Every few months, Google has been "shutting down" various offerings they feel are under-used, in an effort to regain some focus. Many of these are uncontroversial, though a few have been surprising and freaked some users out. Many, for example, were surprised and upset when Google announced it was phasing out iGoogle. But today's news that it is shutting down Google Reader took many, many people by surprise. My Twitter feed blew up with people freaking out about it. For those who use it, many really rely on it for their daily information gathering process. I know the feeling, because I used to do that -- though a few years ago I shifted to mostly using Twitter via a well-organized Tweetdeck, and found that to be just as (if not more) effective, though a somewhat different overall experience that took some getting used to.

Still, a very large number of folks I know feel like they practically live inside Google Reader -- and I know (for example) that Google Reader is a huge driver of traffic to this site, so I get the feeling many of you use Google Reader as well. The thing that seems to have so many folks upset is the fact that there really aren't any comparable alternatives if you want that same basic experience. In fact, you could argue that Google effectively killed off many of those alternatives. Back in the day there were things like Newsgator and Bloglines, but both were effectively marginalized or pushed into other markets because Google Reader really did become the de facto standard RSS reader that so many used and relied on.

Anyway, I have a few separate thoughts on all of this and might as well go through them bullet point style:

• This highlights the problem of relying too much on a single provider when there are few alternatives. As such, I wonder if Google may not realize the wider impact of this move. For example, it has me directly rethinking how much I rely on Google Calendar, Google Drive and Gmail. Now, I don't think any of those are going away any time soon, but not too long ago (um, yesterday, according to some...) you could have said the same exact thing about Reader. I'm now planning to do a more serious personal audit of services I use and how reliant I am on a single provider, and start making sure I have working alternatives in place and ready to go. In the end, this will certainly make me a lot less tied to Google's services, which is probably a good thing, but probably not the sort of thing Google is hoping its users will be doing.
• As mentioned, personally, I moved away from RSS readers to a purely Twitter/Tweetdeck approach to consuming news. It took a few months of doing both, but when I shut down the RSS reader, I never looked back. It's a different experience, but has some benefits. But, what that suggests is that if people are looking for a culprit for what brought us to this moment, Twitter is the prime suspect. Yes, Twitter and RSS are different in many significant ways. But, in terms of the basic user benefit that people get out of both ("my stream of news & info"), they clearly compete.
• The lack of serious alternatives represents a serious opportunity for someone enterprising. Believe it or not, before Google Reader even launched we at Techdirt had built our own RSS reader, called the Techdirt InfoAdvisor, that functioned quite a lot like Google Reader, but which had some other really useful features for us internally and for some of our business clients (we would use it to curate accounts for clients, with added commentary from us). Eventually, we shut it down, because (as Google has discovered), it's actually a lot of work to maintain something like that for a variety of reasons, and soaks up tremendous resources. Still, my first reaction was to joke that maybe we should dust off our old code, put it up and see if anyone wanted to use it. We're not likely to do that (unless all of you start throwing money our way), but someone else likely is going to jump into this space quickly. They may not build a huge business out of it, but I'd bet if they weren't looking for VC-style hockey stick returns, that someone could build a decent business out of it.
• It is always interesting to look at product lifecycles, but most of the time when online products die off, the writing was on the wall long before it happened. This one struck me as a surprise since so many people relied so heavily on it, and it seems really abrupt and likely to upset the basic workflow of so many -- especially in the journalism and academic fields. I can respect the reasons for killing off a "non-essential" product, but it feels like Google seriously underestimated the level to which people had built Google reader into their daily lives.

It wouldn't surprise me, given how loud the backlash is, if Google extends the deadline for shutting down Reader, or if it eventually tries to work out some sort of alternative resolution. We saw the same thing, to a lesser extent, back when AskJeeves tried to shut down Bloglines (the Google Reader of its day before Google Reader existed). And, eventually, Ask sold it off to another company who apparently has kept it running (though, who knows how many users it has today). I think that experience actually pushed a bunch of Bloglines users to jump to Google on the assumption that Google Reader was safe. You would think that someone within Google would remember how that whole thing played out. It's surprising that they don't appear to have learned anything from it.

The chemistry of what we consider biology may be common throughout the universe, but that doesn't necessarily mean that life is also abundant on other worlds. Chemists have tried to re-create the conditions that might have resulted in current biochemistry, but zapping inanimate precursor chemicals hasn't (yet?) generated any kind of life (that wasn't based on an existing, known lifeform -- ie. Venter kinda cheated). Here are some astrochemists looking for clues that might help us understand the origins of life.

• Two molecules, cyanomethanimine and ethanamine, have been seen in drifting in the interstellar cloud known as Sagittarius B2. The researchers who found them note that these molecules could be chemical precursors for DNA and RNA. [url]
• The existence of homochirality in biochemistry is a bit of mystery, but there may be some explanations that involve radiation from distant supernovas. Finding evidence of homochirality on asteroids or comets would be a nice find.... [url]
• The evidence of cellulose in interstellar space would be really exciting... if the spectroscopy data were more reliable. In 1978, polysaccharides were reported to be present near the Orion Trapezium Cluster, but confirming that finding hasn't panned out. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Things are moving fast with the proposed US-EU transatlantic free trade agreement (TAFTA). It was only a few weeks ago that the formal announcement was made, and already another country wants to join, as pointed out by @PostActa (original in Spanish):

The Mexican government wants to be part of the negotiations of the Transatlantic Association of Trade and Investment (TTIP, in its English acronym), which the United States and European Union will be negotiating, with the idea that there will be two blocks that make up the future pact.

That is, alongside the EU block of 27 countries, Mexico is suggesting there should be a similar regional grouping in North America. Interestingly, the story says that the Mexican government will ask the US President for permission to join, with no mention of asking the EU:

"It is a sovereign decision of Washington as to the approach and the negotiation strategy to be adopted", and although the U.S. government has already referred to the idea, it is something that is not yet included in a formal dialogue, and needs to be defined.

That suggests that the US is actively involved in this latest move -- maybe even its instigator -- and would look favorably on Mexico joining TAFTA. There's also a hint in the article quoted above that Canada too might join TAFTA. Having both Mexico and Canada on board would be consistent with the US's past approach, where it allowed them to join the TPP negotiations, but on fairly humiliating terms that limit their scope of action.

Whether or not Mexico and Canada become part of TAFTA, and under what terms, it's pretty clear what the US strategy here is. Just today we learned that South Korea is likely to join Japan in asking to sign up to the TPP talks. That would make TPP the defining international agreement for the entire Pacific region. TAFTA obviously aims to do the same for the Atlantic. As well as establishing the US as the key link between the giant TPP and TAFTA blocs, this double-headed approach would also isolate the main emerging economies -- Brazil, Russia, India and above all China -- if they refuse to join as presumably junior partners. That globe-spanning pair of trade pacts, it would seem, are what Obama hopes to be remembered for when he leaves office: his legacy to America -- and to history.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Last year, we wrote about how a bunch of the largest textbook publishing firms had teamed up to sue an innovative open textbook startup called Boundless for copyright infringement. Was Boundless reproducing their books? Nope. Instead it had created alternative textbooks from various open sources -- but those texts mirrored the basic structure of other textbooks. It was this copying of "selection, structure, organization and depth of coverage... right down to duplicating Plaintiff's pagination" that the textbook publishers went after. Not the content. Yes, they're pissed off that Boundless cleverly sought to compete in the marketplace by making sure its textbooks were good competitors and easier to substitute in -- but without copying any of the actual content.

It's been nearly a year, but Boundless has filed its counterclaims, denying the various charges, and insisting that its works have never infringed, that the textbook publishers are claiming copyright over "non-copyrightable material" and that even if there were infringement, they are protected by fair use. They also claim that the lawsuit is a form of copyright misuse and shows the publishers' "abuse of the copyright monopoly." Should make for an interesting case.

At the same time, Boundless is also seeking a declaratory judgment on its new offerings. Apparently, the company changed its offerings substantially over the last year, and while the case is still over what those earlier offerings looked like (which Boundless believes did not infringe), it's seeking a clear statement that its newer offerings won't get the company sued as well. Boundless' lawyer sent the publishers a letter last month, asking them to make it clear that the lawsuit was just over the older versions and that there were no issues with the new version, but the publishers have refused, saying that the results of the trial "will inform... current and future business practices." In other words, let's see what happens with this case, and then we'll decide if we can sue over more stuff.

We recently had a lively discussion in the comments on a recent post about the upcoming Supreme Court ruling in the Kirtsaeng case, which is somewhat relevant. The Kirstaeng case, of course, involves first sale rights, and whether or not you'll be able to resell what you bought legally abroad. A defender of taking away first sale rights (i.e., upholding the lower court ruling) argued that if the Supreme Court allows the first sale doctrine to apply to textbooks bought abroad, it will mean that textbook providers will jack up their prices abroad, rather than offer them cheaply, and thus poor students in third world countries will never be able to afford an education.

As we pointed out, this is hogwash and ignores that markets are dynamic. If the big expensive publishers decide to drop out of such markets, it seems pretty clear that there will be others who will quickly step in -- and innovative companies like Boundless were exactly what we were thinking about. They're not infringing on the works of the big publishers. They're providing much-needed competition against an oligopoly that has worked hard at keeping prices ridiculously high for educational resources. It's a market ripe for disruption, and it's silly (though not unexpected) that publishers are seeking to abuse copyright law to stamp out that disruption, rather than learning to innovate themselves.

One thing we've talked about for years is that lawmakers are notoriously bad at thinking through the unintended consequences of legislation they put forth. They seem to think that whatever they set the law to be will work perfectly, and that there won't be any other consequences. This is one reason why we're so wary of simple "fixes" even when the idea or purpose sound good up front. "Protecting artists" sounds good... unless it destroys the kinds of services artists need. Cybersecurity sounds good, unless it actually makes it easier to violate your privacy. And, now, people are realizing that not only may cybersecurity rules like CISPA be awful for privacy, but they could potentially lead to more "cyber" attacks, as companies look to "hack back" against those who attack them. As Politico describes:

The idea is known as "active defense" to some, "strike-back" capability to others and "counter measures" to still more experts in the burgeoning cybersecurity field. Whatever the name, the idea is this: Don't just erect walls to prevent cyberattacks, make it more difficult for hackers to climb into your systems — and pursue aggressively those who do.

So, how would cybersecurity rules create more hacking? Well, possibly by encouraging this kind of behavior by providing some amount of cover for it. The Cybersecurity bill in the Senate last year included an undefined allowance for "counter measures." CISPA doesn't explicitly mention that, but some in the security field are interpreting the bill to provide some amount of cover for such "counter measures" in which they could "perform hacks against threats." But, if you're trying to discourage online attacks, that seems like a problem. The likelihood of someone attacking the wrong target is quite high, and it could create quite a mess.

Thankfully, the folks behind CISPA suggest that they're willing to change the bill to make it more explicit that such countermeasures are not allowed, but until that's in place, it's a serious concern:

Some of those fears have reached Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the chamber's Intelligence Committee and one of CISPA's lead authors. In fact, panel aides told POLITICO they're open to revising the relevant definitions in the bill. And Rogers himself this year has railed on the idea of an aggressive active defense, describing it as a "disaster for us" at a time when the country's digital defenses remain subpar.

Even if they fix this particular hole, it's these kinds of things that should worry all of us about broad laws that provide things like blanket immunity over ill-defined concepts like "cybersecurity" and "cyberattacks." The likelihood of it being abused is quite high, especially in an ever changing technology world. Just look at computer laws like the CFAA and ECPA, which cover various computer crimes and privacy today. Both are ridiculously outdated, with concepts that are laughable by any rational view today. And thus, there are massive unintended consequences associated with both laws. Before we rush into creating new laws with big broad vague terms, perhaps we should focus on fixing the old laws and proceeding with caution on any new ones.

Just a few weeks ago, we wrote about how Kickstarter was incredibly valuable not only as a pre-sales tool but as a way to prove marketability for investors. It appears that even some in Hollywood are recognizing this. In a bit of a surprise move, Warner Bros. has allowed the folks from the critically acclaimed (but viewer-challenged) TV show Veronica Mars to launch a massive Kickstarter campaign to prove that there's demand for a Veronica Mars movie. They put together a cute, mostly in-character video to explain the details: They need to hit $2 million to get the greenlight from Warner. The money will go into the budget of the film, which has the original actors and the show creator/writer returning (excitedly) to make this a reality after years of talking about the possibility but not having enough believers at Warner.

This is fascinating on a variety of levels. First, it serves as a simple reminder that Kickstarter works as a demand-confirmation tool. Second, and perhaps more interestingly, it suggests ways that traditional Hollywood can integrate with something like Kickstarter at times. While some of old world Hollywood likes to insist that Kickstarter could never be used to fund a "real" movie, it appears that some more progressive-thinking folks at Warner are willing to give this a shot. From show creator Rob Thomas' explanation:

Of course, Warner Bros. still owns Veronica Mars and we would need their blessing and cooperation to pull this off. Kristen and I met with the Warner Bros. brass, and they agreed to allow us to take this shot. They were extremely cool about it, as a matter of fact. Their reaction was, if you can show there’s enough fan interest to warrant a movie, we’re on board. So this is it. This is our shot. I believe it's the only one we've got. It's nerve-wracking. I suppose we could fail in spectacular fashion, but there's also the chance that we completely revolutionize how projects like ours can get made. No Kickstarter project ever has set a goal this high. It's up to you, the fans, now. If the project is successful, our plan is to go into production this summer and the movie will be released in early 2014.

It would appear that his nerves need not be wracked for all that long. Within just a few hours, many thousands of fans had jumped on board, and they'd already passed $1 million and were well on their way to $2 million, and probably significantly beyond that (there are still 30 days to go!) Separately, one of the things that doesn't get that much attention in crowdfunding campaigns is the importance of having cool rewards, and it looks like the Veronica Mars crew did a good job. They have a lot of options, with the lowest one being getting a script of the movie on the day it comes out. Surprisingly, they're also promising a digital download "a few days" after the movie's theatrical debut. That will be interesting to see in practice, since theaters have balked (stupidly) at showing films that have too small a "window" between theatrical release and digital release. Hopefully theaters aren't so short-sighted in this case, and will realize that many Veronica Mars fans will likely want to see the film on the big screen even if they're getting the digital version.

Other reward levels include the standard stuff like t-shirts, DVDs and posters (some of them signed), as well as more advanced options like voicemail or video greetings from the actors (Kristen Bell costs more, not surprisingly), hanging out on the set, a role in the movie, tickets to the premiere and more. What's impressive is that most of the high end items are sold out already -- within just a few hours of the launch.

Of course, this makes you wonder why Warner Bros. was so unsure that there would be a market for this movie in the first place. Still, kudos to the studio for being willing to jump on board with this kind of experiment.

We've been pointing out for years that all the talk about "cyberattacks" and "cybersecurity" appear to be FUD, mostly designed to scare up money for "defense" contractors looking for a new digital angle. And yet, we keep seeing fear-mongering report after fear mongering report insisting that we're facing imminent threats of such a dire nature that multiple people keep referring to this ridiculous concept of the "cyber Pearl Harbor" which is going to happen any day now if we don't pass vaguely worded bills that will surely ramp up huge contracts. And yet, every time we'd hear these cinematic scare stories, we'd point out that no one has yet died from a "cyber attack" and ask: where was the actual evidence of real harm? Yes, we've seen hack attacks that are disruptive or really about espionage. But that "big threat" coming down to get us all? There's been nothing to support it.

And perhaps that's because it doesn't exist. Amazingly, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, actually admitted in a Senate hearing that there's little risk of any "cyber Pearl Harbor" in the foreseeable future:

“We judge that there is a remote chance of a major cyber attack against U.S. critical infrastructure systems during the next two years that would result in long-term, wide-scale disruption of services, such as a regional power outage,” Clapper said in his statement to the committee. “The level of technical expertise and operational sophistication required for such an attack — including the ability to create physical damage or overcome mitigation factors like manual overrides — will be out of reach for most actors during this time frame. Advanced cyber actors — such as Russia and China — are unlikely to launch such a devastating attack against the United States outside of a military conflict or crisis that they believe threatens their vital interests.”

He later admitted that some others -- who weren't as knowledgeable -- might be able to sneak in some attacks here or there, but that the impact would likely be minimal:

“These less advanced but highly motivated actors could access some poorly protected US networks that control core functions, such as power generation, during the next two years, although their ability to leverage that access to cause high-impact, systemic disruptions will probably be limited. At the same time, there is a risk that unsophisticated attacks would have significant outcomes due to unexpected system configurations and mistakes, or that vulnerability at one node might spill over and contaminate other parts of a networked system,” he said.

Of course, at the very same hearing, the NSA's General Keith Alexander kept up the propaganda about threats. Alexander has been among those who have been spreading FUD about the "threats" -- including ridiculous claims about Anonymous shutting down the power grid -- so sticking to that line is hardly much of a surprise. This time around he focused on an increasing rate of attacks on Wall Street banks.

He also pulled out the old "the Chinese are stealing our business secrets!" claim. That always sounds good for Congress, but it is unclear how much real impact it has had.

But the Cyber Command chief stressed that the U.S. needs to clamp down on this intellectual property theft, warning it will ultimately "hurt our nation significantly."

"For the nation as a whole, this is our future. This intellectual property, from an economic perspective, represents future wealth and we're losing that," Alexander said.

It doesn't appear he has any real basis for saying that. There are all sorts of ways to compete and to innovate, and falling back on relying intellectual property laws may be the least useful and least efficient manner for doing so.

It would be nice if we could stop all the blatant fear mongering and focus on any actual problems, such as highlighting what important information isn't being shared today, since we keep getting told that it's our lack of information sharing that will lead to a cyber pearl harbor. Now that we know the threat isn't imminent, can we sit back and look at the actual evidence, understand what the real problem is, and see if there's a way to solve it that doesn't involve giving up everyone's privacy rights?

As others have noted, the European Court of Human Rights has rejected appeals from two founders of The Pirate Bay, Peter Sunde and Fredrik Neij, of their conviction under Swedish law. The decision is worth reading in its entirety, in that it tries to lay out a "balanced" approach concerning freedom of expression against other rights, such as copyright, and appears to come down on the side of saying copyright is more important than freedom of expression. That seems like a dangerous outcome in a variety of ways.

The court quite readily admits that forcing Sunde and Neij to block content from being exchanged via TPB violates their free expression rights, but says that this is a legitimate restriction on such rights:

In the present case, the applicants put in place the means for others to impart and receive information within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention. The Court considers that the actions taken by the applicants are afforded protection under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention and, consequently, the applicants' convictions interfered with their right to freedom of expression. Such interference breaches Article 10 unless it was "prescribed by law", pursued one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 10 § 2 and was "necessary in a democratic society" to attain such aim or aims.

They then look at whether or not the restriction of free expression was "prescribed by law" and conclude that it was, because it happened under the Copyright Act, and there was a "legitimate aim" behind the convictions. That's pretty broad, of course. It also looks at whether or not this restriction was "necessary in a democratic society," which is where it spends the most of its time.

The court seems heavily influenced by the fact that TPB did not remove torrents when asked to do so, despite no law requiring such actions. Furthermore, that sets a bizarre and dangerous precedent that just because someone "urges" you to remove content from an internet website or service, that you must do so or be held liable for it.

The part that troubles me most, however, is that the court more or less completely sidesteps the questions of secondary liability. While it mentions, a few times, that both Sunde and Neij have pointed out that TPB was just the service provider, and any actual infringement was done by users, it never properly addresses this issue, other than to suggest that secondary liability is perfectly reasonable. For those of us who have studied just how important protections for secondary liability are in promoting innovation, this suggests a very dangerous precedent for innovation in Europe. When service providers -- or even those who just worked on the platform -- are held directly liable for actions of their users, you create a very big chilling effect on other companies and services. While it may be more understandable for Neij, who worked directly on building and maintaining the site, Sunde's connection to the actual operations has always been remote. The EHCR reiterates the silly point that, among other things, Sunde "configured a load balancing service for TPB" as if that has anything to do with the overall operations of the site. While it does also talk about his minimal work in working with advertisers on the site, setting up a load balancer and advertising relationships are perfectly legitimate activities, and have nothing to do with any infringement that may have occurred on the site.

Having recently watched the documentary on the TPB trial, TPB AFK (and recognizing that it likely does not tell the full story in the short time frame allowed in a documentary flick), you begin to recognize that there is something of a language and technology literacy gap between those prosecuting the TPB founders and the founders themselves, and, if anything, I think that contributes to the situation the founders are in now. Many of their explanations make perfect sense from a technology standpoint, and are completely obvious, normal things that any online service would do. But, the founders seem to think that these things are so obvious and so non-troublesome that they don't appear to do a very good job of explaining them in ways that the court would understand. It's for that reason that I think the case has not gone that well for the founders. It often appears that they assume that those who are judging them (and prosecuting them) have a level of technological literacy and sophistication that they do not have. There would be ways to dumb down the arguments for why they should be protected under secondary liability theories, but it almost appears that the founders believe that it is the responsibility of those in the court to understand the more sophisticated arguments. I can certainly understand where such a position comes from -- and it makes sense in an ideal world. But in the real world, where that sophistication is lacking, the TPB founders glib explanations for the actions taken come off as semantics and rationalizations, rather than a compelling judicial argument. That is unfortunate, because the end result is a decision like the one today.

We recently wrote about the truly stupid idea of building DRM into HTML5. At SXSW this week, web inventor Tim Berners-Lee was asked about this, and he surprisingly defended the decision, claiming that it was necessary to get companies to use HTML5:

During a post-talk Q&A, he defended proposals to add support for "digital rights management" usage restrictions to HTML5 as necessary to get more content on the open Web: "If we don't put the hooks for the use of DRM in, people will just go back to using Flash," he claimed.

Berners-Lee is so good on so many issues (most of his talk seemed to be about the importance of openness) that this response really stands out as not fitting with his general view of the world. Cory Doctorow has responded eloquently to TBL, explaining why he should be against the DRM proposal.

What's more, DRM is wholly ineffective at preventing copying. I suspect Berners-Lee knows this. When geeks downplay fears over DRM, they often say things like: "Well, I can get around it, and anyway, they'll come to their senses soon enough, since it doesn't work, right?" Whenever Berners-Lee tells the story of the Web's inception, he stresses that he was able to invent the Web without getting any permission. He uses this as a parable to explain the importance of an open and neutral Internet. But what he fails to understand is that DRM's entire purpose is to require permission to innovate.

For limiting copying is only the superficial reason for adding DRM to a technology. DRM fails completely at preventing copying, but it is brilliant at preventing innovation. That's because DRM is backstopped by anti-circumvention laws like the notorious US Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) and the EU Copyright Directive of 2002 (EUCD), both of which make it a crime to compromise DRM, even if you're not breaking any other laws. Effectively, this means that you have to get permission from a DRM licensing authority to add any features, since all new features require removing DRM, and the DRM license terms prohibit adding any features not in the original agreement, and omitting any of the mandatory restrictions featured in that agreement.

Doctorow makes two other key points in this: (1) that the W3C (the standards setting body for HTML5) has an enormous role in keeping the web free and open -- and imposing DRM is abusing the trust it has built up and will backfire badly and (2) that the big content players who insist they "need" DRM are bluffing.

As the leading standards-setting body for the Web, the W3C has an enormous, sacred and significant trust. The future of the Web is the future of the world, because everything we do today involves the net and everything we'll do tomorrow will require it. Now it proposes to sell out that trust, on the grounds that Big Content will lock up its "content" in Flash if it doesn't get a veto over Web-innovation. That threat is a familiar one: the big studios promised to boycott US digital TV unless it got mandatory DRM. The US courts denied them this boon, and yet, digital TV continues (if only Ofcom and the BBC had heeded this example before they sold Britain out to the US studios on our own high-def digital TV standards).

Flash is already an also-ran. As Berners-Lee himself will tell you, the presence of open platforms where innovation requires no permission is the best way to entice the world to your door. The open Web creates and supplies so much value that everyone has come to it – leaving behind the controlled, Flash-like environs of AOL and other failed systems. The big studios need the Web more than the Web needs big studios.

The Big Content guys have been seeking to remake the web in their image (i.e., "TV") for over a decade now, still believing that they're the main reason people get online. They're not. There's room for them within the ecosystem, but professional broadcast-quality content is just a part of the system, not the whole thing. If the world moves to HTML5 without DRM, the content guys will whine about it... and then follow. Especially as the more knowledgeable and forward-looking content creators jump in and succeed.

It's a very strange situation when a beneficiary of free speech call for limits on free speech, but that's exactly what happened recently in an editorial written by the publisher of a San Francisco community newspaper.

Stephen J. Moss, publisher of The Potrero View, found himself enjoying The Walking Dead a little bit too much. And that scared him. (via Reason)

I got drawn into watching AMC's "The Walking Dead," a ghastly television program that revolves around a zombie apocalypse. The show is so full of stomach-twisting mutilations — bloody decapitations, disembowelments, and amputations — that while viewing it I had to set aside my usual habit of TV snacking. Once the season ended I ordered the compilation of comic books on which is was based — almost five inches of death pornography — and topped that off with a 330 page prequel-like novel. Over the course of a few weeks, I became a reading zombie, gorging on dark depictions of depravity, torture, and killings.

This doesn't sound all that unusual. People become fans of various cultural offerings all the time, and often immerse themselves in everything they can find related to it. But Moss feels it effected him negatively, something he clearly wasn't expecting.

I can't easily explain why I was attracted to this gloomy entertainment. But I do know that the gory consumption binge impacted me emotionally. Like the fictional characters I was following on pages and screens, I became more fearful, distrustful, and morose.

Well, the simple explanation would be that the subject matter itself is gory, gloomy and morose. Like anything else, entertainment should probably be enjoyed in moderation. But sometimes you just can't help yourself and you binge. And, like any other type of binging, it may be followed by regret. So far, still no problem... unless you're Stephen J. Moss and you feel someone else may find themselves walking a mile in your fearful, distrustful and morose shoes.

Occasionally viewing or reading a brutal or sexual scene seems largely harmless, at least for grown-ups. But saturating ourselves with any set of images seems likely to mold our minds along particular channels.

This is undoubtedly true. What Moss experienced is hardly truly obsessive behavior. He went into a dive and pulled out. Others may not recognize the dive until it's too late, or may be immersing themselves in brutality/sexuality for the dive itself. But this isn't a problem inherent in the content consumed. It's a problem with the person consuming, one that can be exacerbated by this imagery, but not one that can be created by this imagery. There's a rational approach to this subject, but Moss goes in another direction, questioning whether (subjectively) disturbing artistic efforts should be allowed to roam free.

I'm recovering from all that now, but the episode got me wondering how what we watch or read impacts us. We've long attached warning labels to shows and movies that have violent or sexual scenes. We used to censor or ban provocative books. Recent attempts have been made to regulate rap music and video games, lest they incite youth to aggressive acts. Liberals, libertarians, and secular intellectuals have typically dismissed such efforts as liberty-stifling government over-reach. Up until now I'd have agreed with them. But my immersion into the zombie milieu has prompted me to reconsider.

Ah, yes. The "logical" solution would be censorship. If something affects Stephen J. Moss negatively, we should consider stifling, stunting or outright banning artistic efforts like these for the good of those less enlightened than Stephen J. Moss. If it's possible for even one person to be turned into a bloodthirsty (but morose) zombie killer by binge viewing, than it's high time we started blocking off anything someone might find disturbing, provocative or aggressive. Only once we've turned the nation's creative output into a bland pastiche that allows us to emulate society's teens and "experience neither highs nor lows," will we truly be able to save the future of America. Or something.

There's a lot of advice that counteracts this sort of thinking, most of it usually delivered to special interest groups with overactive imaginations. If you don't like it, shut it off. If you think your kids might be negatively affected by it, don't let them have access it. But don't go off on tangents based on a personal experience and project your subjective feelings all over the rest of society.

Free speech doesn't stop when you, as an individual (or even as an overly-concerned special interest group), feel your morality or sensibilities are being trampled on. Toughen up. Move on. Express your concern but realize that a call for censorship isn't the answer. As Neil Gaiman stated, defending speech you don't like is at least as important (if not more) as defending the stuff you do approve of.

Because if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.

You'd think someone running a community paper might realize how problematic a call for censorship of unpleasant speech might be. Or at least see how calling for censorship of other media forms might make them look a tad hypocritical. But this sort of clear thinking is often pushed aside by disturbing personal experiences, resulting in regrettable calls for action. (See also: nearly every piece of legislation crafted in the wake of a tragedy.) Moss' editorial isn't the most dismaying call for censorship I've seen, but his position and where it appears makes it notable. He should know better.

For many years we've written stories about the TV industry being in complete denial over cord cutting (i.e., getting rid of pay TV). The industry has denied that anyone was doing this, claimed that it was just a minor blip during a recession, suggested that when kids "grew up" they'd go back to subscribing to cable, and used a variety of other means of perpetuating their denial. Instrumental in this has been Nielsen, the TV rankings people, who is closely aligned with the industry in propping up the facade. So it's pretty hilarious to watch Nielsen start to finally acknowledge that cord cutting is real, but to do so (1) so late into the game and (2) in such a condescending manner, that's clearly designed to blast out the message to TV execs (i.e., Nielsen's clients): "DON'T WORRY, EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE. REALLY."

It's true. Most people watch TV in their living rooms using traditional cable or satellite options. In fact, more than 95 percent of Americans get their information and entertainment that way. But as we explored what the other 5 percent are doing, we found some interesting consumer behaviors that we want to keep an eye on.

They treat it like they've discovered a brand new species, Contentus Withoutus, and it exhibits "interesting behaviors" which "we want to keep an eye on." Interesting behaviors like... not paying $100+ per month for pay TV just so they can watch two channels? Perhaps.

This small group of video enthusiasts is tuning out traditional TV — and the trend is growing. This "Zero-TV" group, which makes up less than 5 percent of U.S. households, has bucked tradition by opting to get the information they need and want from non-traditional TV devices and services.

And there, right there, is the actual admission that those of us who have cut the cord and have no intention of going back are not a myth and are actually "growing" in numbers. Still, they describe us as having "bucked the tradition" rather than being part of a larger trend that is accelerating rapidly.

From there, the focus is on how those of us who cut the cord, still watch TV (i.e., "breathe, Mr. TV exec, they don't all just hang out on Reddit talking to each other each day").

According to Nielsen's Fourth-Quarter 2012 Cross-Platform Report, the U.S. had more than five million Zero-TV households in 2013, up from just over 2 million in 2007. These households don't fit Nielsen's traditional definition of a TV household, but they still view video content. The television itself isn't obsolete, however, as more than 75 percent of these homes still have at least one TV set, which they use to watch DVDs, play games or surf the Net. When it comes to video content, a growing amount of these households are using other devices.

All in all it's a small admission, done in a condescending way in which they pretend this is some strange abnormal behavior, which needs to be observed but shouldn't worry TV execs yet. This, by the way, is classic bad advice for those facing disruptive changing markets. "Oh, don't worry about those people who have found something better and who are dropping your service in six figure chunks each quarter. We'll just observe them and be ready to act later."

Throughout Simcity's massive public flameout last week, questions were raised (repeatedly) about EA's claims that an offline, single-player mode would be a massive undertaking because of the amount of calculations being done server-side. As many people pointed out, this seemed to be a choice EA had made in order to prevent piracy, rather than a necessity due to the (shoehorned-in) social aspects of the game.

Minnesota Viking's kicker, Chris Kluwe, was one of the many voices finding EA's claims dubious:

The fact that EA requires an "always on" connection is ostensibly because so many operations are taking place server side that your computer won't be able to handle it (which is a blatant falsehood, since when I was streaming the other night, the only times I DIDN'T have latency was when I was disconnected from their servers and my computer had to run all the game operations), but in reality it's to try to combat piracy.

John Walker's recent Rock Paper Shotgun piece on SimCity's "inherent brokenness" (and why gamers shouldn't let EA walk this one off) echoed this sentiment.

SimCity, of course, could be a single-player game. Ignore the utter nonsense about how some of its computations are server-side. What complete rot. As if our PCs are incapable of running the game. I'm sure some of the computations are server side! But they damned well don't need to be, as all of gaming ever has ably proven.

EA, however, continues to claim otherwise, somehow expecting PC users to believe that without its valuable servers picking up the computational slack, the game would be unplayable. (Or, more so, I guess...) Unfortunately for EA and its "talking points," a Maxis developer has stated exactly the opposite.

A SimCity developer has got in touch with RPS to tell us that at least the first of these statements is not true. He claimed that the server is not handling calculations for non-social aspects of running the game, and that engineering a single-player mode would require minimal effort.

Our source, who we have verified worked directly on the project but obviously wishes to remain anonymous, has first-hand knowledge of how the game works. He has made it absolutely clear to us that this repeated claim of server-side calculations is at odds with the reality of the project he worked on. Our source explains:

"The servers are not handling any of the computation done to simulate the city you are playing. They are still acting as servers, doing some amount of computation to route messages of various types between both players and cities. As well, they're doing cloud storage of save games, interfacing with Origin, and all of that. But for the game itself? No, they're not doing anything. I have no idea why they're claiming otherwise. It's possible that Bradshaw misunderstood or was misinformed, but otherwise I'm clueless."

So, it's exactly as many players (and unhappy customers) believed. SimCity's always-on requirement does little more than any other always-on requirement: attempt to prevent piracy. Demanding every player always be online throughout the entirety of their single-player game is ridiculous. The Maxis insider who spoke to Rock Paper Shotgun says that not only is a single-player version SimCity possible, but that "it wouldn't take very much engineering" to make it a reality.

Players elsewhere are also discovering what Kluwe had: that the game runs, at least temporarily, without an internet connection, something that shouldn't be possible, according to EA's claims that its servers handle a "significant amount of the calculations."

Kotaku ran a series of tests today, seeing how the game could run without an internet connection, finding it was happy for around 20 minutes before it realised it wasn't syncing to the servers. Something which would surely be impossible were the servers co-running the game itself. Markus "Notch" Persson just tweeted to his million followers that he managed to play offline too, despite EA's claims.

The Maxis insider points out that the Glassbox engine running SimCity processes the actual simulation client-side, before sending out updates to EA's servers. These updates are then queued in the regional server until they can be processed, which (depending on server load) may take several minutes. This helps explain why gamers are able to run for a limited amount of time without a connection.

EA has remained adamant that a single-player SimCity is logistically impossible, but that claim is suddenly holding a lot less water. This revelation doesn't bode well for EA's leaky Claims Waterholder or any future endeavors it had planned that might have relied on its "our supercomputers do the thinking for you!" rationalization in order to force more "online-only" requirements down users' throats. This online-only requirement is no different than others before it. It may battle piracy, hacking and cheating, but makes onerous demands of its paying customers every step of the way.

A few days ago, the former executive editor of the NY Times, Bill Keller wrote about the Bradley Manning situation, in which he discusses Manning's revelation that he originally tried to go directly to the NY Times and the Washington Post, but was ignored, leading to the decision to approach Wikileaks. Keller's piece is basically an attempt by the NY Times to rewrite history to make Keller and the NY Times feel better. I wouldn't say that Keller lies necessarily, because he might just be very, very ignorant, but there is no doubt that he blatantly misrepresents what Manning said and did.

Specifically, Keller argues first, that Manning was trying to dump all of the information he had, indiscriminately, and the wise reporters at the NY Times would have figured out what was really important: "If Manning had connected with The Times, we would have found ourselves in a relationship with a nervous, troubled, angry young Army private who was offering not so much documentation of a particular government outrage as a chance to fish in a sea of secrets." Furthermore, he argues that Manning's motivations in making his speech to the court last week somehow contradict the only other clear statement into Manning's motivations: his 2010 chat logs with Adrian Lamo that Lamo turned over to the government, leading to Manning's arrest. Those chat logs were leaked to the press, and Keller argues that Manning's reasoning for leaking the material is not clear, summarizing it as:

His political views come across as inchoate. When asked, he has trouble recalling any specific outrages that needed exposing. His cause was "open diplomacy" or — perhaps in jest — "worldwide anarchy."

Furthermore, Keller insults the many people who have supported Manning by suggesting that Manning has created his current views based on what his supporters have told him.

However, as multiple people shot back, this is simply untrue. Author Greg Mitchell points out that Keller is flat out "wrong" and that if he actually read the chat logs, Manning lays out his reasoning, which is entirely consistent with his statement in court. He points out that contrary to Manning "having trouble recalling any specific outrages," Manning has no problem doing so, pointing to examples of corruption in favor of Iraqi prime minister Maliki (rounding up dissidents who were just exercising basic free speech rights), along with the now famous Collateral Murder video. Mitchell points out that for Keller to claim that Manning had not mentioned anything specific, is simply wrong:

More from the Lamo chat log: It virtually opens with Manning saying he had seen evidence of "awful things" such as at Gitmo and Bagram. Then he mentions "criminal political dealings" and cites the "buildup to the Iraq war." He details what he saw on the "Collateral Murder" video and why he wanted it released ("I want people to see the truth"). He wants to get this and much else out (he IDs more) because it might "actually change something." As for the State Dept. cables, he hopes they will spark "worldwide discussion, debates and reforms." Yet Keller claims this was all "vague."

When Nathan Fuller, a supporter of Manning, emailed Keller about all of this, Keller doubled down and stood by his original assessment, saying nothing more than that he believed his characterization is "fair." When pressed, Keller reveals his general attitude towards Manning's supporters, claiming that they have "assembled a coherent political motivation by fishing here and there in the Lamo file." As opposed to Keller who quoted five whole words from the transcripts and took even those out of context?

Meanwhile, Daniel Ellsberg, who probably identifies with Manning more than anyone else in the world, having famously given the Pentagon Papers to the NY Times decades ago, has responded angrily to Keller (video) stating that: "It shows him as an arrogant, ignorant, condescending person. A very smart person who manages to be stupid in certain ways.... What we've heard are people like the NY Times who have consistently slandered [Bradly Manning]." Ellsberg goes on to point out that there was a ton of material that Manning had access to, but which he chose not to disclose. He first mocks Keller's description of Manning as a "boy" who was "indiscriminately dumping" files, and notes that the evidence shows otherwise:

He, personally, had access to material higher than top secret, higher than Bill Keller has ever seen.... He chose not to put out the top secret communications intelligence, to which he clearly had access. He put out only material that he felt would be embarrassing [rather than harmful], and which, three years later we can say, only was embarrassing.

Yet another White House petition has made it over the 100,000 signature mark, which is necessary to get a response. This one is asking the White House not to support CISPA, arguing that the terms are too broad, and the possibility of abuse is simply too high. To date, the White House has actually been rather cool on CISPA, preferring an approach that actually does include some privacy protections (but, also one that has a few more mandates for companies). Just last week, DHS boss Janet Napolitano gave a speech in which she suggested that CISPA did not do enough to protect privacy -- and made it even more clear during Q&A, in which she said of CISPA:

"There were no privacy protections built within it and it resided almost all of the cyber information monitoring responsibilities within the NSA, which of course is part of the military."

Of course, some of this is a turf battle. CISPA gives more power to the Defense Department (which the NSA is a part of). The approach favored by the White House gives more power to Homeland Security.

Either way, this would make it easy for the White House to quickly come out in support of the petition, but still say that "something needs to be done" on cybersecurity -- but exactly what that is still fairly murky. There have been a number of rumors that CISPA supporters have been "negotiating" with the White House, and that could mean tradeoffs that allow a bad bill to get through. This is something that needs to be watched carefully.