I'm listening to this podcast, and Scoble is saying that Google is modifying pages in bad ways. Hmm - yes, he's describing what it does. However, he's also decribing the way pop up blockers work. And the way that ad skippers work in your VCR and ReplayTV. So - if you object to me using AutoLink, I sure hope you don't use pop up blockers (etc).

Now we get to his real objection - Google is a "virtual monopoly" providing this (never mind the irony of a Microsoft employee making this argument). What Robert is arguing is that we need to be protected against some possible future use of the technology, somewhere, someday, by someone. Yeah, right - by that argument, the VCR case should have fallen the other way.

In minute 14, we get to the argument from Schwimmer, the IP lawyer worried about copyright infringement. Schwimmer is also worried about some potential future use of this kind of thing. I hope he never uses a CSS and/or JavaScript aware "smart client" tool - say a much easier to use GreaseMonkey (w/o the security flaws :) ). The conversation between Doctorow and Scoble is far more interesting. Scoble is likening AutoLink to a competitor posting prices and ads in his store, and Doctorow is pointing out that a consumer with a web enabled phone already has that capability. They both have a point there, I think, but to me, the key thing is whether the user has control. If the user voluntarily installed the content modifier, that's different than spyware that secretly does the same thing.

Where I think Scoble and Winer get it wrong is right there - both would lock us into a world where we as end users went back to the world of 1950's TV, when the publisher controlled the horizontal and the vertical. This phrase that Scoble keeps repeating is really flawed: "I'm a content producer, and I don't want people changing my content". Well. As I've said before, we better ban pens, and/or the resale of books that have been marked up. To get in tune with pop culture, Scoble should go reprimand J.K. Rowling over the "Half-Blood Prince" character in book six, since he made substantial alterations to the original content of the textbook in question. Clearly, Harry was harmed by the content alteration there :/

And the whole "should they provide an opt out" thing is really stupid. Which part of "disable" is hard? Does the off switch on the TV also confuse people? The "costing people money" argument over potential rewriting of links is also stupid. What the heck does he think a pop up blocker does? What he's really saying is "I like some modifications, but not others".

I have to come down with Doctorow on this. If we followed Scoble's ideas to their logical conclusion, we'd end up with an internet that really sucked. But hey - that's my two cents. Go listen yourself and see what you think.