Economist Lester Thurow Calls for Internet Regulat

Richard Finney writes "Reuters is reporting that Lester Thurow, a noted economist, says "I don't think there is any example (of self-regulation) that has ever worked, unless government is standing behind it with a club" in a Yahoo! news story. His comments come in response to the Global Business Dialog on Electronic Commerce's comments on self-regulation of the Internet."

Note that this is (ba-dum-bump) yet another "self-regulation" effort. The companies' goal here is simply to head off legislation such as privacy laws, consumer protections and minimum standards for security of customer data, although they do seem to have mentioned porn regulation as well.

Comments

Thurow against freedom? I'm shocked - shocked!

[StrangeAttractor]

Going to Lester Thurow for a comment on self-regulation is like having Clinton define propriety - you're getting a strongly biased position, not a judgement. A major emphasis of his career has always been to justify and support governmental control of...well, everything. You have to be suspicious of an economist who claims that wealth can't be created, only divvied up differently (his best-known book is called "The Zero-Sum Game"). There's an enormous bug in that reasoning!

Internet already regulates self

[Hrunting]

It always interests me to see how countries think that the Internet doesn't regulate itself. Countries have their own rules and the Internet has theirs, which are slightly more liberal, but much more universal. Take, for example, USENET, a prime example of self-regulation if there ever was one. Groups have charters. Group members take their gripes to ISPs and uplinks if problems occur. If there's too much spam coming from a site, a UDP can be put in place. None of these events happen with the help of government. For the most part, binary pictures of naked teens stay in their respective groups and news servers decide whether to carry them.

The Web has its own form of self-regulation, and it involves linking. If people deem a site of not being worthy, they don't link to it, plain and simple. Porn and violence sites are allowed under the same free speech principles which govern America, but in a much 'freer' context.

Where the conflict lies is when boundaries cross, just like when countries' rules contradict each other. Who is right where? A Canadian was convicted in Texas of murder and sentenced to death. Canada said it was unfair. Texas told the Canadians to go screw themselves? Who's right? Both? Neither? I say, it happened in Texas, let Texas take care of it. Same holds true for the Internet. If it happens there, let the self-regulation take care of it, but if it crosses boundaries (ie. bomb plans get printed and then get confiscated or porn gets saved and then gets discovered), let the parties involved take care of it.

In essence, everyone self-governs themselves in a democratic society, and the Internet is just a democracy with no central governing body.

Sigh.

[fable2112]

First of all, what everyone else said about Thurow. He is NOT a credible source.

Secondly, what ALL attempts to regulate the Internet in any way, shape, or form ignore is one simple yet important principle: The interplay between laws, traditions, and customs.

To clarify what I mean by this, I'm using roughly the same definitions Isaac Bonewits uses in his writing: A law is something that is written down, that a group is supposed to obey, and if the law is disobeyed, various "punishments" can be meted out by members of the group. Traditions are "how things are done," and they may or may not be written down, but there is no *formal* penalty for breaking them (though there is more often than not an informal one). Customs are common behaviors within a group that develop of their own accord, and they tend to be relatively (though not entirely) flexible.

In my experience, of the three, traditions are actually the strongest regulator of behavior. The law against under-21 folks drinking doesn't do much to curb the tradition of college frat parties, which are largely attended by those who are under 21. There are a lot of silly, stupid, and essentially unenforceable laws on the books -- remember "I Can't Drive 55?" What about laws against consensual sodomy? What about the supreme silliness of outlawing the hemp plant?

The point of this little rant of mine is that governments and corporations can pass all the laws and "regulations" they like, but they aren't going to get anywhere. Aside from a few cases that will be prosecuted to "make an example out of," I expect enforcement to be lax and most people to disregard whatever ends up put together.

Why? Simple. The most important tradition here on the Net is that freedom of information must be maintained at all costs. And we've developed plenty of ways to fight back against those who would try to break that tradition -- everything from black-background web pages up to and including cracking the "bad guy's" system. (Remember the "Department of Injustice" page?)

This is not to say that I won't fight against any attempt to impose these irrelevant laws -- I'd hate to be, or know, an "example," and I don't think anyone should have to go through that. :)