Continuations

There is an interesting objection to crypto that goes something like: crypto is all a rip-off because nobody actually needs decentralization which makes things slow and inefficient (“decentralization is a bug, not a feature”). I was somewhat surprised to see this objection from Michael Seemann, a German author, whose criticism of the power of the big platform companies I respect. In a Twitter exchange (in German) he pointed me to something he wrote a couple of years ago as predictions about t...

Whenever something really bad happens, we tend to rush to do something quick and fast which makes us feel better, but throws out important principles and thus has severe negative longterm consequences. The Patriot Act post 9/11 comes to mind. We just had a failed coup, the risk of which one could see coming from a mile away (actually going as far back as Trump’s election). But now that it has taken place, however weirdly farcical, everyone seems to finally wake up and so urgent action is requ...

Private property has become so prevalent in the world that we rarely think about the commons. Most people consider the subway as a public good, it is part of “public transport” after all. But they are unlikely to recognize the space on the subway as a common, the way a community would previously have thought about a shared pasture. The COVID19 crisis is a stark reminder that commons are all around us: A single infected subway rider not wearing a mask could infect dozens of people. How is that...

Twitter is banning political ads. This is Jack sticking it to Mark while the latter is on the ropes in a one-two punch including a jab against Libra. This mast feel like sweet revenge for the many ways Facebook has messed with Twitter over the years including snatching Instagram. But is it the right thing to do? Not running paid political adds is a self-imposed behavioral remedy, the way traditional antitrust regulators would impose on monopolies. A behavioral remedy requires or forbids some ...

Here we are again in 2019 debating speech online and specifically the case of Facebook. Zuckerberg speaks at Georgetown trying to invoke the civil rights movement and to draw a sharp distinction to China. Warren quickly fires back on Twitter. Pundits everywhere weigh in. And yet hardly anyone gets to the heart of the matter: power. And those who are mostly stuck in industrial age thinking recommending a traditional antitrust approach to limiting power. Here are the two big traps people appear...

There is a healthy debate going on now about the role of Twitter, Facebook, and others (Google, Apple, …) with regard to moderating speech on their platforms. Rather than writing something entirely new, I decided to go back and look at what I have written and whether my opinion has changed since then. As I did that I was happy to find that I have had a fairly consistent approach based on who has power. Over the years I have written a lot about keeping the government out of regulating content ...

Robert Reich has an op-ed piece in the NY Times today arguing that “Big Tech Has Become Way Too Powerful” and that we should apply anti-trust regulation. There is little doubt that network effects have made tech’s new incumbents such as Google and Facebook formidable. But applying traditional antitrust approaches is the wrong idea. We want the social benefits of large networks, but we also want them to be somewhat less powerful and put some of that power back in the hands of individuals. The ...