Posts Tagged ‘libertarian paternalism’

In recent weeks, the iPhone has made quite a stir because of the regulatory decisions made by Apple. Jonathan Zittrain raised this worry in his book, The Future of the Internet, where he cautioned that generativity – the nature of systems to accept input from everyone – was being traded for sterile appliances – devices which do only simple tasks (GPS, TiVo).

The iPhone has led a new way, called contingent generativity, that makes generativity dependent upon an intermediary. Apple gets to decide whose Apps are available for download and though Steve Jobs had claimed that they would only block apps that were malicious, pornographic, bandwidth hogs, illegal or threats to privacy, that hasn’t proven true in practice. As I noted at Techdirt, Apple is becoming a Soviet ministry price-setting intermediary that decided the “I Am Rich” application wasn’t allowable even though it didn’t seem to break any rules. “I Am Rich” isn’t alone; other apps which provide additional functionality have been pulled with little to no explanation.

But being an ex-ante regulator isn’t enough. Apple, which is famously closed in character, also has the ability to regulate apps already on a user’s iPhone or iPod Touch. The so-called kill switch was not disclosed to the public until a curious user uncovered the capability. Only then did Steve Jobs admit the functionality existed, saying Apple needed the capability but “Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull.”

This position raises a number of questions, many well articulated around the web, not the least of which is why Apple thinks it needs a kill switch an the iPhone and not it’s Mac computers. The issues raised and trend shown by the iPhone’s kill switch is worrying and, as you might expect, some clever engineers have found a way to disable it for jailbroken iPhones, but a thread on the Free Culture mailing list got me wondering if there was a better way to solve this conundrum.

I think there is and I think it should draw on the scholarship of Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler in their book I recently reviewed, Nudge. For the uninitiated, Nudge is a book about “libertarian paternalism” which aims to create situations where it is easier to make the best choice while not limiting other options. Through architecting designs that enable better decisions, or nudges, libertarian paternalism provides a middle ground between freedom and mandates.

Apple has the opportunity to do so with the iPhone kill switch. The intentions of the regulatory function are good: many users are, for whatever reason, unable to avoid or fix security compromises. Apple has experts who can help these users, but a mandatory kill switch is not the best option. It treats all users the same and removes their ability to run applications they desire, regardless of potential hazards. Asheesh Laroia suggested that Apple allow users to permanently opt-out of the system.

I would go one step further towards openness and make the kill switch an opt-in feature. Call it AppleCare Pro for iPhone or something less awkward. Heck, Apple could even charge for it! Make it a prominent decision in the set-up process and allow users to revisit the option when they desire. Provide nudges towards it when the user downloads an App which might be dangerous (similar to how Google warns searchers they may be entering a nasty page).

This would give the worried or non-experts the ability to have Apple’s paternalistic reach extend to their phones without compromising the autonomy of those who want independence. Parker Higgins worries that those who need Apple’s protection are those likely to ignore the warnings, but I think Apple could architect a system where they are nudged towards better decision-making without a presumption of ignorance.

In doing this all, Apple should remain aware that openness and honesty is the best option. The fact that they hid the kill switch until outsiders found it is reminiscent of Comcast’s deceptive practices regarding BitTorrent throttling.

Nudge is a book which, in the 24 hours since I purchased it, has transformed how I think about the world. Co-authored by two University of Chicago professors, behavioral economist Richard Thaler and lawyer Cass Sunstein, Nudge brings a superb policy approach to the table. Although the name is unwieldy, “libertarian paternalism” has solved a major internal debate of mine.

Representative democracy is great. The devolution of power allows for freedoms which are often restricted in other forms of government. People’s ability to choose and influence government allows impersonal institutions to respond to personal needs. I’m a fervent believer in personal choice and support many civil libertarian causes.

At the same time, people can make some really dumb choices. Often, when I hear or witness some particularly uniformed opinions or decision, I’ll catch myself snottily thinking “…and these people get to vote? Great.” I’ll frequently voice support of a technocracy where the most skilled and brightest make decisions, insulated from the ignorant masses.

Yet, these two approaches are opposed to each other and I’ve struggled to make sense of my dual support. Luckily, Thaler and Sunstein have lent their considerable intellect to this problem and brought resolution in the form of libertarian paternalism which uses “architects of choice” to “nudge” people towards better decisions. The bad decisions people make are often the result of conditions outside their control: time restraints, financial limitations and a host of psychological phenomena which foster poor choices. Libertarian paternalism aims to create situations where it is easier to make the best choice while not limiting other options (as mandates would do).

Nudging recognizes that people respond to much more than incentives, as traditional economics would have you believe. Nudges recognize the complex array of options which make simple tax cuts or prison penalties unlikely to create the best outcomes. Nudges come down to designing systems which help people reach the best outcome. Full of examples, the book shows that seemingly innocent differences in order or defaults can have profound differences in outcomes.

Nudge is divided into three parts: an explanation of the theory, a series of policy recommendations, and responses to critics. The first portion is definitely my favorite as it lays the intellectual foundation for this idea which can play a part in many policy debates. Perhaps since I fall prey to a number of the blunders they outline (I’m young, I’ve got nothing to worry about!), I was not as enthralled with their discussions of how to improve credit markets or pharmaceutical plans, but I certainly hope that the right people do read those parts because the plans outlined to help millions are incredibly important additions to the national debate on issues as broad as environmental protection to investing to school choices.

Libertarian paternalism recognizes that humans are fallible and need help. It knows that experts have the experience to help. But it contrast to traditional paternalism, it recognizes the failings of government mandate and that knowledge is dispersed and people, if given appropriate settings, can make the best decisions for themselves.  So, allow me to nudge you towards their website or Amazon page where you can purchase it for yourself.

[Also by Sunstein is Infotopia.]