By Peter Popandopolis, Ph.D., J.D., C.F.R. - March 7, 1997
OPINION Web-friendly laws like the CDA and the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions are not in the public interest, and the Government should reject them. Passing these laws would support a communications mechanism that has only one viable application — porn (and gambling, and harassment, and well... let’s just call it all porn).
Approval by the Government of these laws would constitute an endorsement of “the Web” that would further its use in obscenity-mongering, copyright-infringment, defamation-spewingewing, sales tax evasion and other criminal activities.
In general, I believe publishers should be allowed to publish any type of content as long as they properly vet it through a good and decent communications intermediary. No fake news! I am not in favor of merit regulation for speech in which regulators only approve stories that the regulators think are good for Americans.
Informed computer-users should be allowed to make their own decisions without interference from a nanny-state government. Furthermore, I am a big proponent of AOL and, especially Prodigy (the family friendly option), these platforms use the underlying technological breakthrough behind the so-called “World Wide Web” (web of lies if we’re gonna be serious), packet-switching.
Packet-switching has many legitimate applications, but “the Web” is not one of them. Further, I see nothing wrong with packet-switching, and have called upon the Government to make and curate an authoritative information network that uses TCP/IP to power its important message to the people.
The Web was started in 1990 by Tim Berners-Lee, (a limey foreigner) and most of the code that runs Web servers is “Open Source.” No one can even know for sure who wrote all of that code. This murky background alone should give regulators pause.
The Web is an electronic publishing medium that allows anyone to publish Web logs (“Blogs”) or pages and spread their thoughts widely from one Web-user to another. Web pages are hosted by so-called Web servers whose identity on the network may be as incomplete as a mere pseudonym, a so-called “ip-address.”
Web pages are essentially anonymous. While the DNS records show what Web page relates to what IP address, it does not have to contain any government-verified information on the identity of those addresses. Unless someone does something to disclose their ip-address, it may be nearly impossible to figure out the identity behind a Web-server.
Plenty of Web-servers are abroad, controlled by non-US persons or firms. This also raises serious questions about the ability of U.S. regulatory authorities to investigate and prosecute criminals who use the Web to communicate.
The Web is a communications system ideally suited to the black market. The ungated nature of the system makes it ideal for porn, filth, defamation, piracy, and human trafficking.
When I give a talk about the Web, I usually query the audience about who has actually used the Web. The last time I did this, exactly one hand went up. And he was just some teen who got sick of using Encarta, National Geographic, and the Sears Catalog to look at naughty pictures.
Yes, Web proponents do claim that there are legitimate applications for “the Web.” However, these proposed applications are mostly theoretical and fall apart upon closer examination. These potential applications include:
Retail sales. The notion that merchants will flock to the Web because they can sell things online has not materialized. While a few merchants now do so-called e-commerce, this has mostly been a novelty. Consumers have intelligently shied away from giving their credit card information to strangers on the Internet because of the complete lack of consumer protection built into Web 1.0.
Social media. The mirage-like “community” nature of the Web makes it look like a way to make friends and keep up with colleagues or old school buddies. Users would be able to make a “profile” and find their “friends” or “poke” them.
Alas, making a profile, let alone something called a “blog” (ugh), is hard and more than a bit strange, and you’ll try hard to make it look nice but no one will be able to find it because searching for pages is impossible and the so-called URLs look like indecipherable garbage. With reunions working fine, people aren’t exactly clamoring for new a way to stay in touch with creepy high school classmates, either.
Online learning. Colleges are very expensive, and Web-based applications are one of many solutions. While Websites, like electrons, can be transmitted cheaply anywhere in the world, the problem remains with the first mile: getting the smart people to actually put anything worth reading or learning on those sites, especially if because of piracy they’ll never be able to make any money off of their hard work.
There are plenty of new entrants into the electronic learning space that are bringing smart new approaches — like laser disks! The fact remains that the only viable application for Web 1.0 is to break the law.
It is certainly not in the public interest for the Government to endorse a network whose only application is criminality. The government would not pass a Pornography safe-harbor or a Digital Millennium Defamation Promotion Act and it should not permit Web-friendly policy either.
Peter Popandopolis, Ph.D., J.D., C.F.R., (Dr. Pete) is a Law professor at Princeton University’s Potter Stewart (I know it when I see it) School of Law. He is not now nor has he ever been a shady Apache contributor or an Anon.
A pastiche by Peter Van Valkenburgh, inspired by this piece.