DISQUS

Alex, thanks for doing this!

It's great to see these ideas reinterpreted, and taken up in a public conversation.

I look forward to it.

Best,

David W.

Dave, thanks for the pushback.

First, I am sympathetic to those who disagree with me about this. I am deeply in favor of legalizing gay marriage. It's something that touches me quite emotionally.

Second, in answer to your question about where I draw the line: I support the principle of equal rights without equivocation, but that doesn't mean that it's always obvious where to draw the line when it comes to action. I don't think it's obvious in this case, especially since inviting RW onto the inaugural podium is a symbolic act. I read the symbolism differently than do you and many other people I also respect.

I read it as saying that we are all Americans even when we profoundly disagree.

Others read it as legitimizing RW's views on gay rights. And I do think there's truth in that reading, for (as you and others point out), Obama wouldn't invite an American Nazi onto the podium. So, in addition to my reading, I think the invitation does say that to Obama, RW's views are within the bounds of tolerance (in the way that Nazism is not). It does not mean that Obama endorses them ... although, in fact, Obama is against gay marriage.

Why are RW's views on gay marriage within the bounds of tolerance (in my opinion and maybe Obama's)?

First, Obama presumably didn't invite RW _because_ of RW's views on gay marriage. RW's ministry is not focused on that. Presumably Obama invited RW because of RW's views on social justice.

Second, within the range of Prop 8 supporters, RW is way to the left. He is more tolerant rather than less. As far as I can tell, he does not use inflammatory language intended to stir up hatred and violence. (In the language RW removed from his site, he explicitly says that practicing the gay "lifestyle" is no bigger a sin than heterosexuals living together before marriage.) Nor is his stand on Prop 8 the center of his ministry, which is distinguished (as far as I know) by a support for social justice (e.g., poverty is a bigger worry than abortion, lead a "purpose driven life" that looks beyond your own interests) that is a-typical of his ilk. RW supports more tolerant of gays than many Americans are. We want to encourage that, not discourage it by lumping RW in with the nazi-like supporters of Prop 8 (even while being outraged that tolerance is an issue at all).

Second, I think that our nation's overall polarization is a more serious danger than any one issue, including gay marriage. Getting past some of that polarization will greatly help us advance _all_ of our social agenda, including gay rights. (I say this based on an unargued belief that history is on our side.)

I understand and am sympathetic to (= bothered by) the argument that if it were slavery, I'd be outraged to have RW on the podium. But, simultaneously I see this as an opportunity to do what I hope Obama is going to do for us: Model looking for what is best in people, not focusing on what is worst.

I am not unconflicted about this. I thus appreciate all the good discussion here, and around the Web.

Richard, I'll hold off on replying about NN in particular because I'm still puzzled about how this post (and the original on which it's based) go from my, um, boisterous claims in my post about McCain's tech policy to thinking that I'm asking for government to regulate the social, cultural and democratic aspects of the Net. Do they think that NN necessarily constitutes regulation of those aspects? Or do they assume that because I think it's important to understand and appreciate those aspects, and because (they think) I like regulation overall, I therefore must be proposing regulation of those aspects? I'm very curious about the line of thought that gets these posters to their conclusion.

I probably should add that their conclusion is false (well, unless they think NN is intended to regulate those aspects). When it comes to enabling free speech and the free, unregulated development of content, services, and applications on the Net, I am a maximalist. Perhaps this is a place where all sides in the debate can find common ground.

In fact, it's that maximalilsm that leads me to support NN, but, again, we probably shouldn't go down that path in this particular forum.

Sort of a weird reaction to what I wrote. No, I don't want the government to regulate the cultural, social, and democratic aspects of the Net. I didn't say so, imply it, or think so. But I don't want a federal tech policy that regulates and guides the Net (which is what a federal tech policy does to one degree or another) as if the Net's main value were for business, without recognizing the Net's other values. Just think about the missed opportunities for e-gov and e-democracy, beyond the paltry, unimaginative, old timey suggestions in McCain's policy statement.

A president who doesn't recognize the cultural, social and democratic aspects of the Net is missing (imo) a key facet of the 21st century. And that's a reason to worry about a McCain presidency.

David,

What a great post to wake up to on a Sunday morning. Thank you so much!

And I echo Mark's recommendation of "The Wealth of Networks." It's a truly great work.

-- David W.

David, thanks for the link and liking my book.

I'd just pick one nit with what you've said: The Internet is already regulated. The Congress, the courts and the FCC have all weighed in. That's what killed your local ISPs.

Anyway, I really just wanted to thank you for noticing.

Best,

David W.

By your definition, it's only a gaffe if it was unintentional. But I fully intended to say what I said. I'm not in the least embarrassed about my post. There's nothing unexpected, embarrassing or revelatory about it.

Every principle requires argument and discussion to be applied; that's built into the nature of principles. Your line of reasoning would lead us to conclude that, for example, every single amendment to the Constitution is without sense or meaning because each has a long history of debate and disagreement about how exactly to apply it. Here's an analogy:

Me: I just came back from a day-long meeting with extremely smart people about how exactly to apply the principle of free speech. Does it cover campaign donations? Pornographic political commentary? My brain hurts!

You: Aha! What a gaffe! At long last one of the proponents of free speech has admitted that no one knows what it is, how to detect it, and how to regulate it.

Well, Richard, I'm for free speech and I'm for Net neutrality. I know what each of them mean, and I'm happy to engage in honest discussion about how exactly they apply.

Robert, thank you for doing this hard, hard thing in the public of your readers and friends. You're helping us build something new. I know that doesn't make this time any easier for you. But by sharing these experiences, we increase the weight of the world - more matters to us - which I think is the same as love.

So many are with you, Robert.

I'm one of the members of the US Board of Advisors of Fon. As the article confirms, each one of us DID disclose that we are on the board of advisors. There was absolutely no attempt to hide our relationship with Fon. Quite the contrary.

I just posted about this if you want to dive into the nitty-gritty of it: http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/wsj_o...

Well done, Scoble! If Microsoft gives you any guff, remind them that this is exactly why companies need to have bloggers.

The contradiction is easy to resolve. I say that what are being called echo chambers are often normal conversations that fill a particular and important social role.

In the Salon article, I say that the media truly fit the description of an echo chamber. I don't say or imply that they caused Dean's political demise. Nor do I believe that the media were the main cause of the campaign's failure.

The person who ran the Dean blog tells me they only deleted a handful of comments. Too bad yours was one. Glad they restored it.

Thanks for the advice, Richard.

As Cory Doctorow said on yesterday's panel, the history of attempts to throttle innovation in "content delivery" have been resolved not by compromises but by victories for the forces of freedom. (Cory of course put it better.)

I personally think it would be a mistake to look for a compromise because this isn't a battle between competing interests. It's a battle between interests and rights, and rights are precisely that about which one does not compromise.