Should Safe Harbors Apply To TV Advertising As Well?

from the seems-reasonable dept

Paul Alan Levy alerts us to an interesting situation (and question raised) involving General Motors appearing to suppress speech that it did not like, and wonders if Section 230 safe harbors should apply in broader media, as well. The case involves a consumer group that was concerned that the bankruptcy restructuring that General Motors is going through would protect it from certain liability claims from owners of cars with defects. So, they took their case to the public by creating a TV commercial and buying airtime via Comcast. GM, rather than refute the content of the ad, simply told Comcast that the ad contained inaccuracies, so Comcast pulled down the ad. However, as Levy notes, this allows GM to suppress the ad at the moment when it would be most effective, without ever needing to prove the inaccuracies (or respond to the "accuracies" of the ad).

In the last few months, we've seen some claim that Section 230 safe harbors should be scaled back because it's somehow "unfair" to treat online different than offline. I've taken issue with that line of reasoning, because in most cases the situations are quite different. The purpose of the safe harbors is to prevent the platform for being blamed for the actions of a user. But in a traditional newspaper, we're talking about content that has been approved and put in place by an editor.

Levy takes that point into account, but suggests why expanding (rather than limiting) Section 230 might make sense here:

There are, of course, significant differences between the burdens that a cable company like Comcast faces with respect to assessing ads and the situation facing an Internet host (such as Comcast, wearing a different hat) that enjoys the protection of Section 230. There are only so many hours on which ads can be shown on cable; and when Comcast receives a proposed ad, it must take the step of placing those advertisements amidst its programming. Thus, Comcast is in a position to perform pre-broadcast review of the text. This is very unlike the situation facing the provide of an online interactive computer service, which allows thousand or even millions of users to place content online with not opportunity for review. And equally important, Comcast earns significant revenues from each broadcast of a single ad, and hence is able to offset its profits from those broadcasts against the cost of review. This is unlike the situation for most statements posted online, with respect to which the host earns tiny sums, at best, either through a modest monthly fee for web server space, or through advertising on the web page.

But the potential impact on speech is the same -- the sponsor of a message on an important issue of public policy sees its message suppressed merely by claims of inaccuracy. Why should the broadcaster face the prospect of secondary liability for carrying the ad, and why shouldn't the opponent of the speech be put to the burden of responding in the marketplace of ideas and, if it really wants to suppress the speech, why shouldn't it have to go to court and persuade a judge that the speech is both false and defamatory before it gets the relief of suppressing the speech?

This makes a rather compelling point. While I still argue the entire concept of safe harbors like this shouldn't be needed if common sense worked, since common sense isn't so common these days, it does make sense to include safe harbors for situations like this where the company that acts as the "platform" has no reasonable expectation to thoroughly research the content first.

Filed Under: advertising, safe harbors, tv
Companies: gm

Keep It Simple, Segway -- Don't Team Up With GM

from the 2-wheels-are-better-than-3-or-4 dept

GM and Segway have demonstrated a 2-wheeled vehicle they call PUMA (Personal Urban Mobility and Accessibility). It's basically a bigger Segway that's smaller than a car, but bigger than a scooter because it seats 2 people side-by-side. Having recently visited Saigon (and seen Top Gear's Vietnam Special), I find the technological achievement of the PUMA to be absolutely ridiculous considering the time-tested utility of a 2-wheeled motorcycle (which can easily transport 2 people and zoom through insane traffic at the same time). In fact, the PUMA Project symbolizes many of the failures of the American auto industry. Instead of taking existing technologies and innovating by adapting them to suit practical needs, the PUMA Project simply takes an existing product and makes it bigger, not necessarily better. Okay, obviously, the PUMA Project is just a prototype and not meant for real world usage. But perhaps the time to show off impractical concept vehicles is not during one of the worst global recessions?

Filed Under: prototypes, puma, segway, transportation
Companies: gm, segway

A Love Of Competition, Not Protectionism

from the culturally-difficult dept

There's an interesting dichotomy that goes on in captialist societies. We all know that markets grow and innovation occurs through competition and the ongoing process of companies trying to out-innovate each other -- but each individual organization is always looking to monopolize its own world. In fact, that is what innovation is all about. You innovate to get a monopoly on whatever that innovation is, for as long as you have it. The problem, however, is that too many have build up the belief that these monopolies should be lasting, or even permanent. That's not true. For the health of society and the company, they absolutely should be fleeting monopolies. That's the only way to make sure a company changes with the times and is flexible enough to handle market changes. But that quixotic and dangerous pursuit of permanent monopolies leads to dangerous situations -- often using or demanding protectionist policies from gov't regulators.

Eliot Spitzer (yes, that Eliot Spitzer) makes some interesting points in a column where he attacks both the SEC and GM for focusing on protectionism rather than competition. When it comes to GM, the argument is easy to understand. GM has done much to try to resist novel and useful innovations in the interest of protecting its own business. As for the SEC, that's a bit more of a stretch -- and obviously stems from Spitzer's own efforts back when he was NY's Attorney General and attempted to take on Wall St. while the SEC resisted any such investigations and lawsuits. Thus, to him, he represented "competition" and the SEC tried to block out such competition (which brings up some weird questions concerning whether or not it's good to have competition within the regulatory structure).

But the key point Spitzer makes is that we need to build a "culture of competition" into American organizations, rather than protectionism. That sounds good, but I'm having trouble seeing how you could actually make that work directly. There are some things you can do on the margins -- and, in fact, research has shown that making noncompete agreements unenforceable actually does increase competition (is it worth pointing out at this time that noncompetes went from unenforceable to enforceable in Detroit in the 80s...?). But, you can only do things like this at the margin. There is no way to flat out change a culture in this manner. Instead, I think you actually need to create incentives for companies to take a longer term view, rather than the short term view we get today. With the quarterly report set up, everyone has a 3-month time horizon on pretty much everything they do (in some cases one year, but never more). If companies actually had incentives to look at the significantly longer term, they would recognize themselves that ongoing competition and innovation are the only way they're going to continue successfully serving a market in the long run. But until someone comes up with a way to create incentives that allow for both transparency and longer term views, then it's likely that companies will focus on beating down competitors rather than winning through innovation.

Filed Under: competition, eliot spitzer, protectionism
Companies: gm, sec

How GM Plans To Dominate The Electric Vehicle Market... In The 1980s

from the flashback dept

There's an awful lot of talk these days about efforts by both startups and big automakers to bring electric vehicles to the market, with the widespread expectation that they'll be commonly available in the near future. In fact, GM is apparently rushing the production of its Chevy Volt to get it to market faster than expected. That may actually be the case, but Chris Maresca writes in to point out that this all sounds mighty familiar. He was flipping through a 1980 copy of Car and Driver magazine and found the following:

The media are making all kinds of noise lately to the effect that electric cars are coming, that they’re going to help us kick our imported-oil habit, and that you’ll be able to drive them for pennies a day.

A company that can develop a non-petroleum-fueled car palatable to the masses stands to make a pretty good buck. That’s why GM will shell out some undisclosed number of billions on electric vehicle development during the next five or so years.

It’s a tall order, but GM is already well on the way to pulling it off. Whether the buyers will be there, however, is a question GM is still struggling to answer.

A study commissioned by Gulf & Western predicts that we’ll have something like 34 million EVs - about one quarter of the national fleet - on the road by the year 2000. GM ... has publicly committed itself to mass-producing electric cars by the mid-to-late 1980s – probably 100,000 per year or more.

It's good to remember that these sorts of plans don't always work out as announced.

Filed Under: 1980s, electric vehicles, predictions
Companies: gm

'Autonomous' Driving Could Turn The Old-Fashioned Kind Into A Hobby

from the driving-progress dept

My esteemed co-blogger Adam Thierer points out that General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner is touting a future of "autonomous driving." Adam is against the concept, worrying that future generations will be deprived of the excitement of controlling your own vehicle. Luckily, I don't think Adam needs to worry. Even after autonomous driving becomes sophisticated enough to be deployed on real roads, it will still take decades for people to transition to all-autonomous vehicles. Moreover, the market is likely to continue catering to old coots like Adam who want to continue driving their cars the old fashioned way, so there will be human drivers on the road for the foreseeable future. That, in turn, means that autonomously-driving cars will have to know how to share the road with human beings for the foreseeable future. It will be many decades before we could even start seriously discussing banning non-autonomous cars from the roads. More to the point, history suggests that when technology makes a day-to-day activity obsolete, it doesn't disappear. Rather, it become a hobby. A half-century after the introduction of the automatic transmission, there are still plenty of people who prefer to drive a stick. People haven't needed to hunt or fish for food for decades, yet hunting and fishing are now popular hobbies. The same is true of traditional housework activities like weaving, knitting, and quilting. It no longer makes economic sense to do these things in the home, but people do them anyway because they enjoy it. By the same token, if autonomous driving someday makes traditional driving obsolete, that won't make it go away. It will simply mean that it will become a recreational activity rather than an unavoidable part of daily life. When he's 60, Adam will still be able to zoom around in his sports car on the weekends, but on his morning commute he might have the option to ignore the Northern Virginia traffic jam and focus on writing his latest Luddite screed for the Technology Liberation Front.

Filed Under: autonomous car, driving, hobby
Companies: gm

OnStar To Warn, Then Stop, Stolen Cars

from the wait-until-someone-hacks-the-system dept

GM continues to expand the features of its popular OnStar system with a new service that's been talked about for years, that would allow the company to automatically stop a stolen car remotely. The last time we spoke about such a concept, it was four years ago -- and there were a lot of people worried about the idea. However, that may have been because it was the police asking for the right to stop cars remotely, rather than an individual using a private service (and they were also interested in using it to control speeders). In this case, the service would first alert the car thief that it's known they're driving a stolen car (and potentially that the police are on their way), and that OnStar is about to stop the automobile. It would then slowly halt the car -- though the driver could stop the car themselves at any time. The police apparently are excited about the possibility of this ending some high speed chases (and certainly making it easier to retrieve the car), but you have to wonder what happens if the service is hacked or malfunctioned.

Filed Under: stolen cars, tracking
Companies: gm, lojack, onstar