Adam Thierer's Blog, page 142

Noonan on How the Internet Improves Political Rhetoric & Knowledge

Loyal readers know of my generally bullish, optimistic outlook regarding the Internet's impact on society, economy, and even politics. On that last front, columnist Peggy Noonan has a nice piece in today's Wall Street Journal entitled, "The Internet Helps Us Get Serious." Serious about politics and political rhetoric, she means. Speaking about how politicians are addressing the current fiscal crisis in the U.S., Noonan argues:

One way to change minds about the current crisis is through information. We all know this, and we all know about the marvelous changes in technology that allow for the spreading of messages that are not necessarily popular with gatekeepers and establishments. But there's something new happening in the realm of political communication that must be noted. Speeches are back. They have been rescued and restored as a political force by the Internet.

She then makes the point that I always stress when debating Net pessimists: You have to measure progress against the yardstick of the past and ask yourself if we really better off in a world of information scarcity. Noonan does that beautifully when she notes:

In the past quarter-century or so, the speech as a vehicle of sustained political argument was killed by television and radio. Rhetoric was reduced to the TV producer's 10-second soundbite, the correspondent's eight-second insert. The makers of speeches (even the ones capable of sustained argument) saw what was happening and promptly gave up. Why give your brain and soul to a serious, substantive statement when it will all be reduced to a snip of sound? They turned their speeches into soundbite after soundbite, applause line after applause line, and a great political tradition was traduced.

But the Internet is changing all that. It is restoring rhetoric as a force. When Gov. Mitch Daniels made his big speech—a serious, substantive one—two weeks ago, Drudge had the transcript and video up in a few hours. Gov. Chris Christie's big speech was quickly on the net in its entirety. All the CPAC speeches were up. TED conference speeches are all over the net, as are people making speeches at town-hall meetings. I get links to full speeches every day in my inbox and you probably do too.

And Noonan debunks the argument skeptics like Cass Sunstein and others have made about the atomization of the audience or fracturing of the public's attention:

People in politics think it's all Facebook and Twitter now, but it's not. Not everything is fractured and in pieces, some things are becoming more whole. People hunger for serious, fleshed-out ideas about what is happening in our country. …

A funny thing about politicians is that they're all obsessed with "messaging" and "breaking through" and "getting people to listen." They're convinced that some special kind of cleverness is needed, that some magical communications formula exists and can be harnessed if only discovered. They should settle down, survey the technological field and get serious. They should give pertinent, truthful, sophisticated and sober-minded speeches. Everyone will listen. They'll be all over the interwebs.

Amen, sister.

Three Models for Creating Local Online Hubs

Last year I was asked by the Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation to author a study on models for local online hubs or community web portals. This paper was one of several commissioned by the Knight Foundation to implement the 15 recommendations found in the Knight Commission report on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy.  The specific Knight Commission recommendation I focused on in my white paper read as follows: "Ensure that every local community has at least one high-quality online hub." More specifically, it said: "Communities should have at least one well-publicized portal that points to the full array of local information resources. These include government data feeds, local forums, community e-mail listservs, local blogs, local media, events calendars, and civic information. [The entire three paragraph recommendation can be read here.]

My resulting white paper is entitled, Creating Local Online Hubs: Three Models for Action, and it was released by the Aspen Inst. & Knight Foundation at an event this morning.  (Another Aspen/Knight white paper was simultaneously released on Government Transparency: Six Strategies for More Open and Participatory Government. It was written by Jon Gant and Nicol Turner-Lee.) A short summary of my report follows down below, and you can find the entire report online here.  I've also embedded the video of this morning's launch event for both reports.

___________________

Creating Local Online Hubs: Three Models for Action

by Adam Thierer

– EXECUTIVE SUMMARY –

The Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy (Knight Commission) recommended that every local community have at least one high-quality online hub to help meet community information needs. While the Commission recognized that "it is not possible for any one Web site to aggregate all of the online information local residents want and need," it believed that "communities should have at least one well-publicized portal that points to the full array of local information resources." This paper outlines how local online hubs currently work, what their core ingredients are, and what it will take to bring more of them to communities across America.

This analysis makes three simplifying assumptions. First, while newer developments have supplanted the "portal" concept—namely, online search and social media—there is still something to be said for websites that can help to aggregate attention, highlight important civic information and activities and map public information resources. Second, it continues to make sense to focus on geographic communities for the reasons the Informing Communities report made clear: they are the physical places where people live and work and also elect their leaders. Third, the government's role in creating high-quality online hubs will likely be quite limited and primarily focused on (a) opening up its own data and processes and (b) some limited funding at the margins for other local initiatives.

Luckily, there are many excellent, high-quality online hubs already in place in many communities. Unsurprisingly, however, those hubs tend to be found mostly in large and mid-sized cities. They can serve as models for online hubs in other communities; the question is how to get them built.

As we look to do so, we should keep in mind the great diversity of local communities and realize that there is no one-size-fits-all, best approach to designing high-quality local online hubs. We should not assume that a hub model that works well in one community will automatically work for another. The more experimentation, the better at this point.  Some communities may be served by multiple hubs that specialize in serving various informational needs, while other communities might get all those needs served by one site.

The primary concern going forward should be underserved communities. More thought needs to be put into how to deal with those communities who have nothing in place today. That can be facilitated by the close collaboration of various players. Building effective local hubs will require coordination among local governments and universities, libraries and other community organizations, local businesses, local media outlets and other patrons and supporters. It is particularly important to find community champions who can help lead these efforts. Many of the examples discussed in this paper began with the efforts of a small handful of inspired, active, civic-minded citizens who were looking to make a difference in their communities using digital technologies.

It is important, however, that we do not set the benchmark for success too high. The effectiveness of online community hubs should not necessarily be measured solely by the number of people visiting those sites on a regular basis. Availability and usability should trump actual site time in terms of effectiveness measures.

To advance the goal of a high-quality online hub in every community, there are certain tasks that various stakeholders will need to undertake. Among these are the following:

Governments at all levels should ensure that these hubs are given access to all relevant data about the government and other community affairs organized by it.
Local libraries   and other community organizations can help to develop content and resources for local hubs. In fact, local libraries may be one of the best places to start discussions about local information needs and identify stakeholders who can help facilitate local hub creation or improvement.
Local businesses can support online hubs through direct financial sponsorship; in-kind donations of services, support and technology; or advertising support (in much the same way as they do for local newspapers and broadcast outlets.)
Local media outlets could partner with one another or  others in the community to foster or assist local hubs, or to improve the local information resources offered on their own websites.
Colleges and universities offer a wealth of capital, human and other resources to map and develop local information resources. Higher education stakeholders could develop a toolbox of technologies and templates for ready-made hubs or a "code toolbox" to make local hub creation easier, incubate successful models or host local hubs.
Foundations and venture capitalists should support best-of-class programs and applications through matching grants, support efforts such as the Knight News Challenge or directly invest in innovative local community online hubs and programs.
Governments can provide seed money, targeted grants and access to public facilities to spur the creation of local online hubs where they do not currently exist, taking care not to impose a particular hub vision from outside the community receiving support.

Creating Local Online Hubs: Three Models for Action

Does the Internet Cause Freedom?

That will be the subject of a Cato on Campus session this afternoon entitled: "The Internet and Social Media: Tools of Freedom or Tools of Oppression?" Watch live online at the link starting at 3:30 p.m., or attend in person. A reception follows.

The delight that so many felt to see protesters in Iran using social media has given way to delight about the use of Facebook to organize for freedom in Egypt. But this serial enthusiasm omits that the "Twitter revolution" in Iran did not succeed. The fiercest skeptics even suggest that the Tweeting during Iran's suppressed uprising was mostly Iranian ex-pats goosing excitable westerners and not any organizing force within Iran itself. Coming to terms with the Internet, dictatorships are learning to use it for surveillance and control, possibly with help from American tech companies.

So is the cause of freedom better off with the Internet? Or is social media a shiny bauble that distracts from the long, heavy slog of liberating the people of the world?

Joining the discussion will be Chris Preble, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at Cato; Alex Howard, Government 2.0 Correspondent for O'Reilly Media; and Tim Karr, Campaign Director at Free Press. More info here.

Techno-Panic Cycles (and How the Latest Privacy Scare Fits In)

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

What Counts as a "Techno-Panic"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Do Techno-Panics Pass?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resiliency, Responsibility & Common Sense

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

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

Related Reading

Against Techno-Panics
Collier on "Why Technopanics are Bad"
Kids, Media, Commercialism & Moral Panic
The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 1: Saving the Net From Its Detractors
The Next Great Technopanic: Wireless Geo-Location / Social Mapping
Technopanics and the Great Social Networking Scare
Sen. Klobuchar Stirs Up Facebook Child Safety Technopanic
A Rarity: Newspaper Argues Against Techno-panic, Cites Constitution
Google Street View/Wi-Fi Privacy Technopanic Continues
Digital Sensors, Darknets, Hyper-Transparency & the Future of Privacy

GAC backs off TLD censorship a bit – but not enough

ICANN has posted an official "GAC Indicative Scorecard" in advance of the Feb. 28 showdown in Brussels between the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board. The "scorecard" is intended to identify the areas where the small number of governmental officials who participate in GAC differ from the positions developed by ICANN's open policy development process. The scorecard constitutes a not-so subtle threat that ICANN should throw out its staff- and community-developed policies and make them conform to the GAC's preferences. Amusingly, the so-called GAC position follows almost verbatim the text submitted as the "US position" back in January. It's clear that the US calls the shots in GAC and that other governments, including the EU, are cast in the role of making minor modifications to U.S. initiatives.

There is one interesting modification, however. The new GAC scorecard still allows GAC to conduct an initial review of all new top level domain applications and still allows any GAC member to object to any string "for any reason." But GAC has been publicly shamed into pulling back from the U.S. government's recommendation that a single GAC objection, if not overruled by other governments, would kill the application. Instead, the GAC as a whole will "consider" any objection and develop written "advice" that will be forwarded to the Board. This would put such advice in the framework of ICANN's bylaws, and thus the advice would not be binding on the board.

While it is heartening that public pressure has forced the governments to pull back from their more outrageous demands, the resulting procedure is still arbitrary and an unacceptable incursion on free expression and free markets. For a more complete analysis, see the IGP blog.

TechFreedom Event 3/1: Decoding the FCC's Net Neutrality Order

Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) will kick off this event with remarks on the Net Neutrality order before TechFreedom Adjunct Fellow Larry Downes presents his analysis of the FCC's recent Open Internet Report & Order (which he recently delivered as testimony to the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition & the Internet). A panel of leading experts will offer their reactions.

What:
"Decoding the FCC's Net Neutrality Order" — A TechFreedom Capitol Hill briefing


When:
Tuesday, March 1
3:00 – 5:00 p.m.


Where:
Top of the Hill Banquet & Conference Center (Reserve Officers Association)
One Constitution Ave, NE
Washington DC 20002


Who:
Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

Larry Downes, TechFreedom

Markham Erickson, Open Internet Coalition

Dave Farber, Carnegie Mellon University

Harold Feld, Public Knowledge

Link Hoewing, Verizon

Randy May, Free State Foundation

Please join us after this event, at 5:30, for a reception just across the street co-sponsored by TechFreedom and the Institute for Policy Innovation in honor of IPI's Third Annual Communications Summit, which will take place the next day. The reception runs untill 7:30 p.m. in the Capitol Visitor Center, Congressional Meeting Room South 217 (CVC 217).

Register here today!

Net Neutrality Drama Continues – And What About (President) Obama?

Following up on my Congressional testimony last week, I've written two articles on how the House and Senate are moving forward with plans to undo the FCC's December 23,2010 "Open Internet" order, aka net neutrality. For my inaugural post for Forbes, I write about the experience of being a witness before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, and provide some background on how the FCC found itself backed into a corner that led to the unpopular (on both sides) new rules. See "Deep in the Net Neutrality Trenches."

On CNET this morning, I review in detail the steps taken last week by Congress. These include two hearings, one featuring all five FCC Commissioners. After the hearings, the House approved an amendment to the on-going budget negotiations that would deny the agency any funding to implement or enforce its rules. Later, both the House and Senate issued a Joint Resolution of Disapproval, which, if passed, would nullify the rule-making and deny the FCC future authority to try again.

The conventional wisdom suggests that these are futile gestures, as President Obama would veto either measure (as well as other pending legislation on the subject). But not necessarily. Even before the new Congress came in, the President demonstrated a willingness to negotiate with Republicans (e.g., extending the Bush tax cuts). Net neutrality is certainly a priority for the White House, but it may not be as high as other priorities.

I'll be speaking (ad nauseum) about the Report and Order at two events next week in Washington.

On March 1, TechFreedom is sponsoring an event to review my white paper on the FCC's December, 2010 Report and Order on the Open Internet.  The event is free, but RSVP is required.  Commentators include Internet pioneer Dave Farber, Free State Foundation's Randolph May, Open Internet Coalition's Markham Erickson, Verizon's Link Hoewing, and Public Knowledge's Harold Feld.  Opening remarks will be delivered by Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who has introduced legislation to reverse the order and limit the FCC's jurisdiction over Internet matters.   The white paper is available here.

On March 2, I'll join Richard Bennett and Randolph May at the Institute for Policy Innovation's Third Annual Communications Summit.    Other speakers include former Congressman Rick Boucher, FCC Commissioner Meredith Baker, and Andrew Keen.

Live chat with William Powers tomorrow (2/24)

Tomorrow at noon Facebook will be hosting one of its "Facebook DC Live" events featuring William Powers, author of Hamlet's Blackberry: A Practical Philosophy for Building a Good Life. I interviewed Powers on the Surprisingly Free podcast last year about his book.

What I like so much about Powers and his books is that he gracefully tackles what is no doubt a fact: that like all new technologies the Internet comes not just with benefits, but with costs as well. In the Internet's case the costs that most folks have identified have to do with "what it's doing to our brains" and attention spans. Unlike other authors on the same topic that I've read and interviewed, like Nick Carr, Jaron Lanier, Susan Maushart, and Elias Aboujaoude, Powers doesn't overplay his concern or sound alarm bells of doom. Instead, he gives a very upbeat account of how great minds throughout history have dealt with technological change.

The punchline: be mindful of your action, and take a break once in a while. Wonderful advice wrapped in great stories and good philosophy; cyber-doom need not apply. So, check him out on the live stream tomorrow and you'll be able to chat and ask questions.

FTC to probe Apple for in-app purchases?

.bbpBox40164296998649860 {background:url(http://a0.twimg.com/profile_backgroun...) #333333;padding:20px;} p.bbpTweet{background:#fff;padding:10px 12px 10px 12px;margin:0;min-height:48px;color:#000;font-size:18px !important;line-height:22px;-moz-border-radius:5px;-webkit-border-radius:5px} p.bbpTweet span.metadata{display:block;width:100%;clear:both;margin-top:8px;padding-top:12px;height:40px;border-top:1px solid #fff;border-top:1px solid #e6e6e6} p.bbpTweet span.metadata span.author{line-height:19px} p.bbpTweet span.metadata span.author img{float:left;margin:0 7px 0 0px;width:38px;height:38px} p.bbpTweet a:hover{text-decoration:underline}p.bbpTweet span.timestamp{font-size:12px;display:block}

FTC Chairman says will probe Apple in-app purchases for marketing practices: http://wapo.st/fX3uWnless than a minute ago via TweetDeckceciliakang
ceciliakang

The Washington Post's Cecilia Kang reports that the FTC will probe Apple for in-app purchases marketing practices. According to Kang,

FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz wrote in a letter to Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) that the practice of "in-app purchases" for certain applications on Apple iPhones, iPads and iPods raised concerns that consumers may not fully understand the ramifications of those charges. The Washington Post wrote about hefty charges amassed by children using Apple device games that public interest groups said should not be included in software geared for children. Some parents said their children didn't understand the difference between real and pretend purchases for items such as $99 barrels of Smurfberries on the Capcom Interactive game Smurfs Village.

I'll skip the question of whether it's the proper role of the federal government to be a surrogate parent to children given iPhones by their real parents. Instead I'll simply say that I don't know how much easier we can expect Apple to make it for parents to supervise their children.

Passwords All purchases on iOS devices require the user to enter a password before it can be completed. Don't give your child the password and you don't have to worry about charges.

Allowances If you do want to allow your child to make purchases, but what to set some limits, Apple makes it easy to create an iTunes allowance account that allows a parent to specify an amount that is added to a child's account each month. Once the child uses the amount, he can't spend any more.

What more do we want Apple to do?

Elias Aboujaoude on our e-personalities' offline effects

On this week's podcast, Elias Aboujaoude, a psychiatrist and author based at Stanford University, discusses his new book, Virtually You: The Dangerous Powers of the E-Personality. Aboujaoude says that the internet has positive effects, but he's worried that most of our day-to-day online activities are negatively affecting us. He explains how, in his view, behaviors like compulsive online shopping and angry commenting on blogs is seeping into our offline lives, with profound negative effects. He also talks about why he thinks the internet is different from previous technologies that caused techno-fear, why he thinks it's often difficult for online norms to develop, and what he thinks proper roles are for medicine, psychiatry, and government in the online sphere.

Related Links


"The Information: How the Internet gets inside us," The New Yorker
"Attention loss feared as high-tech rewires brain,"The San Francisco Chronicle
"The Computer Made Me Do It," The New York Times

To keep the conversation around this episode in one place, we'd like to ask you to comment at the web page for this episode on Surprisingly Free. Also, why not subscribe to the podcast on iTunes?