Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1751026
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (74)



 


 



The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 2 - Saving the Net from its Supporters


Adam D. Thierer


George Mason University - Mercatus Center

December 1, 2010

THE NEXT DIGITAL DECADE: ESSAYS ON THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET, p. 139, B. Szoka & A. Marcus, TechFreedom, 2010

Abstract:     
This is the second of two essays making “The Case for Internet Optimism.” It was written by Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. These two essays appeared in the book, "The Next Digital Decade: Essays on the Future of the Internet" (2011), which was edited by Berin Szoka and Adam Marcus of Tech Freedom, a digital policy think tank in Washington, D.C.

In these essays, Thierer identifies two schools of Internet pessimism: (1) “Net Skeptics,” who are pessimistic about the Internet improving the lot of mankind; and (2) “Net Lovers,” who appreciate the benefits the Net brings society but who fear those benefits are disappearing, or that the Net or openness are dying.

In this second essay, Thierer focuses on the rising crop of Internet pessimists who, though they embrace the Net and digital technologies, argue that they are “dying” due to a lack of sufficient care or collective oversight. In particular, they fear that the “open” Internet and “generative” digital systems are giving way to closed, proprietary systems, typically run by villainous corporations out to erect walled gardens and quash our digital liberties. Thus, they are pessimistic about the long-term survival of the Internet that we currently know and love. Leading exponents of this theory include noted cyber law scholars Lawrence Lessig, Jonathan Zittrain, and Tim Wu.

Thierer argues that these scholars tend to significantly overstate the severity of this problem (the supposed decline of openness or generativity, that is) and seem to have very little faith in the ability of such systems to win out in a free market. Moreover, there’s nothing wrong, Thierer argues, with a hybrid world in which some “closed” devices and platforms remain (or even thrive) alongside “open” ones. Importantly, “openness” is a highly subjective term, and a constantly evolving one. And many “open” systems or devices are as perfectly open as these advocates suggest.

Finally, Thierer argues, it’s likely that the “openness” advocated by these advocates will devolve into expanded government control of cyberspace and digital systems than that unregulated systems will become subject to “perfect control” by the private sector, as they fear. Indeed, the implicit message in the work of all these hyper-pessimistic critics is that markets must be steered in a more sensible direction by those technocratic philosopher kings (although the details of their blueprint for digital salvation are often scarce). Thierer argues that the dour, depressing “the-Net-is-about-to-die” fear that seems to fuel this worldview is almost completely unfounded and should be rejected before serious damage is done to the evolutionary Internet through misguided government action.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 27

Keywords: Technology, Internet, Digital, Apple, Cyberspace, Regulation, Open, Static, Optimism, Lessig, Wu, Pessimism, Stasis, Openness, Cyberlaw, Generativity, Dynamism, Zittrain, Postrel

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: January 30, 2011  

Suggested Citation

Thierer, Adam D., The Case for Internet Optimism, Part 2 - Saving the Net from its Supporters (December 1, 2010). THE NEXT DIGITAL DECADE: ESSAYS ON THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET, p. 139, B. Szoka & A. Marcus, TechFreedom, 2010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1751026

Contact Information

Adam D. Thierer (Contact Author)
George Mason University - Mercatus Center ( email )
3351 Fairfax Drive
4th Floor
Arlington, VA 22201-4433
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 623
Downloads: 82
Download Rank: 180,090
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  74
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.343 seconds