The Rise of Cybercollectivism

Progressives look for a “master switch” to produce their ideal Internet.

The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, by Tim Wu, Knopf, 366 pages, $27.95

Most cyberlaw tracts or Internet policy books today lament a world full of corporate conspiracies, closed systems, “kill switches,” and squashed consumer rights. The world loves a good tale of villainy and misery, and that’s exactly what Tim Wu, a professor at Columbia Law School, delivers in The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires.

Lawrence Lessig, the well-known legal scholar, kicked off this genre of hand wringing with his seminal 1999 book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, which warned that an unfettered digital marketplace would be anathema to our freedoms. “Left to itself,” Lessig predicted, “cyberspace will become a perfect tool of control.” Control, that is, by corporate forces hellbent on dictating the course of commerce and culture. Lessig argued that collective action was needed to counter these forces.

Lessig’s many disciples in academia and activism continue to preach this gloomy gospel of impending, corporate-led digital doom and “perfect control.” Jonathan Zittrain’s much-discussed 2008 book The Future of the Internet & How to Stop It brought Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace up to date by giving us a fresh set of villains. Gone was Lessig’s old foil AOL and its worrisome walled gardens. Instead, the new faces of evil were Apple, Facebook, and TiVo. Zittrain fretted about “sterile and tethered” digital “appliances” (like the iPhone and TiVo) that foreclose digital innovation, as well as the rise of “a handful of gated cloud communities” (such as Facebook) “whose proprietors control the availability of new code.”

Tim Wu extends this pessimistic narrative in The Master Switch. He ominously warns that there are “forces threatening the Internet as we know it,” then crafts an enemies list that reads like a Who’s Who of high-tech America. Wu sees “information monopolists” everywhere: Amazon, Apple, eBay, Google, Facebook, Skype, even Twitter. In Wu’s telling, periods of openness and competition in information industries are inevitably followed by concentrations of private power; the companies that come out on top, he believes, then have a lock on their respective sectors. Wu refers to this as “the cycle” and suggests that “radical” steps must be taken to counter it and “preserve freedom.” “If the stories in this book tell us anything,” he writes, “it is that the free market can also lead to situations of reduced freedom. Markets are born free, yet no sooner are they born than some would-be emperor is forging chains. Paradoxically, it sometimes happens that the only way to preserve freedom is through judicious controls on the exercise of private power. If we believe in liberty, it must be freedom from both private and public coercion.”

Wu and other progressives don’t always come right out and say it, but they often suggest that private power, however defined, is so persistently insidious that the only way to counteract it is by greatly amplifying state power. We see that yearning for a stronger state in Wu’s suggestion that “the disposition of firms and industries is, if anything, more critical than the actions of the state in controlling who gets heard” and in his audacious regulatory solutions, which would greatly enhance the government’s power over the information economy.

Wu’s central claim in The Master Switch is that information industries evolve toward “closed,” corporate-controlled, anti-consumer systems. The resulting “monopolists” then block innovation, competition, and free speech. Thus, he concludes, “the purely economic laissez-faire approach…is no longer feasible.”

To his credit, Wu admits that government forces have facilitated this process. In particular, he notes the significant roles of regulatory capture and bureaucratic mismanagement: “Again and again in the histories I have recounted, the state has shown itself an inferior arbiter of what is good for the information industries. The federal government’s role in radio and television from the 1920s through the 1960s, for instance, was nothing short of a disgrace.…Government’s tendency to protect large market players amounts to an illegitimate complicity…[particularly its] sense of obligation to protect big industries irrespective of their having become uncompetitive.”

Wu is certainly correct about this. Yet as quickly as he raises these issues, he walks away from them. He never draws any serious lesson from that disturbing corporatist history. Often within a few lines of raising such concerns, he seems to dismiss them entirely and proposes giving the state far more power to play games with the information sector. Wu’s assessment that the “purely economic laissez-faire approach” is a failure is hard to reconcile with the history he recounts, since a “purely economic laissez-faire approach” never existed. Moreover, you won’t ever get less regulatory capture and bureaucratic mismanagement by increasing the scope of government control. 

Wu argues that the information sector is more important than all others, so much so that traditional forms of regulation, such as antitrust, “are clearly inadequate” for regulating them. The remedy, he writes, “is not a regulatory approach but rather a constitutional approach to the information economy. By that I mean a regime whose goal is to constrain and divide all power that derives from the control of information. Specifically, what we need is something I would call a Separations Principle for the information economy. A Separations Principle would mean the creation of a salutary distance between each of the major functions or layers in the information economy. It would mean that those who develop information, those who control the network infrastructure on which it travels, and those who control the tools or venues of access must be kept apart from one another.” (Emphasis in the original.) Wu calls this a “constitutional approach” because he models it on the separations of power found in the U.S. Constitution.

In concrete regulatory terms—and despite what Wu tells us, his approach most assuredly would require regulation—the Separations Principle would segregate information providers into three buckets: creators, distributors, and hardware makers. Presumably these would become three of the new “titles” (or regulatory sections) of a forthcoming Information Economy Separations Act.

While conceptually neat, these classifications don’t conform to our highly dynamic digital economy, whose parameters can change wildly within the scope of just a few years. For example, Google cut its teeth in the search and online advertising markets, but it now markets phones and computers. Verizon, once just a crusty wireline telephone company, now sells pay TV services and a variety of wireless devices. AOL reinvented itself as a media company after its brief reign as the king of dial-up Internet access. Would firms that already possess integrated operations and investments (Microsoft or Apple, for instance) be forced to divest control of them to comply with the Separations Principle? If so, wouldn’t that hinder technological development?

Wu shrugs off such concerns. “The Separations Principle accepts in advance that some of the benefits of concentration and unified action will be sacrificed,” he writes, “even in ways that may seem painful or costly.” Such a flippant attitude ignores not only the potential benefits of certain forms of integration but also the fact that his proposed information apartheid would upend the American economy as we know it (by, say, forcing the breakup of dozens of technology companies and countless media providers). He also ignores the litigation nightmare that would ensue once the government started forcing divestitures. 

Nor does Wu explain how the bureaucratic machinations and regulatory capture he decries earlier in the book would be held in check under his proposed regime. He breezily writes that “the government [should] also keep its distance and not intervene in the market to favor any technology, network monopoly, or integration of the major functions of an information industry,” but he does not explain how this will be accomplished. Does he believe we can build a better breed of bureaucrat if we just try harder? 

Equally astonishing is Wu’s assertion that “a Separations regime would take much of the guesswork and impressionism…out of the oversight of information industries.” To the extent that his Separations Principle eliminates “guesswork” and creates more regulatory certainty, it would do so only by creating rigid artificial barriers to market entry and innovation across the information economy. That’s the kind of “certainty” we can live without.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Paradoxically, it sometimes happens that the only way to preserve freedom is through judicious controls on the exercise of private power. If we believe in liberty, it must be freedom from both private and public coercion.

    How fucking stupid does someone have to be to think that Google is "coercing" you by providing the best search engine, or Facebook is "coercing" you by providing the best social network?

    WHAT THE FUCK???????????????????

  • Ragin Cajun||

    Freedom is slavery, dude.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Albeit macht frei, too. If the government puts us into work camps, we'll be free again. Because we'll be slaves. Which makes us free.

    I presume you can see where this goes, and possibly where it stems from.

  • Realist||

    "How fucking stupid does someone have to be to think that Google is "coercing" you by providing the best search engine, or Facebook is "coercing" you by providing the best social network?"
    Stupid enough to vote for Bush or Obama.

  • ||

    this is a frequent liberal claim. "choice" is illusory and the corporations like McD's etc. have all this "power" over consumers. govt. has power. McD's can't make me eat there, Facebook can't make me use it, and if Google is so evil and messed up - make yer own friggin search engine.

  • Ray Ray||

    It's so childish. It reminds me of being in the first grade and being peer pressured into doing something to it, and not understanding why my parents didn't find my "Sarah MADE me do it!" a satisactory explanation.

  • ||

    What we need in the context of the Internet is less government interference, fewer attempts to impose some bureaucrat's notions of freedom, fairness and equality upon us, and no politician-created barriers to entry into this industry. Look how successful that pattern of regulation, control and crony corporatism have worked soo well for the automobile industry. Freedom, now and always.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The internet is as close to a total free market as we have, and it's booming. That's why we should fight "net neutrality" and any other regulatory scheme tooth and nail. As soon as these guys start fucking things up, the problems will suddently become a "market failure" and lead to more regulation. Let's hold off that bullshit as long as possible.

  • Paul||

    I think we should fight for "network neutrality". What is "network neutrality"? I say, it's a free market. Fight the statist double speak!

  • Paul||

    A better question might be, "What is the internet?". I'd say, it's something we've come to understand and not to be fraudulently sold and advertised.

  • ||

    These aren't the driods you're looking for.

  • Realist||

    ....or droids either.

  • QuietDesperation||

    Nor the druids.

  • Jen||

    Nor the dryads.

  • ||

    If we believe in liberty, it must be freedom from both private and public coercion.

    This is true, as far as it goes. The night watchman state contains a minimum of public coercion, and protects against private coercion.

    What any of this has to do with the internets, I cannot tell. As far as I can see, coercion is not an issue on-line. Fraud? You bet. But the use of force, or a (credible) threat of force? I don't see it.

  • ||

    I should smack your face for that!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    A valid point. The government should step in when private entities initiate force, and leave us alone the rest of the time.

  • Realist||

    If you want to be free, let the government control your life!

  • Team Red||

    That's what we've been saying all along!

  • Team Blue`||

    Your way is inferior, capitalist pigs!

  • DLM||

    If you want to be free, let the government control your life!

    The freedom of slavery. Someone else tells you what to do and what to think. You never have to trouble your feeble mind with the pesky details of living.

  • ||

    This is true. I no longer have to worry about how I feel because my president tells me how to feel things like emotions.

  • some guy||

    "Zittrain fretted about “sterile and tethered” digital “appliances” (like the iPhone[...]"

    Don't worry. Android's got that one covered...

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Free market capitalism works every time. Too bad the bureaucrats want to end competition, or worse, "stimulate" it.

  • ||

    it doesn't work every time. nor in the most efficient way every time.

    it's still preferable to every other method of setting prices and spurring innovation

  • ||

    Ask anyone in a highly regulated industry if the thousands of pages of rules and hundreds of bureaucrats they have to deal with have added any certainty or predictability to their business.

  • ||

    Not only no, but hell no.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    With the kinds of regulatory hoops the aviation industry has to jump through, I'm surprised that we still have planes.

  • Doktor Fail||

    We still have planes because they are regulated not to crash.

  • ICGAMBLER||

    When my computer holds me down and forcefully attempts to blow me, maybe, just maybe, I want the government to intervene. Or take a picture.

  • George Carlin||

    Here's something you never hear a guy say: "Stop sucking my dick, or I'll call the police!"

  • Barney The Frank||

    At least not when I am doing the sucking.

  • ||

    Now that was a mouthful!

  • Michael||

    A Separations Principle would mean the creation of a salutary distance between each of the major functions or layers in the information economy. It would mean that those who develop information, those who control the network infrastructure on which it travels, and those who control the tools or venues of access must be kept apart from one another.

    It's almost as if Mr. Wu took a look at my state's liquor distribution laws and thought, "hey, that's a great model for Internet regulation!"

    Wu calls this a “constitutional approach” because he models it on the separations of power found in the U.S. Constitution.

    And it's almost as though Mr. Wu has no idea whatsoever what the fundamental purpose of the Constitution is.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I would say that it's a safe bet that 4 in 5 people don't understand the Constitution. Those numbers go up to an absolute minimum of 9 out of 10 for politicians and statist activists.

  • DLM||

    I would say that it's a safe bet that 4 in 5 people don't understand the Constitution.

    You give people too much credit.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    That's why I said safe bet. I was willing to 9/10 for public and 19/20 for politicians.

  • Paul||

    If it's horizontal, it's THE DEVIL!!! -Wu...
    They should really spend more time focusing on the concept of network neutrality where the companies/governments that own the roads don't set up blocks and speed limits for out of network traffic.

    There's a very simple way to provide collective freedom of information. Completely cut government regulation of IP. More specifically, stop enforcing laws on copyright, patent, and trade secret. Why would you spend money on something that you can get for free? Why do you bother voting or giving to political causes? How is the movie industry able to peddle so many low quality highly hyped movies?

  • ||

    the companies/governments that own the roads don't set up blocks and speed limits for out of network traffic.

    What would justify this imposition on property rights?

    collective freedom of information

    I guess its possible to juxtapose "collective" and "freedom" so it isn't an oxymoron. But this isn't it.

  • Paul||

    Just a thought, but why does governmental pseudo-censorship of public information = bad and mega-corporation pseudo-censorship = good? I admit, both of these entities have their own best interests at heart. Then again, the only reason the mega-corporations are doing so is because they were handed the right to be the exclusive road in a vast many municipality (subsidies too?). We could probably handle this by the federal government forcing the right to compete by letting competition come in and double lay the roads in densely populated areas.

  • ||

    Just a thought, but why does governmental pseudo-censorship of public information = bad

    Because the government has guns and courts and jails and shit. They need to keep their mitts off, period, full stop.

    and mega-corporation pseudo-censorship = good?

    Who said it was good? I'm just saying their property is theirs to do with what they want. What they want may be good, may be bad.

  • Paul||

    Say I made a company, End Free Trade LLC, where the business model was to purchase a 5 foot strip of land completely encompassing Rhode Island including the air above it, to purchase the majority of farm land there, and to force any perishables passing through Anti Free Trade LLC's property to undergo a month long "safety inspection" before being able to pass though. Mind you, the company technically doesn't "prevent trade", and it really only effects "perishables" which are eventually allowed to pass through. Do you feel this company should be allowed to operate within a "free market"? Should companies be able to operate this way when it comes to say, streaming movies?

  • ||

    Existing easements would prevent you from stopping traffic to enforce your quarantine. Your hypothetical has your company assuming full control of roads that it does not own and cannot control. Oopsie!

    Should companies be able to operate this way when it comes to say, streaming movies?

    Sure, since they built the "roads" themselves, which are completely private and under their control (unlike the roads into Rhode Island).

    It gets even easier when you understand that there aren't prohibitive barriers to entry for other firms to provide unlimited access.

    Try this for a hypothetical: You own a parcel of land which has an easement across it so your neighbor can access his property. The easement is defined as a certain width, and specifies that it cannot be paved or used for commercial purposes.

    Your neighbor builds a 500 unit apartment building, and asserts not only the right to widen and pave the easement so he can rent out his building, but demands that you pay half.

    NetFlix is the neighbor. You are the ISP. Does this help you understand the problem?

  • Paul||

    "It gets even easier when you understand that there aren't prohibitive barriers to entry for other firms to provide unlimited access."

    Maybe I'm just imagining that local governments are doing just that.

    "Sure, since they built the "roads" themselves, which are completely private and under their control (unlike the roads into Rhode Island)."
    So it's ok to regulate the wires if they were originally AT&T's but later purchased by Cox? If End Free Trade LLC fully purchased that property, why shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want with the property?

    Say I bought up all the roads surrounding your neighborhood, and to keep my liability down from dangerous activity, ban all guns from being transported on the roads and enforce it by setting up some kind of x-ray scanner machines.

    I get it that peering arrangements can be tricky and similar to easements. Generally speaking though, when it comes to ISP's, they're already tolling everyone going through. There's nothing stopping the ISP from increasing the toll.

    Imagine in your hypothetical you were in the business of maintaining a nice secure road into the properties and you ran a toll booth with a security guard to make money. Say your neighbor opens this 500 unit apartment building and starts making tons of money. You decide that you too should be in the business and open up a 500 unit apartment building. That would be good market competition. Now imagine that you wanted to make more money, so instead of say finding some way of lowering prices or increasing value to consumers, you decide you're just going to massively increase the toll on anyone passing through your private road who doesn't have a sticker from your apartment complex. Your neighbor tries to make a similar guarded road into the property, but the local municipality has a ban preventing then from doing so.

  • Paul||

    Netflix is the neighbor. You are Comcast. You just purchased NBC. Are you planning on competing fairly or are you going to create artificial scarcity? I'm not sure the current rules actually allow you to throttle your "new" competition, but it sounds like you're going to go ahead and do so considering your move on P2P...

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Not going to sort all that out, but why would a company want to hurt (not literally) their customers? That would only reduce their profits?

    Problem solved.

  • Paul||

    Why would a company not want to compete with foreign trade? That would only increase their profits?

  • Realist||

    It is illegal to restrict air space!

  • Realist||

    Unless you are the government....that is.

  • J_L_B||

    mega-corporation pseudo-censorship

    Such a concept does not exist. Censorship can only be achieved by government using the threat of force to absolutely censor the speaker. Corporation X can't prevent you from going to corporation Y to have your story published/broadcast/transmitted, nor can it prevent you from using your own funds to do the same.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Well, it can if you were stupid enough to sign a contract to that effect. But that's your fault.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    You can't force economic competition.

  • Paul||

    You can force local governments to stop regulating things that prevent competition. I think that was the entire original point of the commerce clause - preventing barriers of trade.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    It was. It allows people to engage in capitalistic competition if they want to.

    Not for you in particular: One cannot put a gun to another's head and say: "You will compete!!"

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Well I suppose one could, but they wouldn't get the result they want.

  • Dr. Floyd Ferris||

    "Order them to be free, goddammit!"

  • Mr Thompson||

    Oh, shut up!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    During a tirade, Mr. Thompson includes: "If you want a free economy--order people to be free!"

    A bit later John Galt says:

    "I don't want to be an Economic Dictator, not even long enough to issue that order for people to be free--which any rational human being would throw back in my face, because he'd know that his rights are not to be held, given, or recieved by your permission or mine."

    Then later on there's this interesting exchange:

    "Well?" said Galt. "What are your orders?"
    "I want you to save the economy of the country!"
    "I don't know how to save it."
    "I want you to find a way!"
    "I don't know how to find it."
    "I want you to think!"
    "How will your gun make me do that, Mr. Thompson?"

  • Paul||

    I think you missed the point entirely. Let me break it down for you. My mate is going to be selling opium in Xiamen, and if I hear one little peep about it, we're going to shell you bloody arseholes for a donkey's year.

  • James Franklin||

    Fantastic Piece of Writing here. I really enjoyed the work

    Plumbing Oakland

  • DLM||

    Just a thought, but why does governmental pseudo-censorship of public information = bad and mega-corporation pseudo-censorship = good?

    It's a matter of scope. If you had only one corporation censoring and controlling everything, that would be no better (and possibly worse) than one government censoring and controlling everything. The biggest threat is combining that single corporation with government enforcement of its monopoly. You get the worst of both.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I have no problem with monopolies so long as they have no government protection. That way, if they do a bad job, competitors will start up. And that talk about "natural monopolies" is largely just uncreative thinking.

  • stupid liberal||

    The problem is the core-pour-ray-shuns control the government.

    We need to give more power to the government so it can control the core-pour-ray-shuns that control it.

    This way the People can take back what the core-pour-ray-shuns have stolen from them.

    Power to the People!

  • ||

    +1 for mandatory south park reference

  • Oakland Plumber||

    Wah wah wah

  • ||

    Wu

  • ||

    Problem with something as free as internet for the control freaks is by time they get creaky wheels of Big Mother turning the internet is a different critter.

    I remember when Microsoft was Evil Inc. and they were taking over everything. Had to be stopped! Lol.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Let's see, progressives already tell you what to smoke, drink, and eat.

    Sex columnist Dan Savage wants CNN to stop interviewing "homophobes."

    Liberals on college campuses fight against "hate speech."

    So what's next? The war against "hate web," that is, anything progressives find hateful about the internet.

    Never trust a progressive with your freedom.


    Mississippi Burning over License Plate.
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....plate.html

  • ||

    Never trust a conservative with blogspace.

  • Gregory Smith||

    So you're afraid of free speech? And what exactly is conservative about me? Goddamm it, I'm a Politically Incorrect Libertarian, I fight for freedom but wear the confederate flag, and if you don't like it or think its racist, tough. In fact, if you knew history you'd known that it was Abe Lincoln who was a racist while President Davis and his wife raised a black foster child.

    Black Chamber of Commerce: Did Obama Lie to Us? Oh yes he did!
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....obama.html

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Knew that part about Lincoln. This Davis thing real?

  • ||

    liberals on college campuses fight against "hate speech" by... instituting unconstitutional speech codes!

    see: thefire.org

  • ||

    Sex columnist Dan Savage

    I have the vague recollection that he went to some conservative gathering awhile back and tried to infect the other attendees with the flu? HIV? Anyhoo, he self-identified as a barbarian idiot long ago.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Yeah, Savage infiltrated the Gary Bauer campaign, and then tried to play that stupid trick. But what he said on CNN was abominable, unlike him, I may hate what you have to say but I will fight for your right to say it.

    Black Chamber of Commerce: Did Obama Lie to Us? Oh yes he did!
    http://libertarians4freedom.bl.....obama.html

  • ||

    Don't know how much this guy actually knows about computing technology, but in his separation scheme, "hardware makers" must also be "creators" to create the information necessary to make their hardware work, they're called drivers.

  • cynical||

    Politician: Terrorists!
    Conservatives: Eeek! Here's our money and our freedom. Save us!
    Politician: Corporations!
    Progressives: Eeek! Here's our money and our freedom. Save us!

  • Steve||

    Try harder.

  • ||

    http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls.....01710.html

    According to this study, the US is pretty much where Japan was 2 years ago. Also, the US has gained a few spots, and is now tied for 15 with countries that had superior internet service 2 years ago. Broadband penetration in the US is similar to Japan's and exceeds certain western European countries.

    How can this be!?!? I mean, teh corporashuns! How? We should be struggling just to download pictures of cats while they're designing their personal starships with the assistance of artificially intelligent computers.

  • LargeCat.tif||

    Still downloading?

  • ||

    `comparisons like this are also specious in that they fail to account for the vast tracts of rural land in america and the dispersion of our population.

    ANY densely populated country (yes, japan has some rural areas, but the population to a much greater %age lives in urban/exurban areas) will thus have an advantage in this respect

    comparing oranges to oranges, iow cities to cities, etc. gives a much more realistic picture.

  • thomas sabo ||

    thanks for your shareing! I will support you!

  • James Franklin||

    I agree with the comments that are in this article jajajja
    Dentist San Jose

  • ||

    Excellent analysis of Wu's book. Wu's constitutional approach segregates power into three buckets (creators, distributors, and hardware) but to me that's a nonsensical separation of powers resulting in cyber-fascism at least. To be clear, I think Wu's concern over a lassez-faire approach to the info economy parallels the conversations a couple centuries ago in the real world. Wu's approach to separation, however, is all provider and no consumer; All representation and no judiciary. It looks like a prescription for collusion.

    Maybe I'll read the book after re-reading the federalist papers.

  • Catherine Fitzpatrick||

    I need to read Wu's book, but it sounds like it's totally disingenuous for Wu to claim that the ostensible silos of creator/distributor/hardware (platform) is analogous to the separation of powers when this particular set of actors has no checks and balances as you point out (except for the consumer or user, who is very weak in these systems under their TOS).

    But from Wu's essays I have to ask whether his thesis of "separations" is selective and even hypocritical. He's all too happy to bang on telecoms and blame them for "violating net neutrality". If Google, primarily an ad agency with a search engine loss-leader product, creates a mobile phone or driverless cars, that isn't crossover? That isn't breaking that separation? Or if Netflix wants to behave like not merely a distributor but a new kind of publisher of films demanding the use of others' free bandwidth in its business model, that doesn't cause any "separation" anxiety? Or if Fred Wilson, who invests in FourSquare and other apps for smart phones stumps for "net neutrality" because its good for his funded businesses -- and bases his argumentation for this bold grab of the public resources in the argumentation "well the cable companies did it too in their day" -- he has no concern?

    See, what I think this is mainly about his how Google has managed to harness academics like Wu and groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation of their likeminded peers to basically campaign for free work tools so they can reduce business costs. Understood, but it would be like Coca Cola saying they needed every city to provide them with free water.

    Yes, their products are fun and innovative and we all benefit from them, but we aren't required to sustain their business with freely-provided scarce public resources.

  • ||

    I'm with Wu.

  • nike running shoes||

    is good

  • tory burch||

    Good point of view. Thanks for your sharing.
    It's useful information.

  • دليل||

    asgasf

  • huoyuanjia||

    A lot of people MBT Kisumu 2 do not yet know, global food has become a part of people's life MBT Kisumu sandals

  • sede||

    yuan

  • bushi||

    dddddddddd

  • yanleizhidao||

    The world is getting kobe 7 shoes for sale better every year and the last thing we need to do is lebron 9 china for sale question the need for centrally planned economies.

  • alipay||

    world

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement