meanwhile, however, back in the surreal regulatory la-la land of Washington, DC, it remains business as usual.  As Brian Anderson and I point out in our new book, A Manifesto for Media Freedom, policymakers are still trying applying a host of unique regulations to “old media” providers, including: various censorship rules, educational programming mandates, special campaign finance advertising laws, must carry regs, media ownership caps, broadcast “localism” requirements and various other “public interest” obligations, and much more.

At what point does this charade end?  When do we realize that substitution is occuring and giving people alternative places to camp their eyeballs?  Or doesn’t that make any difference?  Should we just continue to regulate the old platforms and players the same was as always?  Or, worse yet, should we “level the playing field” by regulating the Internet and online video providers the same way?  I hope most people would understand what a disaster that would be in practice.  The Internet and digital video delivery is offerning society an unprecedented abundance of media riches.  They last thing we need to do is screw it up by laying on reams of regulation.

I reviewed the Veoh case for DRMWatch recently:

The user-generated video site Veoh achieved a victory in court on August 27th when California District Judge Howard Lloyd ruled that it was entitled to the protection of the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions. Veoh was accused of copyright infringement by IO Group, a maker of adult films…

Like eBay v. Tiffany, another case in which one might trumpet a tech-side win… the tech gets at least some protection from liability. But only in a context in which the tech is already taking substantial steps to help the plaintiff trademark/copyright owner with their enforcement problem, steps that would have been hard to conceive of a decade ago, and that many would have grandly declared to be too ambitious and too invasive for online services to attempt. Prediction: the case law is now much more mature, but the business side is just getting started. More and fancier filtering to come.

It’s funny and scary how many of our grand ideas about justice, rights, freedom, fairness and property come down to what we can become accustomed too.  Bad, in the sense that one can easily lose the customary baselines against which freedom is measured in a generation or so. Good, in the sense that one is not limited to identify freedom with just one historic mythical Golden Age; a free society has somewhat more leeway.

I’m fond of paradoxes these days. Tedious things. Almost as annoying to other people, I am sure, as those characters (you know who you are) who make puns all the time.

It exalts terrorists and terrorism to try chasing their videos off the Internet, and it doesn’t work. Senator Lieberman’s quest to cleanse the Internet of terrorism has won a battle in a losing war by convincing Google to take down such videos. They can still be found on LiveLeak and can be hosted on any of millions of servers worldwide.

[In his eager anti-Google gafliery (“gadfliery” – the nominative case of the verb “to gadfly,” which I just invented), I’m sorry to say that TLF friend Scott Cleland has gotten it wrong.]

The better approach is to treat terrorists as the losers that they are. Their videos do not scare us, but provide us opportunities to observe, comment, and deplore them, perhaps even mocking their foolishness. In this video, at minute 2:18, terrorists appear to be training for the circus. We’ll really fear them when they can fend off lions with a chair.