Former (current?) Hillary Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson has a new blog.
He is using it as an unabashed platform for promoting his music likes. (As opposed to the more abashed me).
BTW, Howard, if you like Grizzly Bear, check out this Girl Talk remix. And, you also have a kindred blogger spirit in the venture capitalist Fred Wilson.
Nothing's changed...
I'm Morrissey sad. Muxtape looks like this today...
What's Muxtape? I wrote about the music service that mimics creating a mix tape back in April when it launched. At the time, I noted: "just as soon as I got excited about it, I thought that anything as fun/cool as this must be illegal."
Alas.
The folks at Muxtape are saying that they will be back and that no artists or labels have complained. But, for a music industry that is speaking out of one side of its mouth about how they "get it" now and have learned their lesson (over and over), it doesn't look great.*
Neither does the slow train wreck that is Pandora and the rest of the Web radio licensing mess that stopped making sense a long time ago. Yesterday, The Post wrote about how one of the most popular music discovery services (that happens to stream tracks) is on the road to ruin).
Mike Masnick writes about it with the type of cynicism that makes me question my tones of optimism when Muxtape first came out...
This is exactly what the RIAA wants, by the way. Even if services like Pandora introduce people to tons of music (personally, I've bought a ton of music I found on Pandora), much of that music is not from an RIAA-member label. The RIAA knew exactly what it was doing in pushing these higher rates: it was killing off alternative routes to promoting non-RIAA music. The RIAA labels have always thrived off a very limited distribution and promotion channel. After all, distribution and promotion are where record labels really make their money. Competing methods of distribution and promotion are threats to be killed off -- and the RIAA may have succeeded here (with Congress' and the courts' help, of course).
*If this is a publicity ploy by Muxtape after the initial shiny wore off on them, they are geniuses.
Update: Use your whack-a-mole analogy here: 8Tracks does the same thing as Muxtape as is living and breathing at the moment.
[Editor's note: For the first time in five (?) years, I am not in lovely Aspen for the Progress and Freedom Foundation tech policy fest. As much I will miss the dichotomy of blue blazers and hiking boots, the Sky hotel jacuzzi, hot dogs at 2 am, and mile-(plus)-high hangovers, I am happy that 463er Dave McGuire is in effect this year. He even wrote a little ditty for this space today.... And we can expect more....]
If I told you I spent my morning in a basement conference room, packed with policy wonks, listening to a quartet of lawyers bickering about a subsection of a decade-old law, you might pity me.
Thankfully, the basement is in beautiful Aspen Colorado, the lawyers are nationally recognized experts, and that boring legal subsection? It may just have paved the way for Web 2.0.
I'm here in Aspen for the Progress and Freedom Foundation's annual Aspen Summit, a fine excuse for a gaggle of bright people to descend on an off-season ski town to mull over the future of Internet policy.
The first panel this morning dealt with mounting attempts to force Internet companies, such as ISPs, social networks and Web site operators, to crack down on the content created by their customers.
As it stands, Internet companies are largely protected from liability for the content their customers create under Communications Decency Act (CDA) -- specifically Section 230. Although the Supreme Court rightfully struck down much of the CDA on First Amendment grounds, Section 230 survived, and arguably paved the way for the Internet we see today.
Without 230, it's difficult to imagine how applications like Facebook or YouTube would have ever been created. If the Facebook could be held legally responsible every time one of its millions of users said something potentially defamatory, or Google could be sued within an inch of its life every time a YouTube user violated copyright law, it'd be hard to justify maintaining either of those services...or developing them in the first place.
Unfortunately, some lawmakers, content owners, and others are increasingly pushing to "deputize" Internet companies, forcing them to play an active roll in policing the content they host. It's a troubling trend, and one that threatens to undermine the user-generated revolution that Web 2.0 has wrought.
Most of the lawyers on the panel seemed to agree (though being lawyers, the managed to argue about it for an hour) that Section 230 would survive efforts to undermine its core protections, but probably not without their, and our efforts in its defense.
I've avoided tag-your-it Internet memes successfully to date. But, now that fellow tech policy blogger Adam Thierer has taken the bait and thrown down his favorite album for each year of his life, I'm in. Mine...
1968: White Album, The Beatles
1969: Led Zepplin II, Led Zepplin
1970: Bridge Over Troubled Water, Simon & Garfunkel
1971: L.A. Woman, The Doors
1972: Exile On Main St., Rolling Stones
1973: Houses of the Holy, Led Zepplin
1974: I Want to See the Bright Lights Tonight, Richard & Linda Thompson
1975: Born to Run, Bruce Springsteen
1976: Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Tom Petty and the Heartbeakers
1977: Kraftwerk, Trans-Europe Express
1978: Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo!, Devo
1979: Unknown Pleasures, Joy Division
1980: Boys Don't Cry, The Cure
1981: Hard Promises, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
1982: Rio, Duran Duran
1983: War, U2
1984: Repo Man Soundrack
1985: Meat is Murder, The Smiths
1986: Especially for You, The Smithereens
1987: Appetite for Destruction, Guns & Roses
1988: Straight Out of Compton, NWA
1989: Freedom, Neil Young
1990: Ritual de lo Habitual, Jane's Addiction
1991: Seamonsters, The Wedding Present
1992: Slanted and Enchanted, Pavement
1993: The Infotainment Scam, The Fall
1994: San Francisco, American Music Club
1995: Elastica, Elastica
1996: What Would the Community Think, Cat Power
1997: Dig Me Out, Sleater-Kinney
1998: Music Has the Right to Children, Boards of Canada
1999: Come On Die Young, Mogwai
2000: Long Distance, Ivy
2001: First Album, Miss Kittin and the Hacker
2002: Kill the Moonlight, Spoon
2003: Closer, Plastikman
2004: The Grey Album, Jay-Z and Danger Mouse
2005: Thrills, Ellen Alien
2006: Silent Shout, The Knife
2007: Sound of Silver, LCD Soundsystem
2008: ?????
What if Barack Obama is sprung into office partially through the power of Internet donations to his campaign and his ability to inspire a new generation of voters to vote via social networking tools? Yet, he comes into office bitter about the lies bandied about on the Web in chain mails about his religious background and patriotic beliefs -- so bitter that he decides to push for regulation of Web-based opinions and news?
There, the relatively new government was greatly assisted by the country's Web savvy voters when it won it's election five months ago. But, those unintended consequences of the Internet came back to bite the government on its flank when it was the delivery mechanism for hysterical fears of rampant Mad Cow disease after the government began to accept American beef back into the country. This then manifested itself in massive street protests (see below) against the government that have its popularity to Bushian-levels.
Now comes the attempt to put the genie back in the bottle....
...the newly elected South Korean conservative government, led by Lee Myung-bak, has unveiled a package of reforms and laws aimed at curbing some of what it claims is the outrageously libellous commentary and ungrounded scaremongering found online.
Lee Han-ki, the OhmyNews editor-in-chief, told MediaGuardian.co.uk: "The proposed legislation will not only hinder free speech by Korean netizens but seems to be aimed at controlling the public opinion of internet news media.
"Such measures would not help to promote the democratic development of the Korean press and could end up turning back the internet clock in Korea."
Should Lee's new Seoul government get its way, new laws would allow any internet company publishing news stories to be regulated in the same way as journalistic organisations.
All forum and chatroom users will be required to make verifiable real-name registrations.
Internet companies will have to make public their search algorithm to improve "transparency". And, most controversial of all, regulatory body the Korea Communications Commission will be given powers to immediately suspend the publishing of articles found to be fraudulent or slanderous for a minimum of 30 days. (Guardian UK)
I'm an Internet cheerleader. It's a massive democratizing force. It's an efficiency machine. It creates untold economic opportunity. Sis Boom Bah.
Boo Nicholas Carr. Hiss Andrew Keen.
But, sometimes, it's important to recognize when the organic nature of the Internet creates dynamics that we wish weren't so...
Lots has been said about how the power of the Internet will eventually break down old barriers in regimes where democracy isn't a way of life. And, much faith has been put in the hands of young people to use the Web to tear down walls. In fact, this is a rational for why American companies put up with censorship in places like China. The idea is that a taste of unfettered communication will eventually push a people to demand minimal restrictions on speech, and this will eventually have a bubbling-up effect of creating a more perfect open, capitalistic and representative society. I happen to agree with this. Still.
Yet, societal transformations aren't always pretty and don't happen in black and white.
For example, what happens if this great Internet makes a good portion of said young people more closed to a world and less willing to embrace Western ideologies? Or, simply, what if the great democratizing tool lessens the appetite for the kind of democracy that you prefer?
A fascinating recent New Yorker piece examined these questions as it went behind the scenes of the creation of this video below...
"On the morning of April 15th, a short video entitled “2008 China Stand Up!” appeared on Sina, a Chinese Web site. The video’s origin was a mystery: unlike the usual YouTube-style clips, it had no host, no narrator, and no signature except the initials “CTGZ.'”...
...The video, which was just over six minutes long and is now on YouTube, captured the mood of nationalism that surged through China after the Tibetan uprising, in March, sparked foreign criticism of China’s hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Citizens were greeting the criticism with rare fury...."
...In its first week and a half, the video by CTGZ drew more than a million hits and tens of thousands of favorable comments. It rose to the site’s fourth-most-popular rating. (A television blooper clip of a yawning news anchor was No. 1.) On average, the film attracted nearly two clicks per second. It became a manifesto for a self-styled vanguard in defense of China’s honor, a patriotic swath of society that the Chinese call the fen qing, the angry youth."
The story traces the video to a well-educated and soft-spoken graduate student who has a better grasp of Western ideology and philosophy than most Americans, Germans or Brits. The fact is that he can easily circumvent state-driven censorship and this doesn't fuel him to question his country. It, instead, makes him defend it even more. (Of censorship, the student says "because we are in such a system [of media censorship], we are always asking ourselves whether we are brainwashed, but when you are in a so-called free system you never think about whether you are brainwashed.")
Many of those who are older than "the angry youth" in China either regret that they don't understand the purpose of protests like Tiannemen Square or are fearful of the intensity of their feelings (indeed, as one Chinese blogger who admired the NYer article wrote: It was the Communists who repressed patriotism). Yet, the 105 million under 30-year-old Internet users in China hold the power over the impact of the technology in their country in the coming decades -- for better or for worse.
UPDATE: Kevin Donovan thankfully wrote in below and alerted me to a post that he did on this very same New Yorker article. His comments from his interesting new-ish blog that I will soon put in the blog roll here ....
The instantaneous, global spread of ideas is unprecedented in human history. Sure, the Silk Road is a fascinating example of the globalization of products and diseases; even a few ideas made the journey. Sure, by some measures the world was just as globalized prior to WWI. But the scale and extent of the current global information society dwarfs historical comparisons. For the first time in history, ordinary citizens have the capabilities to connect across the globe to people of wildly different backgrounds, histories and interests. It was supposed to be a sovereign realm unto itself where “governments of the industrial world… have no sovereignty.” Nationalism was supposed to disappear, to dwell in history with the horrific wars and conflicts it supported.
The reality, is quite different. The Economist notes that, “the very people whom the Internet might have liberated from the shackles of state-sponsored ideologies—are using the wonders of electronics to stoke hatred between countries, races or religions.” How can these painful distortions of humanity be limited in the digital realm? The answer, of course, isn’t clear, but my intuition is that it will not depend on hardware or software. A future free from conflict - digital and physical - will be paved by breaking down the cultural differences and coming to understand the reasons for differences of opinion.
That referenced July Economist piece was titled "The Brave New World of E-Hatred -- Social networks and video-sharing sites don’t always bring people closer together".
It's the Week of Cuil here at The 463. And, the focus is not so much on the search service that launched to massive public attention and less than stellar results, but on a Valley ecosystem that could spawn such an specimen.
Somehow both interestingly and stereotypically, like a scientist investigating a lost pygmy tribe in the Andes, a former Sunday Times (UK) columnist gets all anthropological as, via The Register, she describes her entry into Palo Alto as a chief strategist to her old friend who is now CEO at Cuil....
"The serenity is catching – I become conscious of my foot fall. People speak quietly, even the children. It’s beautiful, but surreal. You can’t help wondering if all the loud, crazy people have been rounded up and shipped into San Francisco."
Then there is this...
But what amazed her most was the way Tom Costello and the Cuil kids spent their $33 million in venture capital. "Lunch is ordered in every single day," she writes. "Huge fridges burst with snacks and drinks. Bowls of strawberries and muffins lie around the rest area.
"The company pays for a personal trainer and gym membership for everyone. A doctor calls round each Friday, after the weekly barbeque, to see if everyone’s in good health. Employees drift in an out at times that suit themselves."
In an attempt to earn her keep as Strategist to the CEO, she warned her college classmate that he was heading down the road to ruin. But he explained that in the Valley, that path is unavoidable.
"When I observed this [strawberry and muffin] behaviour first I was appalled and took my CEO friend aside," Carey says. "This was disastrous! His company would never succeed if he wasted money like this and didn’t crack the whip. He laughed. This is the way it works out here. You have to be nice to people."
And in the end, even Sarah Carey was sucked into the Valley's swirling vortex of profligacy. "Well, if that was the case, he could be nice to me," she says. "I wasn’t going to fly home in the back of the plane. I summoned up the audacity to ask for business class travel and was granted it without hesitation. Knowing the cost of the ticket was over €2000, which is about $5 million given the current exchange rate, I had to walk around for 15 minutes afterwards chanting 'I’m worth it. I’m worth it. I’m worth it.'"
BTW, Carey's blog doesn't seem to exist anymore. But, thanks to Google cache it is here. A result on Cuil for Carey and muffins gets you this.
Of course, the realities of the Valley are much more complex. Take this drive through from one famous (to those in the know) Valley wise man, philosopher and lizard king....
You may have heard about Cuil. It's a "Google killer" that launched today to a blaze of hype and promptly crashed a few times.
When it is working you get interesting results like this (when vanity searching myself)...
Hey! I'm a Giants fan. Not a Braves fan. (And there is a far more popular Sean Garrett out there who happens to be a hip hop songwriter).
Anyway, we've discussed the meme "privacy as a competitive weapon" on these pages and Cuil apparently agrees. Its privacy policy:
--New York Times Bits Blog talks privacy and self-regulation with the director of the FTC's bureau of consumer protection.
--One lawyer can get YouTube content on her TV via TV and proclaims:
"YouTube has been able to become a broadcaster without having to make the significant financial investments required to comply with regulations, licensing or creating content. The lawsuits with Viacom and its co-plaintiffs may just be the prelude to more complex litigation and regulation matters for YouTube."
--Hmmm....
In November, the Novgorod regional education department issued a letter to all schools in the region with a description of emo culture, saying the “dream of every [emo] is to die in a warm bath from the blood of cutting their wrists.”
This, from a story on how Russian authorities are cracking down on emo and goth music.
A South China Morning Post story (reg. required) yesterday made a claim that:
Bar owners near the Workers' Stadium in central Beijing say they have been forced by Public Security Bureau officials to sign pledges agreeing not to let black people enter their premises.
"Uniformed Public Security Bureau officers came into the bar recently and told me not to serve black people or Mongolians," said the co-owner of a western-style bar, who asked not to be named.
The story since spread across the globe and has been harumphed by many a Western blogger, DIgg contributer and message board commentator.
I've never been to Asia -- let alone the Beijing club scene -- so I really have no qualification to speak to the truth of the charges. But, my guess is that while when there is smoke, there is some fire. However, it's also entirely possible that a reporter could have blurred the actions of a few overly-proactive officers with official policy.
But, the realities of the SCMP story isn't the point of this post. Rather, it's the reaction inside of China by bloggers and blog commentator that have, within hours, effectively "crowd sourced" the charge and countered it with their own research and perspectives. (And, granted, I'm obviously limited to English language posts). Check out this one. And, here's one blogger who writes exclusively on the Beijing bar scene:
A second update on the South China Morning Post story that claims Beijing is “secretly” trying to ban blacks and Mongolians from bars during the Olympics.
I hit some Sanlitun bars last night and made some phone calls today, and this is what I found:
- An owner said police met with Sanlitun bar reps and told them to monitor black patrons. He said the police told the reps that drug dealers are predominantly black in the area. He said the police did not ask bar owners to ban blacks.
- Several Sanlitun area bar owners said they had not been told by police to ban blacks or Mongolians.
- I also spoke to several people in the restaurant business and they told me they have not heard of police telling city eateries to ban people.
- Most interesting, two people working at one bar had different perspectives on the terminology used by the police. One said the police used “black” in reference to skin color; while the other said it was used in terms of bad elements (the Chinese character for “black” is part of a phrase used to describe criminals).
Bloggers/commentators have called out the credibility of the SCMP story and have underscored how educated, tech savvy folks inside of China are probably the country's most credible counterweights to Western media (and Icelandic singers) that are perceived as blowing internal issues out of proportion in the lead up to the Olympics. I mean, who would have thunk that a dude who writes about where to find the best whisky bar in Beijing, might contribute to taking the air out of a potential International Incident?
This naturally presents the question of whether the powers that be within China will reward this unprompted support and begin to loosen controls on social networking tools and services (i.e., YouTube, Facebook, 56.com, etc.). I'm reminded of when Thailand temporarily banned YouTube because of one negative video about their and, by doing so, effectively took down reams of homemade and heartfelt propaganda about their great leader.
Of course, odd policy considerations about social media aren't limited to Asia. MediaShift wrote yesterday of one EU Parliament member (from the supposedly ultra-tech savvy country of Estonia) who wants to create a blogger registry...
...in an article on the European Parliament’s website, the intentions behind Mikko’s recommendations became clear:
Ms. Mikko told us “the blogosphere has so far been a haven of good intentions and relatively honest dealing. However, with blogs becoming commonplace, less principled people will want to use them.”
Mikko goes on:
We do not see bloggers as a threat. They are in position, however, to considerably pollute cyberspace. We already have too much spam, misinformation and malicious intent in cyberspace…I think the public is still very trusting towards blogs, it is still seen as sincere. And it should remain sincere. For that we need a quality mark, a disclosure of who is really writing and why.
The conclusion to be drawn from the report recommendations and Mikko’s later comments is that legislation should be put in place to identify bloggers and the “quality” of their writing lest they be used to harm cyberspace.
First, watch this video:
Now, ask yourself, did that just make you want to buy music from Prince less? Specifically, the track "Let's Go Crazy?"
That's just one of the peripheral questions afoot in a legal case between a mom who took a video of her kid and innocently posted it on YouTube and Universal Music. And, no, the big label isn't suing the mom. It's the other way around. Yesterday, a judge considered Universal's attempt to get the potentially precedent setting case dismissed.
The EFF is driving the case for Stephanie Lenz and claims that Universal shouldn't have forced YouTube to takedown the video on copyright claims because the use of the Prince track was protected by fair use. EFF says:
"The lawsuit asks for a declaratory judgment that Lenz's home video does not infringe any Universal copyright, as well as damages and injunctive relief restraining Universal from bringing further copyright claims in connection with the video."
Wired's Threat Level blog notes:
Universal did not challenge Stephanie Lenz's assertion that the video was a "fair use" of Prince's song. After being taken down for six weeks, the video went back online last year, having now generated about half a million hits.
The courthouse dispute on Friday centered on a rarely used clause in the DMCA -- originally approved by Congress in 1998 -- allowing victims of meritless takedown notices to seek damages in a bid to deter such notices and breaches of First Amendment speech.
Universal argues that they or other copyright holders are not liable for damages when somebody asserts fair use to reverse a takedown notice.
A US judge orders that Google provide full access to YouTube user data to Viacom, an Irish reporter reacts....
The EU is currently arguing that IP addresses should be considered personal information and fall under data protection regulation. However, the Viacom case is showing that, as privacy advocates have been arguing, this may mean zilch in real terms.
Once EU users access a service, their details can be stored on servers anywhere in the world and the provenance of those details, in legal terms, becomes murky. Yes, they may be data theoretically protected under EU law but in practicality - as with the Google data - once those details are on US or other servers and demanded under US law for a case that has nothing directly to do with Europeans, it is going to be handed over despite EU protestations - if any.
If the data is, rightly or wrongly, so easily surrendered for a mere commercial case (and some prominent US privacy lawyers argue the Viacom judge was wrong to do so), then one can imagine the ease with which law enforcement might get hold of similarly highly revealing information.
All of which begs the question: what does online privacy really mean? Are EU data safeguards just political window dressing and if so, how can our privacy be better protected, as so many aspects of our private lives move inexorably online?
There is something beautiful about a rush to get your phone to be able to simulate the rolling of dice and, in the process, not be able to do anything with it -- including make simple calls.
Braden Cox at TLF succinctly breaks down todays hearing on behavioral tracking...
Coming off last week’s July 4 recess, the Senate held a hearing on the privacy implications of online advertising. Online ads, behavioral tracking, targeted ads - whatever you might call it - has been an explosive policy issue, but today’s hearing was mostly just sparklers, with only a few bottle rockets here and there.
The big players were there–Google, Microsoft, Facebook and NebuAd–minus the ISPs, which (Senator) Dorgan called out as being absent...
I ran across this classic, infamous Time Magazine cover the other day and was blown away that it's now 13-years-old. The story is here.
Besides making me think about my own age and what I was doing when I first saw it back in 1995, I had a few thoughts on it (that aren't all necessarily related)...
--As you may know, the story was riddled with faulty research, alleged bad journalism and a lot of fear mongering presumptions. In a nutshell, one Carnegie Mellon researcher did a study that found that 83.5 percent (!) of online images were pornographic and published his findings in a non-peer-reviewed law journal. (The punch-line was that the source of the images were private BBS services and not the public Internet). The researcher and the law journal supposedly gave Time the journal article and select pieces of the results under the condition that Time couldn't see the full study before it went to press. This is obviously completely insane and the law journal says it wasn't true. But, regardless, Time ran with the piece nonetheless and wrote (their caps, not mine): "What the Carnegie Mellon researchers discovered was: THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF PORN ONLINE."
For a blow-by-blow excavation of the story, see this critique and this timeline by Brock Meeks (long-time journo, current CDT communications guy).
--At the time of the piece, the Communications Decency Act train was warming up in the station and the Time story gave it a head of steam. In an interesting piece of current research, Alice Marwick writes about "technopanics" and uses the Time piece and the resulting legislative actions as exhibit A...
The day after the Time issue was published, Iowa Senator Charles Grassley directly referred to the Rimm study on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Congress was in the process of debating the Communications Decency Act (CDA), an amendment to the Telecommunications Act which made it a federal crime to make pornographic materials available online where children could view them. Grassley had read the Time magazine cover story and gave a strident speech to Congress the day after it was published:
Eighty–three point five percent of all computerized photographs available on the Internet are pornographic. Mr. President, I want to repeat that: 83.5 percent of the 900,000 images reviewed — these are all on the Internet — are pornographic, according to the Carnegie Mellon study. Now, of course, that does not mean that all of these images are illegal under the Constitution. But with so many graphic images available on computer networks, I believe Congress must act and do so in a constitutional manner to help parents who are under assault in this day and age. There is a flood of vile pornography, and we must act to stem this growing tide, because, in the words of Judge Robert Bork, it incites perverted minds.
--The CDA, of course, passed, was signed and then got struck down by the Supreme Court. It also launched the careers of about 1143 geek activists.
--As the "technopanic" piece notes, there is a direct corollary from the Web 1.0 cyberporn freak-out and the social networking predator wig-out. Adam Theirer and others spit in the wind for a long time about how faulty research was on social networks and the risks of sexual predators. Still, despite a recent trend toward more reasonable data, a whole host of bad legislation has been introduced since 2006 to cure the Internet of its social networking evils. DOPA was the classic, but there have also been all sorts of attempts at the state level for age-verification mandates (which have been uniformly scuttled).
--But, think that in these modern ubiquitous media days that a single story can't have an impact on a policymaker? Think again. It certainly wasn't as specious as the Time piece, but consider one New York Times story written by the generally very good Brad Stone last summer. Headlined "New Scrutiny for Facebook Over Predators". In it, the Connecticut AG says that he is investigating "three or more" cases of convicted sex offenders on Facebook. Lightweight claim? Fair point? You make the call.
Regardless, this news is supported by an anonymous email to the Times that was received by a received from a “concerned parent” who had “posed” as a 15-year-old on Facebook and received solicitations from adults. Apparently, this fake 15-year-old signed up for groups that included ““addicted to masturbation ... and you know if you are!”, “Facebook Swingers” and “I’m Curious About Incest.” The fake user subsequently received propositions from adults who could see her profile photo and message her via the group. A couple of the men had naked photos of themselves on their profile. (Note that Facebook has since fixed this issue on several levels).
In response to the Times story, one blogger remarked: "What?! Adults posing as teenagers looking for "random play" and joining 36 sex groups get propositioned? The system is totally broken!"
Regardless, I don't think it was a complete coincidence that less than two months after the piece, the New York Attorney General announced the results of a “weeks long” investigation into the site that mirrored what were covered in the story and started a public crusade against Facebook. This was very quickly concluded by an agreement between the AG and the company. Still, damage done.
--Is the social networking technopanic too 2006-07 for you? Okay, how about this USA Today piece that came out last week that ledes with: "Sexual predators are using gaming consoles such as the Wii, PlayStation and Xbox to meet children online."
Look for related legislation soon.
--Another interesting bit from the initial reaction to the cyberporn story, was the recalling of how this could have been the first major instance of "crowdsourcing" to find the facts necessary to create a significant reaction (in this case from a major weekly newsmagazine). The seminal early-Internet geek-zone, the Well, is given credit in a 1995 story:
In the hours and days after the Time story was published, something extraordinary happened in the Media conference on the Well, the Sausalito-based computer conferencing system: Scholars, reporters and activists examined the Time story and the Carnegie Mellon University study it was based upon and took them apart, line by line, statistic by statistic, in full public view.
The Well is a popular hangout for journalists and journalism junkies; the author of the Time story, Philip Elmer-DeWitt, is among its regulars. Over the past 10 days, anyone who pulled up a virtual chair on the Well could follow all the principals in this controversy as they thrashed out their disagreements.
Initially, a Time editor (awesomely) only promised a "letter to the editor" to the dissenters. But, as the reaction dragged on, Time eventually ran what was supposedly a "qualified" retraction. (I can't find it).
--Of course, the Well could also be seen as a pre-cursor to the current circle jerk of tech bloggers who constantly affirm each other in their own special enlightened world. [UPDATE: Check out Brock Meeks' erudite refutation of this point in the comments.]
--Indeed, the author of the Time piece notes in an interview right after it ran...
"Frankly, I think there's a good story to be done, probably by me, in what's gone on in The Well. This might be self-serving, but it feels like poor Marty Rimm is being lynched there. He's not getting a fair trial; his study's not getting a fair trial. Mike Godwin has organized an attack, and there are precious few voices that are not already prejudiced to one side."
I't's hard to have a lot of sympathy for either the reporter or researcher in this case, but after seeing When Communities Attack many, many times in the last 13 years now, it's also hard not to hold out a bit of skepticism for prevailing wisdom promulgated by those who effusively agree with each other and collectively reject dissenting perspectives.
In a way, this whole episode was quite prescient -- both for better and for worse.
Follow along please....
A prominent Australian recognizes that "consumers are demanding more extensive online, video-based entertainment" and that "we are the 'what, when and how we want it' generation."
He then says that require circa-1960s rules that require that 55 per cent of all programs broadcast on free-to-air TV between 6pm and midnight to be Australian are outdated.
The punch-line has to be that he views the TV content content rules as so archaic in a networked world that they should be struck down?
Wrong.
Instead, he is calling for these types of "Made in Australia" rules to be extended to the Internet.
Oh, and I suppose it is relevant that the man making this pronouncement is the head of the Australian public television network -- ABC-TV.
Seems that Kim Dalton believes:
"It is likely that existing regulatory arrangements to deliver local drama, documentaries, comedy, children's, news, current affairs and other programming may have diminishing effects on the market as the existing business models of broadcasters are challenged and the content offered becomes, increasingly, foreign.
"It is time to reassess and reshape the Australian content policy framework.
"By making new connections between the previously distinct fields of communications, media and cultural policy, the Government can address the issue ofensuring Australian content ismade available in the digital environment."
What happened to consumers getting what they want, when they want?
After all, Australian TV viewers consistently watch Desperate Housewives, Lost, CSI and Law & Order more than most any homegrown products. And, the most popular locally produced shows are generally bastardizations of American or European created shows like Australian Idol, the Australian Big Brother and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire.
Nothing wrong with that. But, pretending that you are going to save Australian culture by getting government involved to force people to watch your network's programming on all mediums is a bit, uh, problematic.
Fortunately, the reaction in Australia was not positive.
Today, The Australian ran reactions. Here is one...
John Lindsay, the carrier relations manager for Internode -- one of the country's largest internet service providers -- said the call was hypocritical.
"This used to be the same Australian media industry that refused to make Australian TV available online," Mr Lindsay said. "You can't regulate it. It connects everyone to everyone. Are they really going to stop people watching YouTube and CNN?"
He said attempts to try to restrain or direct people's use of the internet would be met with fierce resistance by consumers.
A couple days old, but I thought this legal tactic (as written about in the New York Times) was clever and a sign of the times...
Judges and jurors who must decide whether sexually explicit material is obscene are asked to use a local yardstick: does the material violate community standards?
That is often a tricky question because there is no simple, concrete way to gauge a community’s tastes and values.
The Internet may be changing that. In a novel approach, the defense in an obscenity trial in Florida plans to use publicly accessible Google search data to try to persuade jurors that their neighbors have broader interests than they might have thought....
...“We tried to come up with comparison search terms that would embody typical American values,” Mr. Walters said. “What is more American than apple pie?” But according to the search service, he said, “people are at least as interested in group sex and orgies as they are in apple pie.”
We give lots of other countries gruff for taking steps to regulate the Internet like old-school media. And, we often heckle US politicians for taking the slightest steps down a slippery slope of toward Internet content regulation.
Our snarky (and substantive) comments stand. Sadly, though, politicians tend to care more about rafts of voters than part-time bloggers.
And, according to a poll that came out over the weekend, good ole' Americans (at least 1500 of them) think by a decent margin that the Internet should be regulated like other media.
Specifically, Rasmussen Reports asked, "Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the internet like it does radio and television?"
And, the results were:
49% Yes
35% No
16% Not sure
Rasmussen qualified that... "women... feel much more strongly about federal regulation of the Internet, with 55% in favor, 25% opposed and 20% undecided. Men reject federal regulation by a small margin – 46% to 42% -- with 12% unsure."
Unfortunately, these results weren't too dissimilar than the results of of a 463/Zogby question that we asked last Fall We found that:
- More than half of Americans believe that Internet content such as video should be controlled in some way by the government. Twenty-nine percent said it should be regulated just like television content while 24% said government should institute an online rating system similar to the one used by the movie industry. In contrast, only 36% said the blocking of Internet video would be unconstitutional.
- Only 33% of 18 to 24 year-olds supported government stepping in on content, while 72% of those over 70 years of age support government regulation and ratings.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents the country’s largest retail chains, wants to legislate onerous rules against online retailers and limit what could be sold online all in the name of stemming theft.
It could be taken as a badge of honor that Internet commerce is so growns up now that the big bricks and mortar retail players are taking extraordinary measures to try to beat back their online rivals. But, sadly, such badges won't do much for consumers and small businesses that will be negatively impacted by the big, old-school guys.
In a Politico article about the retailers actions, NetChoice executive director Steve DelBianco calls a spade a spade:
“This is not about consumer protection; it’s about competition. Retailers want to prevent competition from online sellers of new and used goods.”
TechDirt's Mike Masnick chimes in...
The really sneaky part of this push to get Congress involved is that the reasoning isn't even accurate. I'm sure there may be some groups of shoplifters out there who have been going around stealing goods out of stores and reselling them on eBay, but the details suggest it's barely a blip on the radar. A study by the National Retail Federation (who also represents large retailers) found that most store theft comes from employees or vendors. Only 1/3 comes from shoplifting. Stores themselves are partly to blame, as they've cut back on prosecuting shoplifters. And, most importantly, retail theft appears to be dropping rather consistently over the past few years.
So, basically, retailers get to push for the idea that they need to ban online auctions from selling certain products -- when it turns out what they really want is to get rid of the competition. There's no real evidence of an epidemic of thefts due to online auctions, and even if there were, the problem should be dealt with via the retailers' own loss management efforts.
This is yet another example why Internet companies need to be vigilant and proactive against their more policy-experienced offline competitors (another is the Internet tax issue). In this case, reactively fighting on the terms of a false shoplifting debate set by the retailers starts the conversation from a defensive stance. Rather, this is about choice, competition and small business growth and, fortunately, organizations like NetChoice are now not allowing their rivals to have easy PR lay-ups. Hopefully, policymakers will see through the retailers' effort for what they really are, too.
....and so does any other Internet publisher big or small that publishes political content.
According to a blog round-up on the excellent Global Voices, the top election law body in Brazil has created a legal environment where:
Broadcasting of any political propaganda on the Internet, radio or television - including, among others, community radio stations and television channels operating in UHF, VHF and by subscription - and, besides, rallies or public meetings are prohibited, from 48 hours before through 24 hours after the election.
This means that a blogger might need to black out a post advocating a candidate two days prior to election day. It means that questions over whether YouTube, for example, would be responsible to pull all Brazilian election content would be raised.
And, speaking of YouTube, just to get a sense of the Internet reading level that the Brazilian ministers were operating under, the Global Voices post translates the words of a Brazilian judge writing about the opinion:
As I heard the arguments being presented, I was increasingly surprised in face of the ministers' lack of knowledge to understand what the Internet is. It seemed - and this impression was very strong - that they did not know what they were talking about. To get an idea, Youtube was turned into U2.
Ultimately, this lack of understanding led to a confused opinion:
In the end, the decision was a clear sample that they did not know what they were deciding right then. It was decided that to the extent that problems arise, they would be dealt with, case by case. This is great for lawyers and too bad for voters, who are left with a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads without knowing what they can and can not do.
I've said it before: The Internet has created the greatest generational divide since Rock 'n' Roll. This borderless divide has also proven that cultures of all stripes have the ability to enact profoundly counterproductive (and technically impossible) rules that increase the chasm between both sides.
My post below on the impact of Chairman Markey's draft Internet disability access legislation quickly struck a cord with a few readers. They agree on the video part that I focused on, but are focusing their worries on possible near-term impact on instant messaging. The essence of their collective perspectives is that the potential mandates placed on IM could have the ironic impact of hindering an extremely popular tool of the disabled community.
A few of their points:
--The legislation would require the FCC to regulate IM and make it interoperate across all services and platforms, including old-school telephones on old-school networks.
--The bill creates massive annual reporting obligations on IM providers and forces them to contribute to the FCC's Telecommunications Relay Fund.
--It would force IM applications to transmit real-time text. This means that my IM contacts will see me write a word one letter at a time and then watch as I delete, re-enter a word, change my thought and then ultimately quit trying to come up with a pithy thought. Does the FCC really need to mandate this window into my soul?
Captions for 30 Rock to the right of the video above.
I wrote back in September of 2006...
...the movement toward (Internet video) regulation doesn't have to come in big shifts like those proposed overseas. We just mentioned closed captioning regulations for TV shows. Well, closed captioning regulations for Internet video are being fought for already. Advocates want the Telecom Act of 1996 to open up the rules to online video. If this is done, what next?
Well, any minute now, Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, will introduce legislation that will give the FCC enforcement rules on mandating disability access for Internet delivered video. The draft legislation is here (PDF).
The Boston Globe top-lines the bill like this:
....(it) would require major producers of Internet videos to add captions as well as "video description" soundtracks that describe the on-screen action for blind people.
The measure would also force changes in the design of television and telephone equipment to make the devices more accessible to the disabled. The goal, Markey said, is "to ensure that people with disabilities are not left behind as technology changes."
The bill would require TV networks to provide captioning and video description tracks when they stream their shows over the Internet.
Markey is seen as a true friend to the Internet on Capitol Hill, but he also has a deep attachment to disability access technologies. He introduced and championed the legislation that led to closed captioning on televisions in 1990.
Still, friendships aside, some are troubled by the bill and don't think it will stand legal tests. Kevin Goldman at the CommLaw blog says:
While an admirable attempt, the legislation has, in our mind, many flaws. The first is the obvious constitutional question. While broadcaster have traditionally been subject to some regulation due to the “scarcity” and “pervasiveness” of the medium, the Internet has been classified by the United States Supreme Court as the perhaps the freest medium of expression in existence – deserving of even more First Amendment protection than even newspapers. It is hard to conceive of a regulation that mandates speech in this way surviving constitutional scrutiny. Another problem raised by several parties is technical in nature. Again, unlike, broadcast television, there is no single technology by which Internet video is delivered. If a broadcaster finds it is even possible to automatically convert captions from a television program to the Internet stream (not always a guaranteed proposition because many programs are condensed on the Internet, with commercials removed), viewers use different programming formats to receive the stream. Captions prepared for delivery via Internet Explorer may not be readable in Linux. Work to solve this problem and create a single format for captioning is ongoing but still some time away. Finally, there is the further concern that captions would be unreadable on smaller computer screens, let alone iPods, iPhones or other mobile phones to which the law would apply.
On the constitutionality question, I've repeatedly gotten the same response by legal minds when I do my Chicken Little dance on Internet video regulation. I may just be a caveman PR guy, but I also can see the evolution of laws as society and technology does the same. Just yesterday, Microsoft's Steve Ballmer said that *all* media content would be delivered over IP networks in a decade. If that is going to work, I would presume that this dynamic will require pretty significant pervasiveness.
And, as I wrote back in that 2006 post....
....at what point of penetration do you need to get to be broadcast TV-esque? Way back in 2003, more than 60 percent of U.S. households had computers and the more recent OECD report said that the US has 49 million broadband subscribers. Oh, and what about those little computers that people carry in the pockets? That is, phones and soon-to-be a bevy of different mobile devices that merge video capabilities and old-school voice calling? There are 180 million wireless subscribers in our country of 300 million. All we're saying is that those are a lot of video platforms that are a lot easier to access than paid-for cable on a 40-inch screen that's attached to a cable box.
To the original "what's next" question: If the FCC has regulatory authority to impose disability access rules on "broadcast-like" Internet video*, than why not be able to impose advertising rules for videos targeted towards children? How about next-generation v-chips? Or, if the Fairness Doctrine sees the light of day again, would it be extended to the Internet?
If precedent is created on any of the above, how far could Internet video regulation go?
All said, there is a very good chance that, at least for now, the Markey bill is one big kick in the industry's ass to get in gear and create disability access solutions that pre-empt legislation. Indeed, Google, Yahoo!, Microsoft and AOL created the Internet Captioning Forum to "overcome the technical and production challenges of providing captions on large video aggregation Web sites."
Indeed the Web captioning site, Captions.org noted recent progress online earlier this week...
More major network channels are setting up video players on their sites..and the good news is, the players show captions! More and more captioned programming is now available through Fox.com (read the review at Disabled in the Digital Age) and others. Plus there is a new online tv broadcaster, Hulu.com, that makes some captioned programming available....
...This is a good start. Part of me wonders if the networks are rushing to provide at least some captioned programming in hopes of avoiding government requirements to provide captions on the internet? After all, because the law that requires captions on television does not apply to the internet, there is now pushing to get a new, updated law that will apply to the internet.
Putting on my Chicken Little suit again, I would respectfully suggest that my friends at businesses heavily invested in online video not merely view their disability access "self-regulatory" efforts as a hedge against bills like Markey's but also see it as a way to maintain that important firewall between them and the FCC vacuum.
Markey has been proven to call industry's bluff before.
*The draft legislation defines the term ‘video programming’ as meaning programming provided by, or generally considered comparable to programming provided by, a television broadcast station, even if such programming is distributed over the Internet or by some other means.’’
David Kralick works for Newt Gingrich in Silicon Valley and attracts strange artificial lighting wherever he goes. (photo by Chistina Koci Hernandez for The Washington Post)
The Post has a piece today about Newt Gingrich's emissary to Silicon Valley. It's written by a Bay Area native with an engaging, evocative style and doesn't spare many clichés about life and work between San Jose and South of Market. (Neither apparently does the Post's photo editors. See above).
The lede:
Here, he's from another planet. Here in Silicon Valley, David Kralik is, let's face it, some strange import. That's why he's attracting such buzz one recent afternoon inside Buck's, the legendary eatery, while lunching on a pulled-pork sandwich.
Jamis MacNiven, Buck's owner, plops himself down and blurts out: "So you're the guy that works for Newt the Snoot!"
Yep, that's Kralik. A lifelong Republican in the land of liberal Democrats. Who relocated from uptight, Brooks Brothers Washington. And works for Newt Gingrich.
Bucks really needs to be taken out of the Let's Go Silicon Valley Guide for Media. And, OMG a Republican in Silicon Valley! Get me my binoculars, ma!
But, there are good amounts of interesting anecdotes in the piece -- especially centered around how to apply tech to solve big government problems....
...Says Peter Leyden, the former editor of Wired magazine who heads the New Politics Institute, a think tank focusing on technology's impact on Washington: "There's an emerging sense that both worlds need each other. Think of it this way: The scale of the problems that the world faces -- globalization, global warming, global terrorism -- can't be solved without these two hubs cooperating with each other."
ad_icon
Kralik knows all of this full well. On a recent six-hour flight from Washington to the Valley, he drafted a three-column chart. "The world that works." "The world that fails." "Making government from a world that fails to a world that works."
Kralik puts the U.S. Census Bureau in the world-that-fails column. After spending more than $150 million on handheld computers to count everyone in the country, the Census Bureau announced a few weeks ago that it will scrap that program and hire 600,000 temporary workers and go back to the same way that it's counted people since 1790: with paper and pen.
"You've got to be kidding me, right?" says an incredulous Kralik. "Why can't we get together the brightest minds at Google, at Apple, at whatever companies here in the Valley, and figure out a more high-tech way of counting our citizens?"
v.
Amy Schatz of the WSJ is the first out of the gate with a Obama v. McCain-for-the-hearts-and-wallets-of-Silicon-Valley story. (Previous pieces hedged with other candidates).
Few presidential candidates have had as much experience dealing with technology and telecommunications issues as Sen. McCain, who for years chaired a Senate committee that deals with them. But he rarely brings tech issues up on the campaign trail and hasn't released many significant policy proposals about them yet.
By contrast, his likely rival, Sen. Obama of Illinois, presented a detailed technology agenda in November that addressed many of the industries' hot-button issues -- including support for building faster broadband networks and keeping Internet traffic unfettered. He has subsequently raised significantly more Silicon Valley cash than Sen. McCain.
A running total of campaign donations by Silicon Valley zip codes maintained by TechNet, an association made up of 150 high-tech chief executive officers, finds that by March 31, Sen. Obama had raised $5 million, compared with almost $800,000 for Mr. McCain.
The piece notes that the discrepancy in funding between the two candidates can be partially attributed to the fact that tech issues aside, there just happens to be a lot more people ideologically attuned to Obama in the Bay Area. Very true, but a well-done June Atlantic Monthly piece also shows how Obama quietly used the Valley as a fundraising launching pad for his campaign early in the process...
...But more than any policy, the idea of Obama and the world he speaks for seemed to excite something deep within the limbic system of the Valley brain that manifested itself through the early and continuing financial support that was crucial to launching Obama’s campaign. Getting behind Obama, especially for those who did so early, appealed to their self-image as discerning seers.
Discerning seering aside, the WSJ does pick up on one policy note that will likely be exploited by McCain with industry-types in the coming months (and with good reason): Free trade. As the primary election trudged on, Obama's pragmatist instincts were smothered by an apparent need to score populist political points on the issue. McCain has had no need for nuance on the need for free trade in a global economy.
BTW, this week marks the year anniversary of McCain's keynote interview at the All Things D conference (my picture below). I remember a general feeling among the many tech execs in the audience of "it's kind of embarrassing that this guy has zero chance to get the nomination and he's speaking here, but, hey, he's a war hero, a senator, and (John) Chambers supports him, so I guess I will listen."
Even more tellingly, was the post-speech handshake tour among the dining attendees. Cisco's Chambers diligently introduced the Senator to different tables of folks. It was all very polite and people were genuinely interested in meeting and talking to McCain, but there was no rush of people to do so. Folks stood back and if McCain made it to their table, than great, if not, than, hey, look over there... what is Chad Hurley wearing?
It would be different scene altogether if McCain was speaking this year (not to mention Obama). Just shows how vaunted visionaries can miss half of the future even when it has walked in the room and extended its hand.
Do you think that little family businesses should be able to compete against stampeding big box retailers by being able to provide their products online free of unreasonable and costly bureaucratic rules that are not so coincidentally advocated by Wal-Mart, Target and Best Buy and powerhouse lobbying groups like the National Retailers Foundation? Or do you think that these families should wave the white flag and pray that Mom and Dad can get jobs as greeters in front of the 2000-square-foot laundry detergent section of their local big box?
Too much hyperbole? Perhaps not enough when you consider the lede of Wall Street Journal's Lee Gomes piece on Internet tax today...
Do you think that billionaire Internet moguls should continue to benefit from a tax loophole that hurts parks and schools, and makes it harder for your neighborhood bookstore to keep open for business?
I didn't think you did.
In that case, cheer on New York and Texas as they chip away at the popular but grossly unfair advantage enjoyed by the Amazon.coms of the world. Online retailers don't have to collect sales tax on the items they sell if they're "out of state" companies.
Now, Gomes is the Journal's resident tech contrarian. He thinks that he democratizing forces of Internet may NOT be a good thing for politics. He gets bored at the big tech events that tens of thousands of others enjoy attending. And, he thinks that iPods may be the death of quality music. Ha, ha. There goes that Lee again. At times, he's the Andy Rooney of the tech world. But, it does get him attention and a nice paycheck.*
Sadly, his Lou Dobbsian screed against "billionaire Internet moguls" plays right into the hands of those who benefit from limited consumer choices and less competition from small businesses.
On cue, Overstock.com has cut off their affiliates based in New York state thanks to the New York law that Gomes "cheers on." Here is the perspective of one small business owner in the New York Times Bits blog...
Janet Attard, the owner of BusienssKnowHow, which is based in Centereach on Long Island...expressed worry that the state’s new tax rules would hurt her and other small businesses. ...
“I know a lot of small businesses that make a significant amount of money from selling other company’s products,” she said. “Laws like this can put small businesses out of business.”
Oh, and, pay little mind, Lee, that the New York rule is likely unconstitutional. From the director of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force for the American Legislative Exchange Council (a conservative individual membership organization of state legislators) in Forbes...
New York saddles taxpayers with the third-highest tax burden in the nation. But not content with taxing its own citizens and businesses to the max, the Empire State is now unleashing its tax collectors on the rest of the nation. A first-of-its kind law recently passed in New York places new sales taxes on catalog and online retailers in every state of the country. Retailers that have no physical presence in New York, but sell products to New Yorkers, are now expected to collect and send tax revenues to the treasury in Albany....
...Serious constitutional concerns plague this bill. Its overextension of state taxing authority to corporations lacking any physical presence in New York appears to be an unlawful tax on interstate commerce. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling 16 years ago in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota reaffirmed that a corporation must have a "substantial nexus" with a state in order to be subject to its sales and use taxes.
And, the impact on the people of New York? From the Journal's editorial page earlier this month...
...some companies will feel pressure to pay instead of doing battle with a state government. New York's overall business tax climate ranks 48th among the states, according to the Tax Foundation. Mr. Paterson's money grab could make New York the biggest loser when it comes to tax competitiveness.
*UPDATE (5/28): I struck these sentences and made a couple of other small tweaks because Lee Gomes made the time to send me a thoughtful response to this post. This tells me that he genuinely cares about his position and isn't just being a contrarian to move his column up the "most-read" Journal chart. Oh, in the process of responding to Gomes, I found this Tax Foundation review of the New York law. I wish I had seen it and used it before. Here's a healthy excerpt....
New York's move is just the latest in a string of state efforts to abandon the physical presence rule of taxing out-of-state businesses. In 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule in the Quill v. North Dakota case, holding that a state could not impose sales tax collection obligations on a company, unless the company has either property or employees in the state. Amazon has neither in New York.
As we mention so often, politicians are tempted to increase state spending not by asking constituents to fund the programs they want, but instead by shifting burdens to hidden taxes on (faceless, non-voting) out-of-state businesses. Such moves add to complexity, make the tax system less neutral, and lead to more government than citizens are willing to pay for. In this case, beyond being poor tax policy, New York's "Amazon tax" may also violate the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause.
Some local retailers applaud these of raids on out-of-state business:
"This is a first step -- but a critical one -- in our ongoing battle to level the sales tax playing field between New York retailers and the out-of-state Internet giants that have, for years, capitalized on an unfair and unintended competitive advantage driven solely by tax policy," James Sherin, president CEO of the Retail Council New York, said in a statement reacting to the bill's passage.
Far from creating a level playing field, New York's new law and other efforts to abandon the physical presence rule (California has a pending bill, A.B. 1840) actually move away from a level playing field. If every state did what New York did, online retailers would have to keep track of the different rates and bases of the 7,400+ sales taxing jurisdictions in the United States and all the income tax systems. We here at the Tax Foundation have a lot of researchers and subscriptions trying to do that, and it'd be quite burdensome for small online retailers to tackle that task. Meanwhile, brick-and-mortar retailers need only keep track of one sales tax rate and base.
(photo by retrogression)
