Benton Institute for Broadband & Society - Platforms

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-preventing-onlin…

Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship

benton — Thu, 28 May 2020 21:33:37 +0000

It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet. Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)). 47 U.S.C. 230(c). It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints. In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.” It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree.

To advance this policy, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard. In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
- deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
- taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.

It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship. In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints. The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce

The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Benton Content:

Teaser:

It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.

Source:

White House

Author:

President Donald Trump

Send date:

Fri, 05/29/2020

Daily Digest:

Daily Digest 5/28/2020

DD Publish Status:

Not Available

Include summary in newsletter email:

Publish Date:

Thu, 05/28/2020

Coverage Type:

Public Notice

Digital Content

Government & Communications

Censorship

Internet/Broadband

Google, YouTube To Pay $170 Million Penalty Over Collecting Kids' Personal Info (NPR)

Google and YouTube Will Pay Record $170 Million for Alleged Violations of Children’s Privacy Law

benton — Wed, 04 Sep 2019 14:27:36 +0000

Google and its subsidiary YouTube will pay a record $170 million to settle allegations by the Federal Trade Commission and the New York Attorney General that the YouTube video sharing service illegally collected personal information from children without their parents’ consent. The settlement requires Google and YouTube to pay $136 million to the FTC and $34 million to New York for allegedly violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) Rule. The settlement also requires Google and YouTube to develop, implement, and maintain a system that permits channel owners to identify their child-directed content on the YouTube platform so that YouTube can ensure it is complying with COPPA. In addition, the companies must notify channel owners that their child-directed content may be subject to the COPPA Rule’s obligations and provide annual training about complying with COPPA for employees who deal with YouTube channel owners. The settlement also prohibits Google and YouTube from violating the COPPA Rule, and requires them to provide notice about their data collection practices and obtain verifiable parental consent before collecting personal information from children.

In a complaint filed against the companies, the FTC and New York Attorney General allege that YouTube violated the COPPA Rule by collecting personal information—in the form of persistent identifiers that are used to track users across the Internet—from viewers of child-directed channels, without first notifying parents and getting their consent. YouTube earned millions of dollars by using the identifiers, commonly known as cookies, to deliver targeted ads to viewers of these channels, according to the complaint.

The COPPA Rule requires that child-directed websites and online services provide notice of their information practices and obtain parental consent prior to collecting personal information from children under 13, including the use of persistent identifiers to track a user’s Internet browsing habits for targeted advertising. In addition, third parties, such as advertising networks, are also subject to COPPA where they have actual knowledge they are collecting personal information directly from users of child-directed websites and online services. The FTC and New York Attorney General allege that while YouTube claimed to be a general-audience site, some of YouTube’s individual channels—such as those operated by toy companies—are child-directed and therefore must comply with COPPA. The $136 million penalty is by far the largest amount the FTC has ever obtained in a COPPA case since Congress enacted the law in 1998.

For additional coverage, also see:

Google to pay $170 million to settle charges it violated kids’ privacy law on YouTube (Washington Post)

Regulators Fine Google $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube (New York Times)

YouTube Agrees to $170 Million Fine, New Protections for Children (Wall Street Journal)

Benton Content:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2019/09/google-youtube-will-pay-r…

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/business-blog/2019/09/170-million-ftc-ny-y…

Teaser:

YouTube collected personal information from viewers of child-directed channels, without first notifying parents and getting their consent

Source:

Federal Trade Commission

Send date:

Thu, 09/05/2019

Daily Digest:

Daily Digest 9/4/2019

DD Publish Status:

Not Available

Include summary in newsletter email:

Publish Date:

Wed, 09/04/2019

Coverage Type:

2018: A Turning Point for "Big Tech"

Robbie McBeath — Fri, 25 Jan 2019 17:29:18 +0000

Earlier this month we examined how partisan division at the Federal Communications Commission impedes progress towards closing the digital divide. Now, we review another big telecom policy story from 2018: the democratic harms of “Big Tech”. In 2018, we got a better, but more disturbing, understanding of the size and influence of large technology companies (Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft), and particularly how social media platforms affect our democratic discourse and elections. Furthermore, we saw how their power and influence can keep consumer protection policies from being enacted.

Benton Content:

Benton Original Content

https://www.benton.org/blog/2018-turning-point-big-tech

Teaser:

We review another big telecom policy story from 2018: the democratic harms of “Big Tech”.

Source:

Author:

https://www.benton.org/blog/can-ftc-protect-consumers-digital-age

Send date:

Mon, 01/28/2019

Daily Digest:

Daily Digest 1/25/2019

DD Publish Status:

Not Available

Include summary in newsletter email:

Publish Date:

Fri, 01/25/2019

Coverage Type:

Can the FTC Protect Consumers in the Digital Age?

Robbie McBeath — Fri, 30 Nov 2018 18:55:37 +0000

On Nov 27, the Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection held an oversight hearing on the Federal Trade Commission. The hearing examined the FTC’s “priorities in promoting competition and consumer protection, the ongoing innovation hearings and how changes in technology impact the agency, and whether the FTC should have expanded authority with respect to privacy and data security.” In other words -- is the FTC doing a good enough job? And if not, what needs change?

Some general consensus emerged: both senators and commissioners agreed that the modern economy has produced some very large companies, and, partly as a result, we have seen massive privacy violations. One of the main ideas everyone came back to was: Is it time to make some changes -- e.g. expanding the FTC’s rulemaking authority, a national privacy law, more resources for the agency -- so that the FTC can properly carry out its duty to provide consumer protection and promote competition?

Benton Content:

Benton Original Content

Teaser:

Is it time to make some changes -- e.g. expanding the FTC’s rulemaking authority, a national privacy law, more resources for the agency -- so that the FTC can properly carry out its duty to provide consumer protection and promote competition?

Source:

Author:

https://www.benton.org/blog/how-facebook-avoids-accountability

Send date:

Mon, 12/03/2018

Daily Digest:

Daily Digest 11/30/2018

DD Publish Status:

Not Available

Include summary in newsletter email:

Publish Date:

Fri, 11/30/2018

Coverage Type:

How Facebook Avoids Accountability

Robbie McBeath — Wed, 21 Nov 2018 23:05:51 +0000

On Nov 14, the New York Times detailed Facebook’s multi-pronged campaign to “delay, deny and deflect” efforts to hold the company accountable. This is far from the first time we’ve read disturbing accounts of Facebook’s unethical behavior, but this week the Times peeled back the curtain on the company’s crisis management techniques, public relations tactics, efforts to influence lawmakers, and aggressive lobbying. The peak at these practices helps explain why the social media giant has been so successful at avoiding meaningful regulation.

Benton Content:

Benton Original Content

Teaser:

The Times peeled back the curtain on the company’s crisis management techniques, public relations tactics, efforts to influence lawmakers, and aggressive lobbying.

Source:

Author:

https://benton.org/blog/stop-fanning-flames

Send date:

Mon, 11/26/2018

Daily Digest:

Daily Digest 11/21/2018

DD Publish Status:

Not Available

Include summary in newsletter email:

Publish Date:

Wed, 11/21/2018

Coverage Type:

Stop Fanning The Flames

Robbie McBeath — Mon, 05 Nov 2018 23:46:23 +0000

The power of communication and the exchange of ideas were starkly brought home recently as news of bombs being delivered to Americans’ homes and businesses, and the murder of worshipers in Pittsburgh dominated headlines everywhere. President Donald Trump and some of his Republican allies appear to be actively engaged in a feedback loop with extremists who participate in the darkest online forums. By empowering the views found there, they condone a widening of the boundaries of acceptable speech and turn a blind eye to bigotry, xenophobia, and hate. For each of us, there’s a responsibility to hold our leaders accountable. Are they dampening the flames or fanning them? Are they using extinguishers – or matches? If we want to return to the mutual good faith and collaborative spirit that characterize a healthy democracy, we need leaders who will use their positions of power and influence to tone down the rancor and smother the kind of speech that incited the extremism and violence that led to the tragedies of Charleston and Pittsburgh.

Benton Content:

Benton Original Content

Teaser:

President Donald Trump and some of his Republican allies appear to be actively engaged in a feedback loop with extremists who participate in the darkest online forums.

Source:

Government & Communications

Author:

Adrianne Furniss

Send date:

Tue, 11/06/2018

Daily Digest:

Daily Digest 11/5/2018

DD Publish Status:

Not Available

Include summary in newsletter email:

Publish Date:

Mon, 11/05/2018

Coverage Type:

Editorial

Digital Content

Internet/Broadband

https://benton.org/blog/de-platform-hate

De-Platform Hate?

Robbie McBeath — Fri, 02 Nov 2018 21:28:42 +0000

A mass murderer shot and killed 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh (PA) on Oct 27, in what is believed to be the deadliest attack against the Jewish community in the United States, ever. The mass shooting followed a week of reporting on a series of bombs sent by a FL terrorist to prominent Democrats, George Soros, and CNN. Both men posted violent, hateful content online, including politically extremist views on immigration. The events tragically bring into focus, again, the very-real danger of hateful political rhetoric. Could they also mean we’ll see tougher scrutiny of how the organized, white-nationalist movement spreads its message inside the U.S.? What are the responsibilities of social-media platforms for the discourse they monetize?

Benton Content:

Benton Original Content

Teaser:

The questions that arise when discussing the role of social media in policing hateful political rhetoric and protecting free speech are difficult to answer. Here’s how companies, activists, and policymakers are approaching the issue.

Source:

Author:

Send date:

Mon, 11/05/2018

Daily Digest:

Daily Digest 11/2/2018

DD Publish Status:

Not Available

Include summary in newsletter email:

Publish Date:

Fri, 11/02/2018

Coverage Type:

Analysis

https://www.benton.org/blog/time-change-terms

Time to Change the Terms

benton — Thu, 25 Oct 2018 16:46:52 +0000

The Benton Foundation is joining 40 civil and human rights organizations that believe that online companies need to do more to combat hateful conduct on their platforms. We are asking that these companies adopt corporate policies to prohibit hateful activities on their platforms. They should make it clear what type of conduct is and is not permitted on their platform and remove any U.S. clients that violate those corporate policies. Although Benton has always championed free speech, today we draw a line. We oppose activities that incite or engage in violence, threats, intimidation, harassment, defamation, or illegality targeting an individual or group based on their actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability. That’s a mouthful, so let me try to be plainer. The old adage about “sticks and stones” may be true, but words do matter. Violence, threats, intimidation, harassment, defamation, and targeting cross a line to impose will instead of reason, to give one’s interests advantage by denying another person’s safety. Peace rests on the inherent rights and dignities of every individual.

[Adrianne B. Furniss is the Executive Director of the Benton Foundation]

Benton Content:

Benton Original Content

Teaser:

Violence, threats, intimidation, harassment, defamation, and targeting cross a line

Source:

https://www.benton.org/blog/latest-round-ftc-competition-and-consumer-protection…

Author:

Adrianne Furniss

Send date:

Fri, 10/26/2018

Daily Digest:

Daily Digest 10/25/2018

DD Publish Status:

Not Available

Include summary in newsletter email:

Publish Date:

Thu, 10/25/2018

Coverage Type:

The Latest Round of FTC Competition and Consumer Protection Hearings

benton — Fri, 19 Oct 2018 17:05:08 +0000

The Federal Trade Commission this week held another set of hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century. The hearings and public comment process this Fall and Winter will provide opportunities for FTC staff and leadership to listen to experts and the public on key privacy and antitrust issues facing the modern economy. The hearings are intended to stimulate thoughtful internal and external evaluation of the FTC’s near- and long-term law enforcement and policy agenda. The end goal is to identify areas for enforcement and policy guidance, including improvements to the agency’s investigation and law enforcement processes, as uncover areas that warrant additional study. This week was hearing #3, a three-day event that examined 1) the potential for collusive, exclusionary, and predatory conduct in multi-sided, technology-based platform industries, 2) the approach to addressing antitrust issues regarding labor markets, and; 3) antitrust frameworks for evaluating acquisitions of nascent competitors or occurring in nascent markets, including in the technology and digital marketplace.

Benton Content:

Benton Original Content

Teaser:

The FTC held another set of hearings on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century.

Source:

Author: