Visitors may have heard that Google was craftily censoring us. Our good friend and invaluable Technology Liberation Front commenter Richard Bennett blogged over the weekend about how Google seemed to block access to our site when he tried to search for "net neutrality."

This is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen. Google is blocking net neutrality documents from the PFF's web site, but documents in the same format that deal with other subjects are not flagged "dangerous."

This is really outrageous, and a clear example of the problem with a monopoly gatekeeper.

This story made the rounds this morning and much of the DC Internet policy community was atwitter with allegations of censorship by Google. But as I explain in the comment I tried (unsuccessfully) to post on Richard's blog, this is all an innocent and unfortunate misunderstanding:

An oral history of the Internet, courtesy of that famous geek 'zine Vanity Fair:

Bob Metcalfe: It was nerd city.

Google stands accused of violating a California law that requires a website operator to "conspicuously post" a link to its privacy policy on its "home page or first significant page after entering the Web site" with the word "Privacy" in a larger font than the rest of the page's text.

Are we not fortunate to have state laws that make it possible for customers to actually find website privacy policies? With all the billions of documents floating out there in the dark and mysterious pipes and tubes of the so-called “Internet,” how on earth would any simple user ever find the Google privacy policy if Google were not required by law to include an obvious link to that policy on its homepage? Some modern-day da Vinci would have to invent a technology that could magically index every single webpage in existence and let users find—or “search,” to use a classic science-fiction term—for that particular webpage by typing the words “Google privacy policy” and clicking a button.

Until such fantastic Jules Verne-style technologies are developed in some distant century, it is obviously vital that each and every state government develop its own requirement as to how website operators—especially those that purport to offer fantastic-but-as-yet-clearly-impossible “search” services—must clutter their websites' homepages with links to information that no user could ever possibly find on his or her own with today’s crude technology.

Randall Stross, a Silicon Valley-based technology author, has penned an excellent essay for the New York Times making an argument that many of us here have made in the past: "The Computer Industry Comes With Built-In Term Limits." That is, tech giants can rise very quickly and attain something approaching market dominance thanks to the power of bandwagon effects and the "winner-takes-all" economics that characterize digital markets in the short-term. But that dominance, Stross rightly argues, is difficult to maintain over the long haul because technology and markets evolve rapidly and new players displace old ones. Mr. Stross notes that IBM is a classic example, but Microsoft is experiencing a similar fate:

two successive Microsoft chief executives have long tried, and failed, to refute what we might call the Single-Era Conjecture, the invisible law that makes it impossible for a company in the computer business to enjoy pre-eminence that spans two technological eras. Good luck to Steven A. Ballmer, the company’s chief executive since 2000, as he tries to sustain in the Internet era what his company had attained in the personal computing era. Empirical evidence, however, suggests that he won’t succeed. Not because of personal failings, but because Mother Nature simply won’t permit it.

Well, I actually didn't exactly get a chance to say quite enough for this to qualify as much of a "debate," but I was brought in roughly a half hour into this WBUR (Boston NPR affiliate) radio show featuring Jonathan Zittrain, author of the recently released: The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It. Jonathan was kind enough to suggest to the producers that I might make a good respondent to push back a bit in opposition to the thesis set forth in his new book.

Jonathan starts about 6 minutes into the show and they bring me in around 29 minutes in. Although I only got about 10 minutes to push back, I thought the show's host Tom Ashbrook did an excellent job raising many of the same questions I do in my 3-part review (Part 1, 2, 3) of Jonathan's provocative book.

In the show, I stress the same basic points I made in those reviews: (1) he seems to be over-stating things quite a bit in saying that the old "generative" Internet is "dying"; and in doing so, (2) he creates a false choice of possible futures from which we must choose. What I mean by false choice is that Jonathan doesn’t seem to believe a hybrid future is possible or desirable. I see no reason why we can’t have the best of both worlds–-a world full of plenty of tethered appliances, but also plenty of generativity and openness.

If you're interested, listen in.

Jonathan Zittrain, who is affiliated with Oxford University and Harvard's Berkman Center, recently released a provocatively titled book: The Future of the Internet--And How to Stop It. It's an interesting read and I recommend you pick it up despite what I'll say about it in a moment. (Incidentally, if you ever have a chance to hear Jonathan speak, I highly recommend you do so. He is, bar none, the most entertaining tech policy geek in the world. Imagine Dennis Miller with a cyberlaw degree.)

Jonathan's book contrasts two different paradigms that he argues could define the Net's future: The "generative" Net versus what he refers to as a world of "tethered, sterile appliances." By "generative" he means technologies or networks that invite or allow tinkering and all sorts of creative uses. Think general-purpose personal computers and the traditional "best efforts" Internet. "Tethered, sterile appliances" by contrast, are technologies or networks that discourage or disallow tinkering. Basically, "take it or leave it" proprietary devices like Apple's iPhone or the TiVo, or online walled gardens like the old AOL and current cell phone networks.

Jonathan's thesis is that, for a variety of reasons [viruses, Spam, identify theft, etc], we run the risk of seeing the glorious days of the generative, open Net give way to more tethered devices and closed networks. He states:

I love these opening lines in Jose Antonio Vargas's article this morning about the vigorous online conversation that has been taking place about race, Barack Obama, and the controversy regarding past remarks made by his friend, Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

In the church of the Internet, call him the preacher heard all around our YouTubing world, where believers not only watch the videos of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's controversial and racially charged sermons but also edit them, comment on them, pass them around. And make them their own.

Wright's homilies -- including the one where he says "God damn America" -- have taken on a new life, opening up a conversation so kaleidoscopic only the vastness of the Internet has room for it. It's about race, Sen. Barack Obama, the presidential campaign, us.

Think about that line for a moment: "opening up a conversation so kaleidoscopic only the vastness of the Internet has room for it." In a few of my recent essays about the annual State of the News Media report as well as Andrew Keen's rants against "amateur" media, I have argued that we should appreciate just how much better our deliberative democracy is today thanks to the Internet, new media technologies, and user-generated content. Some critics bemoan the fact that we no longer have a handful of media intermediaries moderating or filtering that conversation, but this Obama-Wright issue provides us with a wonderful case study about why that thinking is so utterly misguided. As Vargas suggests, a conversation about race and politics is a conversation about us as a people; as a society. Shouldn't, therefore, "we the people" all be able to have our voices heard in that conversation in one way or another? The Internet enables that, and we are better off for it. Thirty years ago, 3 big networks and a few newspapers would have determined the confines and duration of this discussion. Today, we do.

Two weeks ago we noted that big technology and business forces were squeezing Microsoft on at least three sides. The most prominent force, we said, is "cloud computing." In its $44 billion bid for Yahoo! today, Microsoft has acknowledged its PC platforms are not sufficient in a world of bandwidth abundance. It has embraced the cloud and thus the new reality.

Some analysis of the social networking phenom, from Agrophilia.

Bruce Owen, one of the finest communications and media economists of our generation, has written a powerful piece for Cato's Regulation magazine asking, "After the long fight to end the 'common carrier,' why are we trying to resurrect it?" He's referring, of course, to the ongoing efforts by some to impose Net neutrality regulation on broadband networks. In his new article, "Antecedents to Net Neutrality," Owen points out that we've been down this path before, and with troubling results:

[T]he architects of the concept of net neutrality have invented nothing new. They have simply resurrected the traditional but uncommonly naïve “common carrier” solution to the threats they fear. By choosing new words to describe a solution already well understood by another name, the economic interests supporting net neutrality may mislead themselves and others into repeating a policy error much more likely to harm consumers than to promote competition and innovation.

Net neutrality policies could only be implemented through detailed price regulation, an approach that has generally failed, in the past, to improve consumer welfare relative to what might have been expected under an unregulated monopoly. Worse, regulatory agencies often settle into a well-established pattern of subservience to politically influential economic interests. Consumers, would-be entrants, and innovators are not likely to be among those influential groups. History thus counsels against adoption of most versions of net neutrality, at least in the absence of refractory monopoly power and strong evidence of anticompetitive behavior — extreme cases justifying dangerous, long-shot remedies.