• President Biden began his 2023 State of the Union remarks by saying America is defined by possibilities. Correct! Unfortunately, his tech-bashing will undermine those possibilities by discouraging technological innovation & online freedom in the United States.
• America became THE global leader on digital tech because we rejected heavy-handed controls on innovators & speech. We shouldn’t return to the broken model of the past by layering on red tape, economic controls & speech restrictions.
• What has the tech economy done for us lately? Here is a look at the value added to the U.S. economy by the digital sector from 2005-2021. That’s $2.4 TRILLION (with a T) added in 2021. These are astonishing numbers.

  

• FACT: According to the BEA, in 2021, “the U.S. digital economy accounted for $3.70 trillion of gross output, $2.41 trillion of value added (translating to 10.3 % of U.S. GDP), $1.24 trillion of compensation + 8.0 million jobs.”

In 2021…

• $3.70 trillion of gross output
• $2.41 trillion of value added (=10.3% percent GDP)
• $1.24 trillion of compensation
• 8.0 million jobs

FACT: globally, 49 of the top 100 digital tech firms with most employees are US companies. Here they are. Smart public policy made this list possible.

• FACT: 18 of the world’s Top 25 tech companies by Market Cap are US-based firms.

  

• It’d be a huge mistake to adopt Europe’s approach to tech regulation. As I noted recently in the Wall Street Journal, “The only thing Europe exports now on the digital-technology front is regulation.”  Yet, Biden would have us import the EU model to our shores.
• My R Street colleague Josh Withrow has also noted how, “the EU’s approach appears to be, in sum, ‘If you can’t innovate, regulate.’” America should not be following the disastrous regulatory path of the European Union on digital technology policy.
• On antitrust regulation, here is a study by my R Street colleague Wayne Brough on the dangerous approach that the Biden administration wants, which would swing a wrecking ball through the tech economy. We have to avoid this.
• It is particularly important that the US not follow the EU’s lead on artificial intelligence regulation at a time when we are in heated competition w China on the AI front as I noted here.
• American tech innovators flourished thanks to a positive innovation culture rooted in permissionless innovation & policies like Section 230, which allowed American firms to become global powerhouses. And we’ve moved from a world of information scarcity to one of information abundance. Let’s keep it that way.

My colleague Wayne Brough and I recently went on the “Kibbe on Liberty” show to discuss how to discuss the state of free speech on the internet. We explained how censorship is a Big Government problem, not a Big Tech problem. Here’s the complete description of the show and the link to the full episode is below.

” With Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter, we are in the middle of a national debate about the tension between censorship and free expression online. On the Right, many people are calling for government to rein in what they perceive as the excesses of Big Tech companies, while the Left wants the government to crack down on speech they deem dangerous. Both approaches make the same mistake of giving politicians authority over what we are allowed to say and hear. And with recent revelations about government agents leaning on social media companies to censor speech, it’s clear that when it comes to the online conversation, there’s no such thing as a purely private company.”

For more on this issues, please see: “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues.”

We are entering a new era for technology policy in which many pundits and policymakers will use “algorithmic fairness” as a universal Get Out of Jail Free card when they push for new regulations on digital speech and innovation. Proposals to regulate things like “online safety,” “hate speech,” “disinformation,” and “bias” among other things often raise thorny definitional questions because of their highly subjective nature. In the United States, efforts by government to control these things will often trigger judicial scrutiny, too, because restraints on speech violate the First Amendment. Proponents of prior restraint or even ex post punishments understand this reality and want to get around it. Thus, in an effort to avoid constitutional scrutiny and lengthy court battles, they are engaged in a rebranding effort and seeking to push their regulatory agendas through a techno-panicky prism of “algorithmic fairness” or “algorithmic justice.”

Hey, who could possibly be against FAIRNESS and JUSTICE? Of course, the devil is always in the details as Neil Chilson and I discuss in our new paper for the The Federalist Society and Regulatory Transparency Project on, “The Coming Onslaught of ‘Algorithmic Fairness’ Regulations.” We document how federal and state policymakers from both parties are currently considering a variety of new mandates for artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and automated systems that, if imposed, “would thunder through our economy with one of the most significant expansions of economic and social regulation – and the power of the administrative state – in recent history.”

We note how, at the federal level, bills are being floated with titles like the “Algorithmic Justice and Online Platform Transparency Act” and the “Protecting Americans from Dangerous Algorithms Act,” which would introduce far-reaching regulations requiring AI innovators to reveal more about how their algorithms work or even hold them liable if their algorithms are thought to be amplifying hateful or extremist content. Other proposed measures like the “Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act” and the “Online Consumer Protection Act” would demand greater algorithmic transparency as it relates to social media content moderation policies and procedures. Finally, measures like the “Kids Online Safety Act” would require audits of algorithmic recommendation systems that supposed targeted or harmed children. Algorithmic regulation is also creeping into proposed privacy regulations, such as the “American Data Protection and Privacy Act of 2022.”

And then there are all the state laws–many of which have been pushed by conservatives–that would mandate “algorithmic transparency” for social media content moderation in the name of countering supposed viewpoint bias. Bills in Florida and Texas take this approach. Meanwhile, conservatives in Congress Senator Josh Hawley’s (R-MO) push for bills like the “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” that requires large tech companies undergo external audits proving that their algorithms and content-moderation techniques are politically unbiased. It’s an open invitation to regulators and trial lawyers to massively regulate technology and speech under the guise of “algorithmic fairness.” Countless left-leaning law professors and European officials have already proposed a comprehensive algorithmic audit apparatus to regulate innovators in every sector.

It’s the rise of the Code Cops. If we continue down this path, it ends with a complete rejection of the permissionless innovation ethos that made America’s information technology sector a global powerhouse. Instead, we’ll be stuck with the very worst type of “Mother, May I” precautionary principle-based regulatory regime that will be imposing the equivalent of occupational licensing requirements for coders.

If code is speech, algorithms are as well. Defenders of innovation freedom need to step up and prepare for the fight to come. [See my earlier essay, “AI Eats the World: Preparing for the Computational Revolution and the Policy Debates Ahead.”] Chilson and I outline the broad contours of the battle for freedom of speech and the freedom to innovation that is brewing. It will be the most important technology policy issue of the next ten years. I hope you take the time to read our new essay and understand why. And below you will find a few dozen more essay on the same topic if you’d like to dig even deeper.

Additional Reading :

• Adam Thierer, “We Really Need To ‘Have a Conversation’ About AI … or Do We?,” Discourse, October 6, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “AI Eats the World: Preparing for the Computational Revolution and the Policy Debates Ahead,” Medium, September 10, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “’Running Code and Rough Consensus’ for AI: Polycentric Governance in the Algorithmic Age,” Medium, September 1, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “AI Governance ‘on the Ground’ vs ‘on the Books,’” Medium, August 19, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Responses to Jack Clark’s AI Policy Tweetstorm,” Medium, August 8, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Why the Future of AI Will Not Be Invented in Europe,” Technology Liberation Front, August 1, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “How Science Fiction Dystopianism Shapes the Debate over AI & Robotics,” Discourse, July 26, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Why is the US Following the EU’s Lead on Artificial Intelligence Regulation?” The Hill, July 21, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “Algorithmic Auditing and AI Impact Assessments: The Need for Balance,” Medium, July 13, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “The Proper Governance Default for AI,” Medium, May 26, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, “What I Learned about the Power of AI at the Cleveland Clinic,” Medium, May 6, 2022.
• Adam Thierer, Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium, American Enterprise Institute (April 2022).
• Adam Thierer and John Croxton, “Elon Musk and the Coming Federal Showdown Over Driverless Vehicles,” Discourse, November 22, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “A Global Clash of Visions: The Future of AI Policy,” The Hill, May 4, 2021.
• Adam Thierer, “A Brief History of Soft Law in ICT Sectors: Four Case Studies,” Jurimetrics, Vol. 61 (Fall 2021): 79-119.
• Adam Thierer, “U.S. Artificial Intelligence Governance in the Obama–Trump Years,” IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, Vol, 2, Issue 4 (2021).
• Adam Thierer, “The Worst Regulation Ever Proposed,” The Bridge, September 2019.
• Ryan Hagemann, Jennifer Huddleston Skees & Adam Thierer, “Soft Law for Hard Problems: The Governance of Emerging Technologies in an Uncertain Future,” Colorado Technology Law Journal, Vol. 17 (2018).
• Adam Thierer & Trace Mitchell, “No New Tech Bureaucracy,” Real Clear Policy, September 10, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “OMB’s AI Guidance Embodies Wise Tech Governance,” Mercatus Center Public Comment, March 13, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Europe’s New AI Industrial Policy,” Medium, February 20, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Trump’s AI Framework & the Future of Emerging Tech Governance,” Medium, January 8, 2020.
• Adam Thierer, “Soft Law: The Reconciliation of Permissionless & Responsible Innovation,” Chapter 7 in Adam Thierer, Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2020): 183-240.
• Andrea O’Sullivan & Adam Thierer, “Counterpoint: Regulators Should Allow the Greatest Space for AI Innovation,” Communications of the ACM, Volume 61, Issue 12, (December 2018): 33-35.
• Adam Thierer, Andrea O’Sullivan & Raymond Russell, “Artificial Intelligence and Public Policy,” Mercatus Research (2017).
• Adam Thierer, “Shouldn’t the Robots Have Eaten All the Jobs at Amazon By Now?” Technology Liberation Front, July 26, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “Are ‘Permissionless Innovation’ and ‘Responsible Innovation’ Compatible?” Technology Liberation Front, July 12, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “The Growing AI Technopanic,” Medium, April 27, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “The Day the Machines Took Over,” Medium, May 11, 2017.
• Adam Thierer, “When the Trial Lawyers Come for the Robot Cars,” Slate, June 10, 2016.
• Adam Thierer, “Learning by Doing,” the Process of Innovation & the Future of Employment,” Technology Liberation Front, September 25, 2015.
• Adam Thierer, “Problems with Precautionary Principle-Minded Tech Regulation & a Federal Robotics Commission,” Medium, September 22, 2014.
• Adam Thierer, “On the Line between Technology Ethics vs. Technology Policy,” Technology Liberation Front, August 1, 2013.

I’ve been floating around in conservative policy circles for 30 years and I have spent much of that time covering media policy and child safety issues. My time in conservative circles began in 1992 with a 9-year stint at the Heritage Foundation, where I launched the organization’s policy efforts on media regulation, the Internet, and digital technology. Meanwhile, my work on child safety has spanned 4 think tanks, multiple blue ribbon child safety commissions, countless essays, dozens of filings and testimonies, and even a multi-edition book.

During this three-decade run, I’ve tried my hardest to find balanced ways of addressing some of the legitimate concerns that many conservatives have about kids, media content, and online safety issues. Raising kids is the hardest job in the world. My daughter and son are now off at college, but the last twenty years of helping them figure out how to navigate the world and all the challenges it poses was filled with difficulties. This was especially true because my daughter and son faced completely different challenges when it came to media content and online interactions. Simply put, there is no one-size-fits-all playbook when it comes to raising kids or addressing concerns about healthy media interactions.

Something Must Be Done!

My personal approach, as I summarized in my book on these issues, was to first and foremost do everything in my power to (a) keep an open mind about new media content and platforms, and (b) ensure an open line of ongoing communication with my kids about the issues they might be facing. Shutting down conversation or calling for others to come in and save the day were the worst two options, in my opinion. As I summarized in my book, “At the end of the day, there is simply no substitute for talking to our children in an open, loving, and understanding fashion about the realities of-this world, including the more distasteful bits.” This was my Parental Prime Directive, if you will. I just always wanted to make sure that my kids felt like they could talk to me about their issues, no matter how varied, horrible, or heart-breaking those problems might be.

When talking with other parents through the years, I’ve heard about their own unique concerns and struggles. Every family faces different challenges because no two kids or situations are alike. Moreover, the challenges can feel overwhelming in our modern world of information abundance, which is flush with ubiquitous communications and media options. Sometimes these parental frustrations can fester and grow into a sort of rage until you finally hear folks utter that famous phrase: Something must be done! And that “something” is often some sort of government regulation “for the children.”

Again, I get it. When all your best efforts to help or protect your kids don’t seem to work according to plan, it’s only natural to call for help. But there are very serious problems associated with calling on government for that help. When legislators and regulators are asked to play the role of National Nanny, it comes with all the same baggage that accompanies many other efforts by the government to intervene in our lives or control what people or organizations can say or do.

Conservative Contradictions

These are particularly sensitive issues for many conservatives, both because conservatives tend to have more heightened concerns about media content and online safety issues, and also because the steps they often recommend to address these issues can quickly come into conflict with their own first principles.

Let me run through six ways that support for media content controls and child safety regulations can sometimes run afoul of conservative principles.

1) It’s a rejection of personal responsibility

Again, I understand all too well how hard parenting can be. But that does not mean we should abdicate our parental responsibilities to the State. Conservatives have spent decades fighting government when it comes to broken schools and the supposed brainwashing many kids get in them. The rallying cry of conservatives has long been: Let us have a greater say in how we raise and educate our children because the State is failing us or betraying our values.

Thus, when conservatives suggest that the State should be making decisions for us as it pertains to anything the government says is a “child safety” issue, there is some serious cognitive dissonance going on there. In his humorous Devil’s Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce jokingly defined responsibility as, “A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one’s neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star.” For parental responsibility to actually mean something, it has to be more than a “detachable burden” that we unload upon government.

2) It’s an embrace of the administrative state & arbitrary rule by unelected bureaucrats

Beyond the classroom, conservatives have long been concerned about the specter of massive administrative agencies and armies of unelected bureaucrats controlling our lives from the shadows. I’ve spent decades working with conservative organizations and scholars trying to get the administrative state under some control to scale back its enormous power, arbitrary edicts, and costly burdens. Over-criminalization has become such a problem that, according to the Heritage Foundation, “regulatory offenses… have proliferated to the point that, literally, nobody knows how many federal criminal regulations exist today.” We’re all criminals of some sort in the eyes of the modern regulatory state.

Yet, when conservatives advocate the expansion of the administrative state through new “online safety” regulations, they are just making the over-criminalization problem worse, including by treating our own children as guilty parties for simply trying to access the primary media platforms of their generation and interact with their friends there. For example, calls to ban all teens from social media until they’re 18 would result in the most massive “forbidden fruit” nightmare in American history, with every teen suddenly becoming a criminal actor and working together to tunnel around bans using the same sort of VPNs and evasion technologies people in China and other repressive nations use to get around over-bearing speech policies. [See: “Again, We Should Not Ban All Teens from Social Media”]

Needless to say, all this regulation and bureaucratic empowerment would have massive negative externalities for online freedom more generally as the era of “permissionless innovation” is replaced by a new age of permission-slip regulation.

3) It’s a rejection of the First Amendment & free speech rights

Conservatives have spent many decades pushing for greater First Amendment-based freedoms as it pertains to religious liberty and or organizational/corporate speech issues. Thus, when conservatives seek to undermine free speech principles and jurisprudence in the name of child safety, it could undo everything conservatives have been fighting to accomplish in those other contexts.

Conservatives are understandably upset with some social media platforms for being too over-zealous with certain types of speech takedowns or de-platformings. But two wrongs don’t make a right, and they should not be calling on Big Government to be imposing its own editorial judgments in place of private actors. [See: “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“ and “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer.“]

4) It’s a rejection of property rights and freedom more generally

Related to the previous two points, conservatives have long upheld the sanctity of property rights in many different contexts. This includes the property rights that private establishments enjoy under the Constitution to generally decide how to structure their operations, who they will do business with, and how they will do so. Private organizations and religious institutions possess not only free speech rights in this regard, but property and contractual rights, too.

But when it comes to “child safety” mandates, some conservatives would toss all this out the window and undermine those rights, replacing them with burdensome regulatory mandates that tell private parties how to conduct their affairs. Again, there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance going on here and it could have serious blowback for conservatives when the property / contractual rights of other people or organizations are undermined on similar grounds.

5) It’s an embrace of frivolous lawsuits & the trial lawyers that bring them

The last time I checked, trial lawyers were not exactly the most conservative-friendly constituency. For many decades, conservatives have looked to advance tort reform, limit junk science and frivolous lawsuits, and make sure that the courts don’t engage in excessive judicial activism.

Unfortunately, many of the child safety regulations being proposed today would empower the regulatory state and trial lawyers at the same time. Many of the bills being floated open the door to open-ended litigation and potentially punishing liability for private platforms — and not just against deep-pocketed “Big Tech” companies. The fact is, once conservatives open the litigation floodgates based on amorphous accusations of potential online safety harms, they will be empowering the tort bar (one of the biggest supporters of the Democratic Party, no less) to launch a legal jihad against any and every media platform out there. Good luck putting that genie back in the bottle once you unleash it.

6) It’s an embrace of the same moral panic arguments your parents leveled against you

How quickly we forget the accusations our own parents and others leveled against us as children. Remember when video games were going to make us a lost generation of murderous youth? Or when rap and rock-and-roll music were going to send us straight to hell? Today, those kids are all grown up and trying to tell us that they are fine but it’s this latest generation that is doomed. It’s just an endless generational cycle of moral panics. [See: “Why Do We Always Sell the Next Generation Short?” and “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics”] Today’s conservatives need to remember that they, too, were once kids and somehow muddled through to adulthood.

The “3-E” Approach Is the Better Answer

At this point, some of the people who’ve read this far are screaming at the screen: “So, are you saying we should just do nothing!?”

Absolutely not. But it is important that we consider less onerous and more practical ways to address these challenging issues without falling prey to Big Government gimmicks that would undermine other important principles. We should start by acknowledging that there are no easy fixes or silver-bullet solutions. The plain truth of the matter is that the best solutions here can seem messy and unsatisfying to many because they require enormous ongoing efforts to mentor and assist our kids at a far deeper level than some folks are comfortable with.

For example, it is just insanely uncomfortable to have to speak with your kids about online bullying or harassment, pornography, violence in movies and games, hate speech, and so on. And I haven’t even mentioned the hardest things to talk to kids about: The daily news of the real world: wars, violence, tragic accidents, famines, etc. Honestly, the hardest conversations I’ve had to have with my kids were those about school shootings. By comparison, many other discussions about online content and interactions were much easier. To the extent that we’re attempting to measure and address negative media affects, I firmly believe that there a few things in this world more horrifying to kids — or harder to talk with them about — than the first 10 minutes of what’s on cable news each hour of the day.

Regardless, whether we’re talking about the potential “harms” or mass media or online content, we cannot pretend there exists a simple solution to any of it. Here’s the better approach.

I recently authored a study for the American Enterprise Institute on, “Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium.” It was my attempt to sketch out a flexible, pragmatic, bottom-up set of governance principles for modern technology platforms and issues. In that report, I noted how “[t]he First Amendment constitutes a particularly high barrier to the use of hard law in the United States,” and that court challenges were likely to continue to block many of the regulatory efforts being floated today, just as been the case countless times before in recent decades. Thus, we need to have backup approaches to online safety beyond one-size-fits-all regulatory Hail Mary passes.

I have described that backup plan as the “3-E” approach or “layered approach” to online safety:

• Empowerment of parents: Parental controls cannot solve all the world’s problems. It’s better to view them as helpful speed bumps or emergency alerts for when things are going badly for your child. In the old days, we placed a lot of faith in filtering, and that still has a role along with other tools that help place some reasonable limits not only on content but also overall consumption. But the best types of parental empowerment are those that force conversations between parents and kids by allowing reasonable monitoring to happen that is scaled by age (as in more limits for younger kids until they are gradually relaxed over time). And other carrot-and-stick tools and approaches are incredibly useful in helping parents place smart limits on youth activity and overall consumption.
• Education of youth: Education is the strategy with the most lasting impact for online safety. Education and digital literacy provide skills and wisdom that can last a lifetime. Specifically, education can help teach both kids (and adults!) how to behave in — or respond to — a wide variety of situations. Building resiliency and encouraging healthy interactions is the goal.
• Enforcement of existing laws: There are many sensible and straightforward laws already in place that address more concrete types of harm and harassment. And we have lots of laws pertaining to fraud and unfair and deceptive practices. Sometimes these rules can be challenging (and time-consuming) to enforce, but they constitute an existing backstop that can handle most worst-case scenarios when other less-restrictive steps fall short. And we should certainly tap these existing remedies before advancing unworkable new regulatory regimes.

I noted in my AEI study that, between 2000 and 2010, six major online-safety task forces or blue-ribbon commissions were formed to study online-safety issues and consider what should be done to address them. Each of them recommended some variant of the “3-E” approach as they encouraged a variety of best practices, educational approaches, and technological-empowerment solutions to address various safety concerns. Self-regulatory codes, private content-rating systems, and a wide variety of different parental-control technologies all proliferated during this period. Many multi-stakeholder initiatives and other organizations were also formed to address governance issues collaboratively. There are countless groups doing important work on this front today, including my old friends at the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI) among many others.

These organizations push for a layered approach to online safety and work closely with educators, child development experts, and other academics and activists to find workable solutions to new online safety challenges as they arise. Their work is never done, and at times it can feel overwhelming. But, again, it’s the nature of the task at hand. We all must work together to continuously devise new and better approaches to addressing these challenges, because they will be endless. But let’s please not expect that we can unload these responsibilities on government and expect regulators to somehow handle it for us.

Do the Ends Justify the Means When it Comes to Media & Content Control?

I could be wasting my breath here because I’ve been attempting to appeal to conservative principles that may be rapidly disappearing from the modern conservative movement. Donald Trump radically disrupted everything in American politics, but especially the Republican Party. Many so-called national conservatives now live by Trump’s central operating principle: The ends justify the means. The ends are “owning the libs” in any way possible. And “the libs” include not only anyone on the Left of the political spectrum, but even those individuals and institutions that Trumpian conservatives believe are “the enemy” and controlled by “liberal interests.” By their definition, this now includes virtually all large media and technology companies and platforms. Thus, when we turn to the means, it’s increasingly the case that just about anything goes — including many traditional conservative principles.

To see how far we’ve come, recall what President Ronald Reagan said 35 years ago when vetoing an effort to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. “History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and compe­tition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee,” he said. At the time, President Reagan was confronted with some of the same arguments we hear today about media being too biased or conservatives not getting a fair shake. But he called upon his fellow conservatives to reject the idea that Big Government was the solution to such problems.

Unfortunately, Mr. Trump and some of his most loyal followers and even some major conservative groups today have largely given up on this logic and instead embraced regulation. While Trumpian conservatives love to decry everyone they oppose as “communists,” ironically it is this same group that is embracing a sort of communications collectivism as it pertains to modern media control. In the Trumpian worldview, media and tech platforms are useful only to the extent they carry out the will of the party — or at least the man on top of it.

These national conservatives have made a horrible miscalculation. Feeling aggrieved by Big Tech “bias,” or just feeling overwhelmed by things they don’t like about online platforms, they’ve decided that two wrongs make a right. In reality, two political wrongs never make a right, but they almost always combine to make government a lot bigger and more powerful.

It’s an incredibly naïve gamble almost certainly destined to fail, but they should ask themselves what it means if it works. This endless ratcheting effect will result in comprehensive state control of most channels of communications and information dissemination. Is this a game that you really think you can play better than the Lefties?

I’ll close by returning to one of Reagan’s favorite jokes. He always used to say that, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” I would suggest that an even scarier version of that line would be, “We’re from the government and we’re here to help you parent your kids.”

Don’t let it be you uttering that line.

______________

Additional Reading

· Adam Thierer, “Again, We Should Not Ban All Teens from Social Media”

· Adam Thierer, “Why Do We Always Sell the Next Generation Short?”

· Adam Thierer, “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues”

· Adam Thierer, “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics”

· Adam Thierer, “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment“

· Adam Thierer, “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer“

· Adam Thierer, “Ongoing Series: Moral Panics / Techno-Panics”

· Adam Thierer, “No Goldilocks Formula for Content Moderation in Social Media or the Metaverse, But Algorithms Still Help”

· Adam Thierer, “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“

· Adam Thierer, “Conservatives & Common Carriage: Contradictions & Challenges“

· Adam Thierer, “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“

· Adam Thierer, “A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto“

· Adam Thierer, “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“

· Adam Thierer, “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“

· Adam Thierer, “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“

· Adam Thierer, “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“

· Adam Thierer, “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

· Adam Thierer, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods (2009).

[Cross-posted from Medium.]

In an age of hyper-partisanship, one issue unites the warring tribes of American politics like no other: hatred of “Big Tech.” You know, those evil bastards who gave us instantaneous access to a universe of information at little to no cost. Those treacherous villains! People are quick to forget the benefits of moving from a world of Information Poverty to one of Information Abundance, preferring to take for granted all they’ve been given and then find new things to complain about.

But what mostly unites people against large technology platforms is the feeling that they are just too big or too influential relative to other institutions, including government. I get some of that concern, even if I strongly disagree with many of their proposed solutions, such as the highly dangerous sledgehammer of antitrust breakups or sweeping speech controls. Breaking up large tech companies would not only compromise the many benefits they provide us with, but it would undermine America’s global standing as a leader in information and computational technology. We don’t want that. And speech codes or meddlesome algorithmic regulations are on a collision course with the First Amendment and will just result in endless litigation in the courts.

There’s a better path forward. As President Ronald Reagan rightly said in 1987 when vetoing a bill to reestablish the Fairness Doctrine, “History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.” In other words, as I wrote in a previous essay about “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues,” more innovation and competition are always superior to more regulation when it comes to encouraging speech and speech opportunities.

Can Government Get Things Just Right?

But what about the accusations we hear on both the left and right about tech companies failing to properly manage or moderate online content in some fashion? This is not only a concern for today’s most popular social media platforms, but it is a growing concern for the so-called Metaverse, where questions about content policies already surround activities and interactions on AR and VR systems.

The problem here is that different people want different things from digital platforms when it comes to content moderation. As I noted in a column for The Hill late last year:

there is considerable confusion in the complaints both parties make about “Big Tech.” Democrats want tech companies doing more to limit content they claim is hate speech, misinformation, or that incites violence. Republicans want online operators to do less, because many conservatives believe tech platforms already take down too much of their content.

Thus, large digital intermediaries are expected to make all the problems of the world go away through a Goldilocks formula whereby digital platforms will get content moderation “just right.” It’s an impossible task with billions of voices speaking. Bureaucrats won’t do a better job refereeing these disputes, and letting them do so will turn every content spat into an endless regulatory proceeding.

What Algorithms Can and Cannot Do to Help

But we should be clear on one thing: These disputes will always be with us because every media platform in history has had some sort of content moderation policies, even if we didn’t call them that until recently. Creating what used to just be called guidelines or standards for information production and dissemination has always been a tricky business. But the big difference between the old and new days comes down to three big problems:

#1- the volume problem: There’s just a ton of content online to moderate today compared to the past.

#2- the subjectivity problem: Content moderation always involves “eye of the beholder” questions, but now there’s even more of those problems because of Problem #1.

#3- the crafty adversaries problem: There are a lot of people bound and determined to get around any rules or restrictions platforms impose, and they’ll find creative ways to do so.

These problems are nicely summarized in an excellent new AEI report by Alex Feerst on, “The Use of AI in Online Content Moderation.” This is the fifth in a series of new reports from the AEI’s Digital Platforms and American Life project. The goal of the project is to highlight how the “democratization of knowledge and influence comes with incredible opportunities but also immense challenges. How should policymakers think about the digital platforms that have become embedded in our social and civic life?” Various experts have been asked to sound off on that question and address different challenges. The series kicked off in April with an essay I wrote on “Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium.” More studies are coming.

In Feerst’s new report, the focus is squarely on the issue of algorithmic content moderation policies and procedures. Feerst provides a brilliant summary of how digital media platforms currently utilize AI to assist their content moderation efforts. He notes:

The short answer to the question “why AI” is scale — the sheer never-ending vastness of online speech. Scale is the prime mover of online platforms, at least in their current, mainly ad-based form and maybe in all incarnations. It’s impossible to internalize the dynamics of running a digital platform without first spending some serious time just sitting and meditating on the dizzying, sublime amounts of speech we are talking about: 500 million tweets a day comes out to 200 billion tweets each year. More than 50 billion photos have been uploaded to Instagram. Over 700,000 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every day. I could go on. Expression that would previously have been ephemeral or limited in reach under the existing laws of nature and pre-digital publishing economics can now proliferate and move around the world. It turns out that, given the chance, we really like to hear ourselves talk.

So that’s the scale/volume problem in a nutshell. Algorithmic systems are absolutely going to be needed to help do some sifting and sorting, therefore.

What Do You Want to Do about Man-Boobs?

But then we immediately run into the subjectivity problem that pervades so many content moderation issues. When it comes to topics like hate speech, “There will be as many opinions as there are people. Three well-meaning civic groups will agree on four different definitions of hate speech,” Feerst notes.

Indeed, these eye-of-the-beholder judgment calls are ubiquitous and endlessly frustrating for content moderators. Let me tell you a quick story I told a Wall Street Journal reporter who asked me in 2019 why I gave up helping tech companies figure out how to handle these content moderation controversies. I had spent many years trying to help companies and trade associations figure this stuff out because I had been writing about these challenges since the late 1990s. But then finally I gave up. Why? Because of man boobs. Yes, man boobs. Here’s the summary of my story from that WSJ article:

Adam Thierer, a senior research fellow at the right-leaning Mercatus Center at George Mason University, says he used to consult with Facebook and other tech companies. The futility of trying to please all sides hit home after he heard complaints about a debate at YouTube over how much skin could be seen in breast-feeding videos.

While some argued the videos had medical purposes, other advisers wondered whether videos of shirtless men with large mammaries should be permitted as well. “I decided I don’t want to be the person who decides on whether man boobs are allowed,” says Mr. Thierer.

No, seriously. This has been one of the many crazy problems that content moderators have had to deal with. There are scumbag dudes with large mammaries who not only salaciously jiggle them around on camera for the world to see, but then even put whipped cream on their own boobs and lick it off. Now, if a woman does that and posts it on almost any mainstream platform, it’ll get quickly flagged (probably by an algorithmic filter) and probably immediately blocked. But if a dude with man boobs does the same thing, shouldn’t the policy be the same? Well, in our still very sexist world of double standards, policies can vary on that question. And I didn’t want any part of trying to figure out an answer to that question (and others like it), so I largely got out of the business of helping companies do so. Not even King Solomon could figure out a fair resolution to some of this stuff.

Algorithms can only help us so much here because, at some point, humans must tell the machines what to flag or block using some sort of subjective standard that will lead to all sorts of problems later. This is one reason why Feerst reminds us of another important rule here: “Don’t confuse a subjectivity problem for an accuracy problem, especially when you’re using automation technology.” As he notes:

If the things we’re doing are controversial among humans and it’s not even clear that humans judge them consistently, then using AI is not going to help. It’s just going to allow you to achieve the same controversial outcomes more quickly and in greater volume. In other words, if you can’t get 50 humans to agree on whether a particular post violates content rules, whether that content rule is well formulated, or whether that rule should exist, then why would automating this process help?

So Many Troublemakers (Sometimes Accidental)

The man boobs moderation story also reminds us that the crafty adversary problem will always haunt us, too. There are just so many bastards out there looking to cause trouble for whatever reason. “There will never be ‘set it and forget it’ technologies for these issues,” Feerst argues. “At best, it’s possible to imagine a state of dynamic equilibrium — eternal cops and robbers.”

That is exactly right. It’s a never-ending learning/coping process, as I noted in my earlier paper in the AEI series: “There is no Goldilocks formula that can get things just right” when it comes to many tech governance issues, especially content moderation issues. Muddling through is the new normal. And the exact same process is now unfolding for Metaverse content moderation. Algorithmic moderation helps us weed out the worst stuff and gives us a better chance of letting humans — with their limited time and resources — deal with the hardest problems (and problem-makers) out there.

Sometimes the content infractions may even be accidental. Here’s another embarrassing story involving me. I was asked last year to sit in on a VR meeting about content moderation in the Metaverse. I was wearing my headset and sitting at a virtual table with about 8 other people in the room. Back in my real-world office, I had my coffee mug sitting far to the right of me on a side table. After about 45 minutes of discussion, I realized that every time I reached way over to my right to grab my coffee mug in the real-world, my virtual self’s hand was reaching over and touching the crotch of the guy sitting next to me in the Metaverse! It looked like I was fondling the dude virtually! What a nightmare. I’m surprised someone didn’t report me for virtual harassment. I would have had to plead the coffee mug defense and throw myself on the mercy of the Meta-Court judge or jury.

Ok, so that’s a funny story, but you can imagine little mistakes like this happening all throughout the Metaverse as we slowly figure out how to interact normally in new virtual environments. We’ll have to rely on users and algorithms flagging some of the worst behaviors and then have humans evaluate the tough calls to the best of their abilities. But let’s not be fooled into thinking that humans can handle all these questions because the task at hand is too overwhelming and expensive for many platform operators. “Ten thousand employees here, ten thousand ergonomic mouse pads there, and pretty soon we’re talking about real money,” Feerst notes. “This is what the cost of running a platform looks like, once you’ve internalized the harmful and inexorable externalities we’ve learned about the hard way over the past decade.”

The Problem with “Explainability”

The key takeaway here is that content moderation at scale is messy, confusing, and unsatisfying. Do platforms need to be more transparent about how their algorithms work to do this screening? Yes, they do. But perfect transparency or “explainability” is impossible.

It’s hard to perfectly explain how algorithms work for the same reason it’s hard for your car mechanic to explain to you exactly how your car engine works. Except it’s even harder with algorithmic systems. As Feerst notes:

AI outputs can be hard to explain. In some cases, even the creators or managers of a particular product are no longer sure why it is functioning a particular way. It’s not like the formula to Coca-Cola; it’s constantly evolving. Requirements to “disclose the algorithm” may not help much if it means that companies will simply post a bunch of not especially meaningful code.

And if explainability was mandated by law, it’d instantly be gamed by still other troublemakers out there. A mandate to make AI perfectly transparent is an open invitation to every scam artist in the world to game platforms with new phishing attacks, spammy scams, and other such nonsense. Again, this is the “crafty adversaries” problem at work. Endless cat-and-mouse or, as Feerst says “eternal cops and robbers.”

So, in sum, content moderation — including algorithmic content moderation — is a nightmarishly difficult task, and there is no Goldilocks formula available to us that will help us get things just right. It’ll always just be endless experimentation and iteration with lots and lots of failures along the way. Learning by doing and constantly refining our systems and procedures is the key to helping us muddle through.

And if you think government will somehow figure this all out through some sort of top-down regulatory regime, ask yourself how well that worked out for Analog Era efforts to create “community standards” for broadcast radio and television. And then multiply that problem by a zillion. It cannot be done without severely undermining free speech and innovation. We don’t want to go down that path.

____________

Additional Reading

· “Again, We Should Not Ban All Teens from Social Media”

· “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues”

· “AI Eats the World: Preparing for the Computational Revolution and the Policy Debates Ahead”

· “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment“

· “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer“

· “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“

· “Conservatives & Common Carriage: Contradictions & Challenges“

· “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“

· “A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto“

· “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“

· “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“

· “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“

· “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“

· “The Not-So-SMART Act“

· “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

A growing number of conservatives are calling for Big Government censorship of social media speech platforms. Censorship proposals are to conservatives what price controls are to radical leftists: completely outlandish, unworkable, and usually unconstitutional fantasies of controlling things that are ultimately much harder to control than they realize. And the costs of even trying to impose and enforce such extremist controls are always enormous.

Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal ran a response I wrote to a proposal set forth by columnist Peggy Noonan in which she proposed banning everyone under 18 from all social-media sites (“We Can Protect Children and Keep the Internet Free,” Apr. 15). I expanded upon that letter in an essay here entitled, “Should All Kids Under 18 Be Banned from Social Media?” National Review also recently published an article penned by Christine Rosen in which she also proposes to “Ban Kids from Social Media.” And just this week, Zach Whiting of the Texas Public Policy Foundation published an essay on “Why Texas Should Ban Social Media for Minors.”

I’ll offer a few more thoughts here in addition to what I’ve already said elsewhere. First, here is my response to the Rosen essay. National Review gave me 250 words to respond to her proposal:

While admitting that “law is a blunt instrument for solving complicated social problems,” Christine Rosen (“Keep Them Offline,” June 27) nonetheless downplays the radicalness of her proposal to make all teenagers criminals for accessing the primary media platforms of their generation. She wants us to believe that allowing teens to use social media is the equivalent of letting them operate a vehicle, smoke tobacco, or drink alcohol. This is false equivalence. Being on a social-media site is not the same as operating two tons of steel and glass at speed or using mind-altering substances. Teens certainly face challenges and risks in any new media environment, but to believe that complex social pathologies did not exist before the Internet is folly. Echoing the same “lost generation” claims made by past critics who panicked over comic books and video games, Rosen asks, “Can we afford to lose another generation of children?” and suggests that only sweeping nanny-state controls can save the day. This cycle is apparently endless: Those “lost generations” grow up fine, only to claim it’s the  next generation that is doomed! Rosen casually dismisses free-speech concerns associated with mass-media criminalization, saying that her plan “would not require censorship.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Rosen’s prohibitionist proposal would deny teens the many routine and mostly beneficial interactions they have with their peers online every day. While she belittles media literacy and other educational and empowerment-based solutions to online problems, those approaches continue to be a better response than the repressive regulatory regime she would have Big Government impose on society.

I have a few more things to say beyond these brief comments.

First, as I alluded to in my short response to Rosen, we’ve heard similar “lost generation” stories before. Rosen might as well be channeling the ghost of Dr. Fredric Wertham (author of Seduction of the Innocent), who in the 1950s declared comics books a public health menace and lobbied lawmakers to restrict teen access to them, insisting such comics were “the cause of a psychological mutilation of children.” The same sort of “lost generation” predictions were commonplace in countless anti-video game screeds of the 1990s. Critics were writing books with titles like Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill and referring to video games as “murder simulators,” Ironically, just as the video game panic was heating up, juvenile crime rates were plummeting. But that didn’t stop the pundits and policymakers from suggesting that an entire generation of so-called “vidiots” were headed for disaster. (See my 2019 short history: “Confessions of a ‘Vidiot’: 50 Years of Video Games & Moral Panics“).

It is consistently astonishing to me how, as I noted in 2012 essay, “We Always Sell the Next Generation Short.” There seems to be a never-ending cycle of generational mistrust. “There has probably never been a generation since the Paleolithic that did not deplore the fecklessness of the next and worship a golden memory of the past,” notes Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist.

For example, in 1948, the poet T. S. Eliot declared: “We can assert with some confidence that our own period is one of decline; that the standards of culture are lower than they were fifty years ago; and that the evidences of this decline are visible in every department of human activity.” We’ve heard parents (and policymakers) make similar claims about every generation since then.

What’s going on here? Why does this cycle of generational pessimism and mistrust persist? In a 1992 journal article, the late journalism professor Margaret A. Blanchard offered this explanation:

“[P]arents and grandparents who lead the efforts to cleanse today’s society seem to forget that they survived alleged attacks on their morals by different media when they were children. Each generation’s adults either lose faith in the ability of their young people to do the same or they become convinced that the dangers facing the new generation are much more substantial than the ones they faced as children.”

In a 2009 book on culture, my colleague Tyler Cowen also noted how, “Parents, who are entrusted with human lives of their own making, bring their dearest feelings, years of time, and many thousands of dollars to their childrearing efforts.” Unsurprisingly, therefore, “they will react with extreme vigor against forces that counteract such an important part of their life program.” This explains why “the very same individuals tend to adopt cultural optimism when they are young, and cultural pessimism once they have children,” Cowen says.

Building on Blanchard and Cowen’s observation, I have explained how the most simple explanation for this phenomenon is that many parents and cultural critics have passed through their “adventure window.” The willingness of humans to try new things and experiment with new forms of culture—our “adventure window”—fades rapidly after certain key points in life, as we gradually settle in our ways. As the English satirist Douglas Adams once humorously noted: “Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”

There is no doubt social media can create or exacerbate certain social pathologies among youth. But pro-censorship conservatives wants to take the easy way out with a Big Government media ban for the ages.

Ultimately, it’s a solution that will not be effective. Raising children and mentoring youth is certainly the hardest task we face as adults because simple solutions rarely exist to complex human challenges–and the issues kids face are often particularly hard for many parents and adults to grapple with because we often fail to fully understand both the unique issues each generation might face, and we definitely fail to fully grasp the nature of each new medium that youth embrace.  Simplistic solution–even proposals for outright bans–will not work or solve serious problems.

An outright government ban on online platforms or digital devices is likely never going to happen due to First Amendment constraints, but even ignoring the jurisprudential barriers, bans won’t work for a reason that these conservatives never bother considering: Many parents will help their kids get access to those technologies and to evade restrictions on their use. Countless parents already do so in violation of COPPA rules, and not just because they worry that their kid won’t have access to what some other kids have. Rather, many parents (like me) both wanted to make sure I could more easily communicate with them, and also ensure that they could enjoy those technologies and use them to explore the world.

These conservatives might think some parents like me are monsters for allowing my (now grown) children to get on social media when they were teens. I wasn’t blind to the challenges, but recognized that sticking one’s head in the ground or hoping for divine intervention from the Nanny State was impractical and unwise. The hardest conversations I ever had with my kids were about the ugliness they sometimes experienced online, but those conversations were also countered by the many joys that I knew online interactions brought them. Shall I tell you about everything my son learned online before 13 about building model rockets or soapbox derby cars? Or the countless sites my daughter visited gathering ideas for her arts and crafts projects when, before the age of 13, she started hand-painting and selling jean jackets (eventually prompting her to pursue an art school degree)? Again, as I noted in my National Review response, Rosen’s prohibitionist proposal would deny teens these experiences and the countless other routine and entirely beneficial interactions that they have with their peers online every day.

There is simply no substitute for talking to your kids in the most open, understanding, and loving fashion possible. My #1 priority with my own children was not foreclosing all the new digital media platforms and devices at their disposal. That was going to be almost impossible. Other approaches are needed.

Yes, of course, the world can be an ugly place. I mean, have you ever watched the nightly news on television? It’s damn ugly. Shouldn’t we block youth access to it when scenes of war and violence are shown? Newspapers are full of ugliness, too. Should a kid be allowed to see the front page of the paper when it discusses or shows the aftermath of school shootings, acts of terrorism, or even just natural disasters? I could go on, but you get the point. And you could try to claim that somehow today’s social media environment is significantly worse for kids than the mass media of old, but you cannot prove it.

Of course you’ll have anecdotes, and many of them will again point to complex social pathologies. But I have entire shelves full of books on my office wall that made similar claims about the effects of books, the telephone, radio and television, comics, cable TV, every musical medium ever, video games, and advertising efforts across all these mediums. Hundreds upon hundreds of studies were done over the past half century about the effects of depictions of violence in movies, television, and video games. And endless court battles ensued.

In the end, nothing came out of it because the literature was inconclusive and frequently contradictory. After many years of panicking about youth and media violence, in 2020, the American Psychological Association issued a new statement slowly reversing course on misguided past statements about video games and acts of real-world violence. The APA’s old statement said that evidence “confirms [the] link between playing violent video games and aggression.”  But the APA has come around and now says that, “there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a causal link between violent video games and violent behavior.” More specifically, the APA now says: “Violence is a complex social problem that likely stems from many factors that warrant attention from researchers, policy makers and the public. Attributing violence to violent video gaming is not scientifically sound and draws attention away from other factors.”

This is exactly what we should expect to find true for youth and social media. Most of the serious scholars in the field already note studies and findings about youth and social media must be carefully evaluated and that many other factors need to be considered whenever evaluating claims about complex social phenomenon.

While Rosen belittles media literacy and other educational and empowerment-based solutions to online problems, those approaches continue to represent the best first-order response when compared to the repressive regulatory regime she would impose on society.

Finally, I want to just reiterate what I said in my brief  National Review response about the enormous challenges associated with mass criminalization or speech platforms. Rosen seems to image that all the costs and controversies will lie on the supply-side of social media. Just call for a ban and then magically all kids disappear from social media and the big evil tech capitalists eat all the costs and hassles. Nonsense. It’s the demand-side of criminalization efforts where the most serious costs lie. What do you really think kids are going to do if Uncle Sam suddenly does ban everyone under 18 from going on a “social media site,” whatever that very broad term entails? This will become another sad chapter in the history of Big Government prohibitionist efforts that fail miserably, but not before declaring mass groups of people criminals–this time including everyone under 18–and then trying to throw the book at them when they seek to avoid those repressive controls. There are better ways to address these problems than with such extremist proposals.

Additional Reading from Adam Thierer on Media & Content Regulation :

• “Should All Kids Under 18 Be Banned from Social Media?”
• “Why Do We Always Sell the Next Generation Short?”
• “The APA’s Welcome New Statement on Video Game Violence“
• “Video Games and Moral Panic“
• Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods, 4th Edition.
• “Technopanics and the Great Social Networking Scare“
• “More on Monkey See-Monkey Do Theories about Media Violence & Real-World Crime“
• “Video Games, Media Violence & the Cathartic Effect Hypothesis.”)
• “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues“
• “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment“
• “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer“
• “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“
• “Conservatives & Common Carriage: Contradictions & Challenges“
• “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“
• “A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“
• “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“
• “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“
• “The Not-So-SMART Act“
• “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

• “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age,” Catholic University Law School, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007): 431-482.
• Testimony at FCC’s Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era”, March 3, 2010.
• “FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment in the Information Age,”

It is my honor to have the lead paper in this new series. My 19-page essay is entitled, Governing Emerging Technology in an Age of Policy Fragmentation and Disequilibrium, and it represents my effort to concisely tie together all my writing over the past 30 years on governance trends for the Internet and related technologies. The key takeaways from my essay are:

• Traditional governance mechanisms are being strained by modern technological and political realities. Newer technologies, especially digital ones, are developing at an ever-faster rate and building on top of each other, blurring lines between sectors.
• Congress has failed to keep up with the quickening pace of technological change. It also continues to delegate most of its constitutional authority to agencies to deal with most policy concerns. But agencies are overwhelmed too. This situation is unlikely to change, creating a governance gap.
• Decentralized governance techniques are filling the gap. Soft law—informal, iterative, experimental, and collaborative solutions—represents the new normal for technological governance. This is particularly true for information sectors, including social media platforms, for which the First Amendment acts as a major constraint on formal regulation anyway.
• No one-size-fits-all tool can address the many governance issues related to fast-paced science and technology developments; therefore, decentralized governance mechanisms may be better suited to address newer policy concerns.

My arguments will frustrate many people of varying political dispositions because I adopt a highly pragmatic approach to technological governance. No matter what your preferred ideal state of affairs looks like in terms of technological governance, you’re bound to be disappointed by the way high-tech policy is unfolding today. Many people desire bright-letter hard law that has government(s) establishing comprehensive, precautionary regulation of various tech sectors. Others prefer a clearly defined but more light-touch policy regime for emerging technology. Alas, neither of these preferred hard law dispositions describe the world we live in today, nor will either of them likely govern the future. My essay outlines a variety of reasons why such hard law approaches are breaking down today, including general legislative dysfunctionalism, the endless delegation of power from Congress to regulatory agencies or the states, and the the intensifying “pacing problem” (i.e., the fact that technological change is happening at a must faster rate than policy change).

In light of this, I argue:

it is smart to think practically about alternative governance frameworks when traditional hard-law approaches prove slow or ineffective in addressing governance needs. It is also wise to consider alternative governance frameworks that might address the occasional downsides of disruptive technologies without completely foreclosing ongoing innovation opportunities the way many hard-law solutions would.

I also show that, whether anyone cares to admit it or not, we already live in a world of multiplying “soft law” mechanisms and decentralized governance approaches. I use the example of how these new governance trends are unfolding for autonomous vehicles, but note how we see decentralized governance approaches being utilized in many other sectors. This is equally true across the Atlantic where the United Kingdom is increasingly experimenting with new governance approached for emerging technologies.

What counts as “soft law” or “decentralized governance” is an open-ended and ever-changing topic of discussion. But I note that it, at a minimum, it includes: multi-stakeholder processes, experimental “sandboxes,” industry best practices or codes of conduct, technical standards, private certifications, agency workshops and guidance documents, informal negotiations, and education and awareness building efforts. I unpack these ideas in the essay in more detail.

For social media, soft law approaches are the current governance norm, even as hard law regulatory proposals continue to multiply rapidly. But I note that despite all that pressure for more formal regulatory governance of social media platforms, the First Amendment presents a formidable barrier to most of those proposals. Thus, soft law will continue to be the dominant governance approach here. I also conclude by predicting that that soft law will become the dominant approach for artificial intelligence, too, even as regulatory proposals multiply there as well.

I’ll have more to say about my paper and other papers in the AEI series in coming weeks and month. For now, I encourage you to jump over to the website AEI has set up for the series and take a look at my new paper.

Additional Reading :

• Ryan Hagemann, Jennifer Huddleston Skees, and Adam Thierer, “Soft Law for Hard Problems: The Governance of Emerging Technologies in an Uncertain Future,” Colorado Technology Law Journal 17 (2018): 37–130, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3118539.
• Adam Thierer, “Soft Law in U.S. ICT Sectors: Four Case Studies,” Jurimetrics 61, no. 1 (Fall 2020): 79–119, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3777490.
• Adam Thierer, “Congress as a Non-Actor in Tech Policy,” Medium, February 4, 2020, https://medium.com/@AdamThierer/congress-as-a-non-actor-in-tech-policy-5f3153313e11.
• Adam Thierer, “The Pacing Problem and the Future of Technology Regulation,” Bridge, August 8, 2018, https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/pacing-problem-and-future-technology-regulation.
• Adam Thierer, “Artificial Intelligence Governance in the Obama–Trump Years,” IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society, Vol, 2, Issue 4, (2021), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4013880.
• Adam Thierer, “Left and Right Take Aim at Big Tech—and the First Amendment,” Hill, December 8, 2021, https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/584874-left-and-right-take-aim-at-big-tech-and-the-first-amendment.
• Adam Thierer, “The Classical Liberal Approach to Digital Media Free Speech Issues,” Technology Liberation Front, December 8, 2021, https://techliberation.com/2021/12/08/the-classical-liberal-approach-to-digital-media-free-speech-issues.
• Adam Thierer, “The Great Deplatforming of 2021,” Discourse, January 14, 2021, https://www.discoursemagazine.com/politics/2021/01/14/the-great-deplatforming-of-2021.

This weekend, The Wall Street Journal ran my short letter to the editor entitled, “We Can Protect Children and Keep the Internet Free.” My letter was a response to columnist Peggy Noonan’s April 9 oped, “Can Anyone Tame Big Tech?” in which she proposed banning everyone under 18 from all social-media sites. She specifically singled out TikTok, Youtube, and Instagram and argued “You’re not allowed to drink at 14 or drive at 12; you can’t vote at 15. Isn’t there a public interest here?”

I briefly explained why Noonan’s proposal is neither practical nor sensible, noting how it:

would turn every kid into an instant criminal for seeking access to information and culture on the dominant medium of their generation. I wonder how she would have felt about adults proposing to ban all kids from listening to TV or radio during her youth. Let’s work to empower parents to help them guide their children’s digital experiences. Better online-safety and media-literacy efforts can prepare kids for a hyperconnected future. We can find workable solutions that wouldn’t usher in unprecedented government control of speech.

Let me elaborate just a bit because this was the focus of much of my writing a decade ago, including my book, Parental Controls & Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools & Methods, which spanned several editions. Online child safety is a matter I take seriously and the concerns that Noonan raised in her oped have been heard repeatedly since the earliest days of the Internet. Regulatory efforts were immediately tried. They focused on restricting underage access to objectionable online content (as well as video games), but were immediately challenged and struck down as unconstitutionally overbroad restrictions on free speech and a violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But practically speaking, most of these efforts were never going to work anyway. There was almost no way to bottle up all the content flowing in the modern information ecosystem without highly repressive regulation, and it was going to be nearly impossible to keep kids off the Internet altogether when it was the dominant communications and entertainment medium of their generation. The first instinct of every moral panic wave–from the waltz to comic books to rock or rap music to video games–has often been to take the easy way out by proposing sweeping bans on all access by kids to the content or platforms of their generation. It never works.

Nor should it. There is a huge amount of entirely beneficial speech, content, and communications that kids would be denied by such sweeping bans. That would make such ban highly counter-productive. But, again, usually such efforts just were not practically enforceable because kids are often better at the cat-and-mouse game than adults give them credit for. Moreover, imposing age limitations of speech or content are far more difficult than age-related bans on specific tangible products, like tobacco or other dangerous physical products.

Acknowledging these realities, most sensible people quickly move on from extreme proposals like flat bans of all kids using the popular media platforms and systems of the day. Over the past half century in the U.S., this has led to a flowering of more decentralized governance approach to kids and media that I have referred to as the “3E approach.” That stands for empowerment (of parents), education (of youth), and enforcement (of existing laws). The 3E approach includes a variety of mechanisms and approaches, including: self-regulatory codes, private content rating systems, a wide variety of different parental control technologies, and much more.

Over the past two decades, many multistakeholder initiatives and blue-ribbon commissions were created to address online safety issues in a holistic fashion. I summarized their conclusions in my 2009 report, “Five Online Safety Task Forces Agree: Education, Empowerment & Self-Regulation Are the Answer.” The crucial takeaway from all these task forces and commissions is that no silver-bullet solutions exist to hard problems. Child safety demands a vigilant but adaptive approach, rooted in a variety of best practices, educational approaches, and technological empowerment solutions to address various safety concerns. Digital literacy is particularly crucial to building wiser, more resilient kids and adults, who can work together to find constructive approaches to hard problems.

Importantly, our task here is never done. This is an ongoing and evolving process. Issues like underage access to pornography or violent content have been with us for a very long time and will never be completely “solved.” We must constantly work to improve existing online safety mechanisms while also devising new solutions for our rapidly evolving information ecosystem. Nothing should be off the table except the one solution that Noonan suggested in her essay. Just proposing outright bans on kids on social media or any other new media platform (VR will be next) is an unworkable and illogical response that we should dismiss fairly quickly. No matter how well-intentioned such proposals may be, moral panic-induced prohibitions on kids and media ultimately are not going to help them learn to live better, safer, and more enriching lives in the new media ecosystems of today or the future. We can do better.

On December 13th, I will be participating in an Atlas Network panel on, “Big Tech, Free Speech, and Censorship: The Classical Liberal Approach.” In anticipation of that event, I have also just published a new op-ed for The Hill entitled, “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment.” In this essay, I expand upon that op-ed and discuss the growing calls from both the Left and the Right for a variety of new content regulations. I then outline the classical liberal approach to concerns about free speech platforms more generally, which ultimately comes down to the proposition that innovation and competition are always superior to government regulation when it comes to content policy.

In the current debates, I am particularly concerned with calls by many conservatives for more comprehensive governmental controls on speech policies enforced by various private platforms, so I will zero in on those efforts in this essay. First, here’s what both the Left and the Right share in common in these debates: Many on both sides of the aisle desire more government control over the editorial decisions made by private platforms. They both advocate more political meddling with the way private firms make decisions about what types of content and communications are allowed on their platforms. In today’s hyper-partisan world,” I argue in my Hill column, “tech platforms have become just another plaything to be dominated by politics and regulation. When the ends justify the means, principles that transcend the battles of the day — like property rights, free speech and editorial independence — become disposable. These are things we take for granted until they’ve been chipped away at and lost.”

Despite a shared objective for greater politicization of media markets, the Left and the Right part ways quickly when it comes to the underlying objectives of expanded government control. As I noted in my Hill op-ed:

there is considerable confusion in the complaints both parties make about “Big Tech.” Democrats want tech companies doing more to limit content they claim is hate speech, misinformation, or that incites violence. Republicans want online operators to do less, because many conservatives believe tech platforms already take down too much of their content.

This makes life very lonely for free speech defenders and classical liberals. Usually in the past, we could count on the Left to be with us in some free speech battles (such as putting an end to “indecency” regulations for broadcast radio and television), while the Right would be with us on others (such as opposition to the “Fairness Doctrine,” or similar mandates). Today, however, it is more common for classical liberals to be fighting with both sides about free speech issues.

My focus is primarily on the Right because, with the rise of Donald Trump and “national conservatism,” there seems to be a lot of soul-searching going on among conservatives about their stance toward private media platforms, and the editorial rights of digital platforms in particular.

In my new  Hill essay and others articles (all of which are listed down below), I argue there is a principled classical liberal approach to these issues that was nicely outlined by President Ronald Reagan in his 1987 veto of Fairness Doctrine legislation, when he said:

History has shown that the dan­gers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and compe­tition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.

Let’s break that line down. Reagan admits that media bias can be a real thing. Of course it is! Journalists, editors, and even the companies they work for all have specific views. They all favor or disfavor certain types of content. But, at least in the United States, the editorial decisions made by these private actors are protected by the First Amendment. Section 230 is really quite secondary to this debate, even though some Trumpian conservatives wrongly suggest that it’s the real problem here. In reality, national conservatives would need to find a way to work around well-established First Amendment protections if they wanted to impose new restrictions on the editorial rights of private parties.

But why would they want to do that? Returning to the Reagan veto statement, we should remember how he noted that, even if the First Amendment did not protect the editorial discretion of private media platforms, bureaucratic regulation was not the right answer to the problem of “bias.”  Competition and choice were the superior answer. This is the heart and soul of the classical liberal perspective: more innovation is always superior to more regulation.

For the past 30 years, conservatives and classical liberals were generally aligned on that point. But the ascendancy of Donald Trump created a rift in that alliance that now threatens to grow into a chasm as more and more Right-of-center people begin advocating for comprehensive control of media platforms.

The problems with that are numerous beginning with the fact that none of the old rationales for media controls work (and most of them never did). Consider the old arguments justifying widespread regulation of private media:

• “Scarcity” was the oldest justification for media regulation, but we live in the exact opposite world today, in which the most common complaint about media is the abundance of it!
• Conversely, the supposed “pervasiveness” of some media (namely broadcasting) was used as a rationale for government censorship in the past. But that, too, no longer works because in today’s crowded media marketplace and Internet-enabled world, all forms of communications and entertainment are equally pervasive to some extent.
• State ownership and licensing of spectrum was another rationale for control that no longer works. No digital media platforms need federal licenses to operate today. So, that hook is also gone. Moreover, the answer to the problem of government ownership of media is to stop letting the government own and control media assets, including spectrum.
• “Fairness” is another old excuse for control, with some regulatory advocates suggesting that five unelected bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (or some other agency) are well-suited to “balance” the airing of viewpoints on media platforms. Of course, America’s disastrous experience with the Fairness Doctrine proved just how wrong that thinking was. [I summarize all the evidence proving that here.]

That leaves a final, more amorphous rationale for media control: ” gatekeeper” concerns and assertions that private media platforms can essentially become “state actors.” In the wake of Donald Trump’s “de-platorming” from Facebook and Twitter, many of his supporters began adopting this language in defense of more aggressive government control of private media platforms, including the possibility of declaring those platforms common carriers and demanding that some sort of amorphous “neutrality” mandates be imposed on them. But as Berin Szóka and Corbin Barthold of Tech Freedom note:

Where courts have upheld imposing common carriage burdens on communications networks under the First Amendment, it has been because consumers reasonably expected them to operate conduits. Not so for social media platforms. [. . . ] When it comes to the regulation of speech on social media, however, the presumption of content neutrality does not apply. Conservatives present their criticism of content moderation as a desire for “neutrality,” but forcing platforms to carry certain content and viewpoints that they would prefer not to carry constitutes a “content preference” that would trigger strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, any “gatekeeper” power exercised by social media would be just as irrelevant as the monopoly power of local newspapers was in [previous Supreme Court holdings].

Put simply, efforts to stretch extremely narrow and limited common carriage precedents to fit social media just don’t work. We’ve already seen lower courts declare that recently when blocking the enforcement of new conservative-led efforts in Florida and Texas to limit the editorial discretion of private social media platforms. If conservatives really hope to get around these legal barriers to regulation, what would be needed would be a more far-reaching strike at the First Amendment itself. That would entail a jurisprudential revolution at the Supreme Court — reversing about a century of free speech precedents — or an some sort of an effort to amend the First Amendment itself. These things are almost certainly not going to occur.

But, again, this hasn’t stopped some conservatives from pitching extreme solutions in their efforts to regulate digital media at both the state and federal level. I discuss these efforts in previous essays on, “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality,“ “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet,“ and “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’.“ Perhaps some Trump-aligned conservatives understand that these legislative efforts are unlikely to work, but they continue to push them in an attempt to make life hell for tech platforms, or perhaps just to troll the Left and “own the Libs.”

On the other hand, some conservatives seem to really believe in some of the extreme ideas they are tossing around. What is particular troubling about these efforts is the way — following Trump’s lead — some conservatives, including even more mainstream conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, are increasingly referring to private media platforms as “the enemy of the people.” That’s the kind of extremist language typically used by totalitarian thugs and Marxist lunatics who so hate private enterprise and freedom of speech that they are willing to adopt a sort of burn-the-village-to-save-it rhetorical approach to media policy.

And speaking of Marxists, here’s what is even more incredible about these efforts by some conservatives to use such rationales in support of comprehensive media regulation: It is all based on the “media access” playbook concocted by radical Leftist scholars a generation ago. As I summarized in my essay on, “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“:

Media access advocates look to transform the First Amendment into a tool for social change to advance specific political ends or ideological objectives. Media access theory dispenses with both the editorial discretion rights and private property rights of private speech platforms. Private platforms become subject to the political whims of policymakers who dictate “fair” terms of access. We can think of this as communications collectivism.

Media access doctrine is rooted in an arrogant, elitist, anti-property, anti-freedom ethic that suggest the State is a better position to dictate what can and cannot be said on private speech platforms. “It’s astonishing, yet nonetheless true,” I continued on in that essay, “that the ideological roots of Trump’s anti-social media campaign lie in the works of those extreme Leftists and even media Marxists. He has just given media access theory his own unique nationalistic spin and sold this snake oil to conservatives.” Yet, Trump and other national conservatives are embracing this contemptible doctrine because now more than ever the ends apparently justify the means in American politics. Nevermind that all this could come back to haunt them when the Left somehow leverages this regulatory apparatus to control Fox News or other sites and content that conservatives favor! Once media platforms are viewed as just another thing to be controlled by politics, the only question is which politics and how are those politics enforced? Certainly both the Left and the Right cannot both have their way given all that current divides them.

Finally, what is utterly perplexing about all this is how much thanks national conservatives really owe to the major digital platforms they now seek to destroy. As I noted in my new Hill op-ed:

There has never been more opportunity for conservative viewpoints than right now. Each day on Facebook, the top-10 most shared links are dominated by pundits such as Ben Shapiro, Dan Bongino, Dinesh D’Souza and Sean Hannity. Right-leaning content is shared widely on Twitter each day. Websites like Dailywire.com and Foxnews.com get far more traffic than the New York Times or CNN.

Thus, conservatives might be shooting themselves in the foot if they were able to convince more legislatures to adopt the media access regulatory playbook because it could have profound unintended consequences once the Left uses those tools to somehow restrict access to “hate speech” or “misinformation” — and then define it so broadly so as to include much of the top material posted by conservatives on Facebook and Twitter ever day.

Not all conservatives have drank the media access kool-aid. In the wake of Trump’s deplatforming from a few major sites, a wave of new Right-leaning digital services are being planned or have already launched. (Axios and Forbes recently summarized some of these efforts.) I don’t know which will of these efforts will succeed, but more competition and platform-building are certainly superior to current calls by some Trump supporters for government regulation of mainstream social media services.

Again, this is the old Reagan vision at its finest! We can achieve a better media landscape, “only through the freedom and compe­tition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee,” not through bureaucratic regulation. It remains the principled path forward.

Additional Reading :

• “Left and right take aim at Big Tech — and the First Amendment“
• “When It Comes to Fighting Social Media Bias, More Regulation Is Not the Answer“
• “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“
• “Conservatives & Common Carriage: Contradictions & Challenges“
• “The Great Deplatforming of 2021“
• “A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“
• “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“
• “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“
• “The Not-So-SMART Act“
• “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

Older essays & testimony :

• Adam Thierer, “Why Regulate Broadcasting: Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age,” Catholic University Law School, 15 CommLaw Conspectus (Summer 2007): 431-482.
• Adam Thierer, Testimony at FCC’s Hearing on “Serving the Public Interest in the Digital Era”, March 3, 2010.
• Adam Thierer, “FCC v. Fox and the Future of the First Amendment in the Information Age,” Federalist Society, Engage (Feb. 2009).

Over at Discourse magazine I’ve posted my latest essay on how conservatives are increasingly flirting with the idea of greatly expanding regulatory control of private speech platforms via some sort of common carriage regulation or new Fairness Doctrine for the internet. It begins:

Conservatives have traditionally viewed the administrative state with suspicion and worried about their values and policy prescriptions getting a fair shake within regulatory bureaucracies. This makes their newfound embrace of common carriage regulation and media access theory (i.e., the notion that government should act to force access to private media platforms because they provide an essential public service) somewhat confusing. Recent opinions from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas as well as various comments and proposals of Sen. Josh Hawley and former President Trump signal a remarkable openness to greater administrative control of private speech platforms. Given the takedown actions some large tech companies have employed recently against some conservative leaders and viewpoints, the frustration of many on the right is understandable. But why would conservatives think they are going to get a better shake from state-regulated monopolists than they would from today’s constellation of players or, more importantly, from a future market with other players and platforms?

I continue on to explain why conservatives should be skeptical of the administrative state being their friend when it comes to the control of free speech. I end by reminding conservatives what President Ronald Reagan said in his 1987 veto of legislation to reestablish the Fairness Doctrine: “History has shown that the dangers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and competition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.”

Read more at Discourse, and down below you will find several other recent essays I’ve written on the topic.

• “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“
• “A Good Time to Re-Read Reagan’s Fairness Doctrine Veto“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“
• “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“
• “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“
• “The Not-So-SMART Act“
• “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

After a slight delay, Jurimetrics has finally published my latest law review article, “Soft Law in U.S. ICT Sectors: Four Case Studies.” It is part of a major symposium that Arizona State University (ASU) Law School put together on “Governing Emerging Technologies Through Soft Law: Lessons For Artificial Intelligence” for the journal. I was 1 of 4 scholars invited to pen foundational essays for this symposium. Jurimetrics is a official publication of the American Bar Association’s Section of Science & Technology Law.

This report was a major undertaking that involved dozens of interviews, extensive historic research, several events and presentations, and then numerous revisions before the final product was released. The final PDF version of the journal article is attached.

Here is the abstract:

Traditional hard law tools and processes are struggling to keep up with the rapid pace of innovation in many emerging technologies sectors. As a result, policy­makers in the United States rely increasingly on less formal “soft law” governance mech­anisms to address concerns surrounding many newer technologies. This Article explores four case studies from different information technology areas where soft law mechanisms have already been utilized to address governance concerns. These four sectoral case stud­ies include domain name management, content oversight, privacy policy, and cyberse­curity matters. After considering the various soft law mechanisms used to address those issues, the Article concludes with some general thoughts about the effectiveness of those approaches and what lessons those case studies might hold for the use of soft law in other emerging technology sectors and contexts.

With many conservative policymakers and organizations taking a sudden pro-censorial turn and suggesting that government regulation of social media platforms is warranted, it’s a good time for them to re-read President Ronald Reagan’s 1987 veto of Fairness Doctrine legislation. Here’s the key line:

History has shown that the dan­gers of an overly timid or biased press cannot be averted through bureaucratic regulation, but only through the freedom and compe­tition that the First Amendment sought to guarantee.

That wisdom is just as applicable today when some conservatives suggest that government intervention is needed to address what they regardless as “bias” or “unfair” treatment on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or whatever else. Ignoring the fact that such meddling would likely violate property rights and freedom of contract — principles that most conservatives say they hold dear — efforts to empower the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, or other regulators would be hugely misguided on First Amendment grounds.

President Reagan understood that there was a better way to approach these issues that was rooted in innovation and First Amendment protections. Here’s hoping that conservatives remember his sage advice. Read his entire veto message here.

Additional Reading:

• “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“
• “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“
• “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“
• “The Not-So-SMART Act“
• “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

There is a war going on in the conservative movement over free speech issues and FCC Commissioner Mike O’Reilly just became a causality of that skirmish. Neil Chilson and I just posted a new essay about this over on the Federalist Society blog. As we note there:

Plenty of people claim to favor freedom of expression, but increasingly the First Amendment has more fair-weather friends than die-hard defenders. Michael O’Rielly, a Commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), found that out the hard way this week. Last week, O’Rielly delivered an important speech before the Media Institute highlighting a variety of problematic myths about the First Amendment, as well as “a particularly ominous development in this space.” In a previous political era, O’Rielly’s remarks would have been mainstream conservative fare. But his well-worded warnings are timely with many Democrats and Republicans – including some in the White House – looking to resurrect analog-era speech mandates and let Big Government reassert control over speech decisions in the United States.

Shortly after delivering his remarks, the White House yanked O’Rielly’s nomination to be reappointed to the agency. It was a shocking development that was likely motivated by growing animosities between Republicans on the question of how much control the federal government–and the FCC in particular–should exercise over speech platforms, including platforms that the FCC has no authority to regulate.

For the 30 years that I have been covering media and technology policy, I’ve heard conservatives rail against the Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality and arbitrary Big Government only to see many of them now reverse suit and become the biggest defenders of these things as it pertains to speech controls and FCC regulation. It will certainly be interesting to see what a potential future Biden Administration does with the various new regulations that some in the GOP are seeking to impose.

But all hope is not lost. There are still brave voices in Republican and conservative circles who continue to stand up the the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and limits on federal regulatory meddling with speech platforms and outcomes. Commissioner O’Reilly basically lost his job because he acted as the equivalent of an intellectual whistle-blower; he called out the ideological rot seen in recent statements and actions by the White House, Senator Josh Hawley, and many other Republicans.

There is nothing remotely “conservative” about calls for reinvigorating the Fairness Doctrine and FCC speech controls. That represents repressive regulation that betrays the First Amendment and which will ultimately backfire badly and come back to haunt conservatives down the road.

Read my new essay with Neil for more details. And down below I have listed all my recent writing on this topic.

Additional Reading:

• “FCC’s O’Rielly on First Amendment & Fairness Doctrine Dangers“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Radical, Paternalistic Plan to Remake the Internet“
• “How Conservatives Came to Favor the Fairness Doctrine & Net Neutrality“
• “Sen. Hawley’s Moral Panic Over Social Media“
• “The White House Social Media Summit and the Return of ‘Regulation by Raised Eyebrow’“
• “The Not-So-SMART Act“
• “The Surprising Ideological Origins of Trump’s Communications Collectivism“

[Co-authored with Connor Haaland and originally published on The Bridge as, “Do Our Leaders Believe in Free Speech and Online Freedom Anymore?”]

A major policy battle has developed regarding the wisdom of regulating social media platforms in the United States, with the internet’s most important law potentially in the crosshairs. Leaders in both major parties are calling for sweeping regulation.

Specifically, President Trump and his presumptive opponent in the coming presidential election, former Vice President Joe Biden, have both called for “Section 230” of the Communications Decency Act to be repealed. Last week, the president took a misguided step in this direction by signing an executive order that, if fully carried out, will result in significantly greater regulation of the internet and of speech.

A Growing Call to Regulate Internet Platforms

The ramifications of these threats and steps could not be more profound. Without Section 230—also known as “the 26 words that created the internet”—we would have a much less advanced internet ecosystem. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Wikipedia would have never grown as quickly. Indeed, the repeal of Section 230 means many fewer jobs, less information distribution, and, frankly, less joy.

Shockingly, by backing Trump’s recent push for regulating these internet platforms, many conservatives are betraying their own principles—the ones that support freedom of expression and the ability to run private businesses without government interference.

Section 230 limits the liability online intermediaries face for the content and communications that travel over their networks. The immunities granted by Section 230 let online speech and commerce flow freely, without the constant threat of legal action or onerous liability looming overhead for digital platforms. To put it another way, without this provision, today’s vibrant internet ecosystem likely would not exist.

For completely different reasons, however, Biden and Trump want it axed. “Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For [Facebook CEO Mark] Zuckerberg and other platforms,” said Biden in a New York Times interview. Like many other Democrats, Biden wants social media platforms to do far more to block speech they find to be offensive in various ways. If they fail to do more, Biden and other Democrats want Sec. 230 revised or repealed.

In contrast, Trump and his allies want these same platforms to do far less to curate content. Although lacking any empirical evidence, they allege that massive anti-conservative bias exists across today’s most popular platforms. As a result, they want Sec. 230 gutted. “Repeal 230,” said Trump in a tweet. Tensions reached a boiling point last week following a public fight between the president and Twitter after the social networking platform on May 27 added a fact-check notice to one of the president’s tweets about the supposed dangers of mail-in voting.

Retaliating Against Social Media

On May 28, Trump struck back against Twitter by signing an executive order on “preventing online censorship.” The EO cited Twitter six times but also went after Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube by name. Paradoxically, it also noted that the “freedom to express and debate ideas is the foundation for all of our rights as a free people,” even though the order will result in arbitrary government rule over our free speech rights.

Indeed, Trump’s executive order runs afoul of traditional conservative principles in several ways:

1. It expands the power of the government by delegating more authority to the administrative state and expanding arbitrary bureaucratic rule and regulatory abuse. It encourages the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission to take a more active interest in content policy decisions, which is of dubious legality. Section 3 of the EO also says the Department of Justice “shall review the viewpoint-based speech restrictions imposed by each online platform identified in the report … and assess whether any online platforms are problematic vehicles for government speech due to viewpoint discrimination, deception to consumers, or other bad practices.” (emphasis added)

   What do other bad practices entail, and who in the government gets to make the call? It is not prudent to delegate authority over something as sacred as our rights to free speech to unelected government bureaucrats. Such power will stifle civil discourse and increase the possibility for special interests to co-opt the government by using its power for their own desires.

2. It undermines property rights of private companies by letting Big Government dictate how they use their business platforms. Carrying out the president’s executive order would amount to a taking of private property by the government, an action that conservatives have historically loathed. Our Founding Fathers considered property rights to be the cornerstone of a free and just society, yet Trump pays that fact little respect in this EO, running afoul of a centuries-old American tradition.

3. It will encourage frivolous lawsuits. By gutting Sec. 230, a law that protects online platforms from punishing liability for third-party speech, Trump’s EO would empower trial lawyers. We are already too litigious a country, filing over 80 million cases in state courts every year, and we do not need another reason to be in the courtroom. Repealing 230 would open the floodgates to endless lawsuits about online speech and clog up our judicial system, using resources that could be directed to more important matters.

4. It undermines free speech and would likely hurt conservative voices most. Trump’s executive order makes a mockery of the First Amendment by applying the Fairness Doctrine and net neutrality notions to social media, regulations that conservatives have vociferously opposed. A recent lawsuit filed by the Center for Democracy and Technology that seeks to challenge the EO alleges this exact point, saying it could chill free speech. In the past we have seen such concepts applied arbitrarily, harming free speech and media competition.

   For instance, our colleague Brent Skorup, has written on how the FCC exploited another arbitrary rule—the “public interest” standard. He points to the fact that a documentary portraying former Sen. John Kerry in a negative light was taken off the air thanks to the authority of the public interest standard as a paradigmatic example of how arbitrary regulatory power can harm free speech. The EO also undermines platforms that have greatly amplified conservative voices in recent years. On Facebook, for instance, 7 of the top 10 most cited news outlets were conservative. Meanwhile, Trump and other conservative leaders have tapped the power of Twitter to directly communicate with their base. The EO would therefore likely result in much conservative content being removed quickly to avoid legal hassles with regulators or the courts.

5. The combined effect of all these other factors will undermine the global competitiveness of US-based firms, potentially benefiting Chinese internet companies the most. Willingly giving up a comparative advantage would be foolish, considering how America’s tech companies are the envy of the world. Not only does the EO affect existing social platforms, but it could stifle innovation throughout the digital economy moving forward. Who wants to try and innovate in a field that is subject to regulations that can change on a president’s whim?

6. It could be used by future politicians against conservative platforms, like Fox News and other right-leaning outlets. This is clearly not the intent of Trump’s executive order, but that will eventually be the result nonetheless. Going forward, we will have different presidents with different political outlooks. When making laws, regulations, and executive orders, it is always important to consider how they could be applied by successive administrations with opposite political and ideological stripes.

Today’s social media platforms are not perfect, but it is impossible for them to please everyone. There is no Goldilocks formula whereby they can get speech policies just right and make everyone happy. Instead, the ideal policy for speech platforms is: Let a thousand flowers bloom. One-size-fits-all content management and community standards shouldn’t be the goal. We need diverse platforms and approaches for a diverse citizenry.

But when presidential candidates and their allies line up in support of repealing Sec. 230 and opening the door to speech controls, the end result will be homogenized conformity with the will of those in power. That’s a horrible result for a nation that values diversity of opinion and freedom of speech, and it will only end up hurting those who seek to change the conversation.

Also see: Brent Skorup, “The Section 230 Executive Order, Free Speech, and the FCC,” Technology Liberation Front, June 3, 2010.

President Trump and his allies have gone to war with social media sites and digital communications platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Google. Decrying supposed anti-conservative “bias,” Trump has even floated an Executive Order aimed at “Preventing Online Censorship,” that entails many new forms of government meddling with these private speech platforms. Section 230 is their crosshairs and First Amendment restraints are being thrown to the wind.

Various others have already documented the many legal things wrong with Trump’s call for greater government oversight of private speech platforms. I want to focus on something slightly different here: The surprising ideological origins of what Trump and his allies are proposing. Because for those of us who are old-timers and have followed communications and media policy for many decades, this moment feels like deja vu all over again, but with the strange twist that supposed “conservatives” are calling for a form of communications collectivism that used to be the exclusive province of hard-core Leftists.

To begin, the truly crazy thing about President Trump and some conservatives saying that social media should be regulated as public forums is not just that they’re abandoning free speech rights, it’s that they’re betraying property rights, too. Treating private media like a “public square” entails a taking of private property. Amazingly, Trump and his followers have taken over the old “media access movement” and given it their own spin.

Media access advocates look to transform the First Amendment into a tool for social change to advance specific political ends or ideological objectives. Media access theory dispenses with both the editorial discretion rights and private property rights of private speech platforms. Private platforms become subject to the political whims of policymakers who dictate “fair” terms of access. We can think of this as communications collectivism.

The media access movement’s regulatory toolkit includes things like the Fairness Doctrine and “neutrality” requirements, right-of-reply mandates, expansive conceptions of common carriage (using “public forum” or “town square” rhetoric), agency threats, and so on. Even without formal regulation, media access theorists hope that jawboning and political pressure can persuade private platforms to run more (or perhaps sometimes less) of the content that they want (or don’t) on media platforms.

The intellectual roots of the media access movement were planted by leftist media theorists like Jerome Barron, Owen Fiss in 1960s and 1970s, and later by Marxist communications scholar Robert McChesney. In 2005, I penned this short history of media access movement and explored its aims. I also wrote two old books with chapters on the dangers of media access theory and calls for collectivizing communications and media systems. Those books were: Media Myths (2005) and A Manifesto for Media Freedom (2008, w Brian C. Anderson). The key takeaway from those essays is that the media access movement comes down to control.

The best book ever written about dangers of media access movement was Jonathan Emord’s 1991, Freedom, Technology and the First Amendment. He perfectly summarizes their goals (and now Trump’s) as follows:

• “In short, the access advocates have transformed the marketplace of ideas from a laissez-faire model to a state-control model.”
• “Rather than understanding the First Amendment to be a guardian of the private sphere of communication, the access advocates interpret it to be a guarantee of a preferred mix of ideological viewpoints.
• “It fundamentally shifts the marketplace of ideas from its private, unregulated, and interactive context to one within the compass of state control, making the marketplace ultimately responsible to government for determinations as to the choice of content expressed.”

“This arrogant, elitist, anti-property, anti-freedom ethic is what drives the media access movement and makes it so morally repugnant,” I argued in that old TLF essay. That is still just as true today, even when it’s conservatives calling for collectivization of media.

It’s astonishing, yet nonetheless true, that the ideological roots of Trump’s anti-social media campaign lie in the works of those extreme Leftists and even media Marxists. He has just given media access theory his own unique nationalistic spin and sold this snake oil to conservatives.

There certainly could come a day where his opponents on the Left just take this media access playbook up again and suggest this is exactly what’s needed for Fox News and other right-leaning media outlets. If and when that does happen, Trump and other conservatives will have no one to blame but themselves for embracing this contemptible philosophical vision simply because it suited their short-term desires while they were in power.

I hope that conservatives rethink their embrace of communications collectivism, but I fear that Trump and his allies have already convinced themselves that the ends justify the means when it comes to advancing their causes or even just “owning the libs.” But there really is a strong moralistic slant to what Trump and many of his allies want. They think they are on the right side of history and that the opponents–including most media outlets and plaforms–are evil. Trump and his allies have repeatedly referred to the press as the “enemy of the American people” and endlessly lambasted social media platforms for not going along with his desires. This reflects a core tendency of all communications collectivists: a sort of ‘you’re-either-with-us-or-against-us’ attitude.

Steve Bannon scripted all this out back in 2018. Go back and read this astonishing CNN interview for a preview of what could happen next. Here’s the rundown:

>> Bannon said Big Tech’s data should be seized and put in a “public trust.” Specifically, Bannon said, “I think you take [the data] away from the companies. All that data they have is put in a public trust. They can use it. And people can opt in and opt out. That trust is run by an independent board of directors. It just can’t be that [Big Tech is] the sole proprietors of this data…I think this is a public good.” Bannon added that Big Tech companies “have to be broken up” just like Teddy Roosevelt broke up the trusts.” >> Bannon attacked the executives of Facebook, Twitter and Google. “These are run by sociopaths,” he said. “These people are complete narcissists. These people ought to be controlled, they ought to be regulated.” At one point during the phone call, Bannon said, “These people are evil. There is no doubt about that.” >> Bannon said he thinks “this is going to be a massive issue” in future elections. He said he thinks it will probably take until 2020 to fully blossom as a campaign issue, explaining, “I think by the time 2020 comes along, this will be a burning issue. I think this will be one of the biggest domestic issues.”

This is now Trump’s playbook. It’s incredibly frightening because, once married up with Trump’s accusations of election fraud and other imagined conspiracies, you can sense how he’s laying the groundwork to call into question future election results by suggesting that both traditional media and modern digital media platforms are just in bed with the Democratic party and trying to rig the presidential election. I don’t really want to think about what happens if this situation escalates to that point. These are very dark days for the American Republic.

Last week I attended the Section 230 cage match workshop at the DOJ. It was a packed house, likely because AG Bill Barr gave opening remarks. It was fortuitous timing for me: my article with Jennifer Huddleston, The Erosion of Publisher Liability in American Law, Section 230, and the Future of Online Curation, was published 24 hours before the workshop by the Oklahoma Law Review.

These were my impressions of the event:

I thought it was pretty well balanced event and surprisingly civil for such a contentious topic. There were strong Section 230 defenders and strong Section 230 critics, and several who fell in between. There were a couple cheers after a few pointed statements from panelists, but the audience didn’t seem to fall on one side or the other. I’ll add that my friend and co-blogger Neil Chilson gave an impressive presentation about how Section 230 helped make the “long tail” of beneficial Internet-based communities possible.

AG Bob Barr gave the opening remarks, which are available online. A few things jumped out. He suggested that Section 230 had its place but Internet companies are not an infant industry anymore. In his view, the courts have expanded Section 230 beyond drafters’ intent, and the Reno decision “unbalanced” the protections, which were intended to protect minors. The gist of his statement was that the law needs to be “recalibrated.”

Each of these points were disputed by one or more panelists, but the message to the Internet industry was clear: the USDOJ is scrutinizing industry concentration and its relationship to illegal and antisocial online content.

The workshop signals that there is now a large, bipartisan coalition that would like to see Section 230 “recalibrated.” The problem for this coalition is that they don’t agree on what types of content providers should be liable for and they are often at cross-purposes. The problematic content ranges from sex trafficking, to stalkers, to opiate trafficking, to revenge porn, to unfair political ads. For conservatives, social media companies take down too much content, intentionally helping progressives. For progressives, social media companies leave up too much content, unwittingly helping conservatives.

I’ve yet to hear a convincing way to modify Section 230 that (a) satisfies this shaky coalition, (b) would be practical to comply with, and (c) would be constitutional.

Now, Section 230 critics are right: the law blurs the line between publisher and conduit. But this is not unique to Internet companies. The fact is, courts (and federal agencies) blurred the publisher-conduit dichotomy for fifty years for mass media distributors and common carriers as technology and social norms changed. Some cases that illustrate the phenomenon:

In Auvil v. CBS 60 Minutes, a 1991 federal district court decision, some Washington apple growers sued some local CBS affiliates for airing allegedly defamatory programming. The federal district court dismissed the case on the grounds that the affiliates are conduits of CBS programming. Critically, the court recognized that the CBS affiliates “had the power to” exercise editorial control over the broadcast and “in fact occasionally [did] censor programming . . . for one reason or another.” Still, case dismissed. The principle has been cited by other courts. Publishers can be conduits.

Conduits can also be publishers. In 1989, Congress passed a law requiring phone providers to restrict “dial-a-porn” services to minors. Dial-a-porn companies sued. In Information Providers Coalition v. FCC, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that regulated common carriers are “free under the Constitution to terminate service” to providers of indecent content. The Court relied on its decision a few years earlier in Carlin Communications noting that when a common carrier phone company is connecting thousands of subscribers simultaneously to the same content, the “phone company resembles less a common carrier than it does a small radio station.”

Many Section 230 reformers believe Section 230 mangled the common law would like to see the restoration of the publisher-conduit dichotomy. As our research shows, that dichotomy had already been blurred for decades. Until advocates and lawmakers acknowledge these legal trends and plan accordingly, the reformers risk throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Relevant research:
Brent Skorup & Jennifer Huddleston, The Erosion of Publisher Liability in American Law, Section 230, and the Future of Online Curation (Oklahoma Law Review).

Brent Skorup & Joe Kane, The FCC and Quasi–Common Carriage: A Case Study of Agency Survival (Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology).

I have been covering telecom and Internet policy for almost 30 years now. During much of that time – which included a nine year stint at the Heritage Foundation — I have interacted with conservatives on various policy issues and often worked very closely with them to advance certain reforms.

If I divided my time in Tech Policy Land into two big chunks of time, I’d say the biggest tech-related policy issue for conservatives during the first 15 years I was in the business (roughly 1990 – 2005) was preventing the resurrection of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. And the biggest issue during the second 15-year period (roughly 2005 – present) was stopping the imposition of “Net neutrality” mandates on the Internet. In both cases, conservatives vociferously blasted the notion that unelected government bureaucrats should sit in judgment of what constituted “fairness” in media or “neutrality” online.

Many conservatives are suddenly changing their tune, however. President Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz, for example, have been increasingly critical of both traditional media and new tech companies in various public statements and suggested an openness to increased regulation. The President has gone after old and new media outlets alike, while Sen. Cruz (along with others like Sen. Lindsay Graham) has suggested during congressional hearings that increased oversight of social media platforms is needed, including potential antitrust action.

Meanwhile, during his short time in office, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has become one of the most vocal Internet critics on the Right. In a shockingly-worded USA Today editorial in late May, Hawley said, “social media wastes our time and resources” and is “a field of little productive value” that have only “given us an addiction economy.” He even referred to these sites as “parasites” and blamed them for a long list of social problems, leading him to suggest that, “we’d be better off if Facebook disappeared” along with various other sites and services.

Hawley’s moral panic over social media has now bubbled over into a regulatory crusade that would unleash federal bureaucrats on the Internet in an attempt to dictate “fair” speech on the Internet. He has introduced an astonishing piece of legislation aimed at undoing the liability protections that Internet providers rely upon to provide open platforms for speech and commerce. If Hawley’s absurdly misnamed new “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” is implemented, it would essentially combine the core elements of the Fairness Doctrine and Net Neutrality to create a massive new regulatory regime for the Internet.

The bill would gut the immunities Internet companies enjoy under 47 USC 230 (“Section 230”) of the Communications Decency Act. Eric Goldman of the Santa Clara University School of Law has described Section 230 as the “best Internet law” and “a big part of the reason why the Internet has been such a massive success.” Indeed, as I pointed out in a Forbes column on the occasion of its 15^th anniversary, Section 230 is “the foundation of our Internet freedoms” because it gives online intermediaries generous leeway to determine what content and commerce travels over their systems without the fear that they will be overwhelmed by lawsuits if other parties object to some of that content.

The Hawley bill would overturn this important legal framework for Internet freedom and instead replace it with a new “permissioned” approach. In true “Mother-May-I” style, Internet companies would need to apply for an “immunity certification” from the FTC, which would undertake investigations to determine if the petitioning platform satisfied a “requirement of politically unbiased content moderation.”

The vague language of the measure is an open invitation to massive political abuse. The entirety of the bill hinges upon the ability of Federal Trade Commission officials to define and enforce “political neutrality” online. Let’s consider what this will mean in practice.

Under the bill, the FTC must evaluate whether platforms have engaged in “politically biased moderation,” which is defined as moderation practices that are supposedly, “designed to negatively affect” or “disproportionately restricts or promote access to … a political party, political candidate, or political viewpoint.” As Blake Reid of the University of Colorado Law School rightly asks, “How, exactly, is the FTC supposed to figure out what the baseline is for ‘disproportionately restricting or promoting’? How much access or availability to information about political parties, candidates, or viewpoints is enough, or not enough, or too much?”

There is no Goldilocks formula for getting things just right when it comes to content moderation. It’s a trial-and-error process that is nightmarishly difficult because of the endless eye-of-the-beholder problems associated with constructing acceptable use policies for large speech platforms. We struggled with the same issues in the broadcast and cable era, but they have been magnified a million-fold in the era of the global Internet with the endless tsunami of new content that hits our screens and devices every day. “Do we want less moderation?” asks Sec, 230 guru Jeff Kosseff. “I think we need to look at that question hard.  Because we’re seeing two competing criticisms of Section 230,” he notes. “Some argue that there is too much moderation, others argue that there is not enough.”

The Hawley bill seems to imagine that a handful of FTC officials will magically be able to strike the right balance through regulatory investigations. That’s a pipe dream, of course, but let’s imagine for a moment that regulators could somehow sort through all the content on message boards, tweets, video clips, live streams, gaming sites, and whatever else, and then somehow figure out what constituted a violation of “political neutrality” in any given context. That would actually be a horrible result because let’s be perfectly clear about what that would really be: It would be a censorship board. By empowering unelected bureaucrats to make decisions about what constitutes “neutral” or “fair” speech, the Hawley measure would, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown of Reason summarizes, “put Washington in charge of Internet speech.” Or, as Sen. Ron Wyden argues more bluntly, the bill “will turn the federal government into Speech Police.” “Perhaps a more accurate title for this bill would be ‘Creating Internet Censorship Act,'” Eric Goldman is forced to conclude.

The measure is creating other strange bedfellows. You won’t see Berin Szoka of TechFreedom and Harold Feld of Public Knowledge ever agreeing on much, but they both quickly and correctly labelled Hawley’s bill a “Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.” That is quite right, and much like the old Fairness Doctrine, Hawley’s new Internet speech control regime would be open to endless political shenanigans as parties, policymakers, companies, and the various complainants line up to have their various political beefs heard and acted upon. “That’s the kind of thing Republicans said was unconstitutional (and subject to FCC agency capture and political manipulation) for decades,” says Daphne Keller of the Stanford Center for Internet & Society. Moreover, during the Net Neutrality holy wars, GOP conservatives endlessly blasted the notion that bureaucrats should be determining what constitute “neutrality” online because it, too, would result in abuses of the regulatory process. Yet, Sen. Hawley’s bill would now mandate that exact same thing.

What is even worse is that, as law professor Josh Blackman observes, “the bill also makes it exceedingly difficult to obtain a certification” because applicants need a supermajority of 4 of the 5 FTC Commissioners. This is public choice fiasco waiting to happen. Anyone who has studied the long, sordid history of broadcast radio and television licensing understands the danger associated with politicizing certification processes. The lawyers and lobbyists in the DC “swamp” will benefit from all the petitioning and paperwork, but it is not clear how creating a regulatory certification regime for Internet speech really benefits the general public (or even conservatives, for that matter).

Former FTC Commissioner Josh Wright identifies another obvious problem with the Hawley Bill: it “offers the choice of death by bureaucratic board or the plaintiffs’ bar.” That’s because by weakening Sec. 230’s protections, Hawley’s bill could open the floodgates to waves of frivolous legal claims in the courts if companies can’t get (or lose) certification. The irony of that result, of course, is that this bill could become a massive gift to the tort bar that Republicans love to hate!

Of course, if the law ever gets to court, it might be ruled unconstitutional. “The terms ‘politically biased’ and ‘moderation’ would have vagueness and overbreadth problems, as they can chill protected speech,” Josh Blackman argues. So it could, perhaps, be thrown out like earlier online censorship efforts. But a lot of harm could be done—both to online speech and competition—in the years leading up to a final determination about the law’s constitutionality by higher courts.

What is most outrageous about all this is that the core rationale behind Hawley’s effort—the idea that conservatives are somehow uniquely disadvantaged by large social media platforms—is utterly preposterous. In May, the Trump Administration launched a “tech bias” portal which “asked Americans to share their stories of suspected political bias.” The portal is already closed and it is unclear what, if anything, will come out of this effort. But this move and Hawley’s proposal point to the broader trend of conservatives getting more comfortable asking Big Government to redress imaginary grievances about supposed “bias” or “exclusion.”

In reality, today’s social media tools and platforms have been the greatest thing that ever happened to conservatives. Mr. Trump owes his presidency to his unparalleled ability to directly reach his audience through Twitter and other platforms. As recently as June 12, President Trump tweeted, “The Fake News has never been more dishonest than it is today. Thank goodness we can fight back on Social Media.” Well, there you have it!

Beyond the President, one need only peruse any social media site for a few minutes to find an endless stream of conservative perspectives on display. This isn’t exclusion; it’s amplification on steroids. Conservatives have more soapboxes to stand on and preach than ever before in the history of this nation.

Finally, if they were true to their philosophical priors, then conservatives also would not be insisting that they have any sort of “right” to be on any platform. These are private platforms, after all, and it is outrageous to suggest that conservatives (or any other person or group) are entitled to have a spot on any other them.

Some conservatives are fond of ridiculing liberals for being “snowflakes” when it comes to other free speech matters, such as free speech on college campuses. Many times they are right. But one has to ask who the real snowflakes are when conservative lawmakers are calling on regulatory bureaucracies to reorder speech on private platform based on the mythical fear of not getting “fair” treatment. One also cannot help but wonder if those conservatives have thought through how this new Internet regulatory regime will play out once a more liberal administration takes back the reins of power. Conservatives will only have themselves to blame when the Speech Police come for them.

Addendum: Several folks have pointed out another irony associated with Hawley’s bill is that it would greatly expand the powers of the administrative state, which conservatives already (correctly) feel has too much broad, unaccountable power. I should have said more on that point, but here’s a nice comment from David French of National Review, which alludes to that problem and then ties it back to my closing argument above: i.e., that this proposal will come back to haunt conservatives in the long-run:

when coercion locks in — especially when that coercion is tied to constitutionally suspect broad and vague policies that delegate immense powers to the federal government — conservatives should sound the alarm. One of the best ways to evaluate the merits of legislation is to ask yourself whether the bill would still seem wise if the power you give the government were to end up in the hands of your political opponents. Is Hawley striking a blow for freedom if he ends up handing oversight of Facebook’s political content to Bernie Sanders? I think not.

Additional thoughts on the Hawley bill:

Josh Wright

Daphne Keller

Blake Reid

TechFreedom

Josh Blackman

Sen. Ron Wyden

Jeff Kosseff

Eric Goldman

CCIA

NetChoice

Internet Association

David French at National Review

John Samples

Until recently, I wasn’t familiar with Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net reports. Freedom House has useful recommendations for Internet non-regulation and for protecting freedom of speech. Their Freedom on the Net Reports make an attempt at grading a complex subject: national online freedoms.

However, their latest US report came to my attention. Tech publications like TechCrunch and Internet regulation advocates were trumpeting the report because it touched on net neutrality. Freedom House penalized the US score in the US report because the FCC a few months ago repealed the so-called net neutrality rules from 2015.

The authors of the US report reached a curious conclusion: Internet deregulation means a loss of online freedom. In 2015, the FCC classified Internet services as a “Title II” common carrier service. In 2018, the FCC, reversed course, and shifted Internet services from one of the most-regulated industries in the US to one of least-regulated industries. This 2018 deregulation, according to the Freedom House US report, creates an “obstacle to access” and, while the US is still “free,” regulation repeal moves the US slightly in the direction of “digital authoritarianism.”  

The authors of the US report resort to net neutrality platitudes and don’t actually examine the 2015 Title II order. It’s never encouraging when a substantive report begins with an inaccurate summation of the 2015 Order: that the Order “ensured that internet service providers treated internet traffic equally.” That’s not what the Order does. (The “treat all traffic equally” aspiration is “happy little bunny rabbit dreams,” in the words of early Internet developer David Clark.) Despite branding efforts by Internet regulation advocates, the 2015 Order wouldn’t be recognizable as net neutrality to the average net neutrality supporter. The Obama FCC was quite clear that the Order allowed ISP content blocking and prioritization of services.

Relatedly, as pro-net neutrality publications like TechCrunch have noted, the net neutrality policies in the 2015 Order are optional for ISPs. 

[A] tiny ISP in Texas called Alamo . . . wanted to offer a “family-friendly” edited subset of the internet to its customers. Funnily enough, this is permitted! And by publicly stating that it has no intention of providing access to “substantially all Internet endpoints,” Alamo would exempt itself from the net neutrality rules! Yes, you read that correctly—an ISP can opt out of the rules by changing its business model. They are . . . essentially voluntary.

The current FCC cited this optional nature of the 2015 rules as a good reason to repeal the rules:

In practice, the Title II Order deregulates curated Internet access relative to conventional Internet access and may induce ISPs to filter content more often, rendering the no-blocking and no-throttling rules ineffectual as long as an ISP disclosed it was offering curated services.

I noticed that this report isn’t the first time that advocate talking points have clouded what should be substantive regulatory analysis from Freedom House. In November 2017, Freedom House issued a statement when the FCC announced plans to repeal the 2015 Title II order:

This change . . . could also set a dangerous precedent for countries that model their policy on Washington’s. In less democratic countries, where most providers of online content are state-owned and censored, authorities would have an excuse to give faster lanes of access to progovernment outlets.

Their apparent unfamiliarity with US telecom laws means they got this exactly backwards. It was the 2015 Title II order that increased the amount of control that the President of the US has over Internet access, as Berin Szoka has explained.   If there was a model to would-be despots around the world, it was the Title II classification in 2015, which gave greater war power authority to the President to prioritize the President’s favored communications over the Internet. (Left unexplained by Freedom House: why the FCC’s non-Title II policy from roughly 1996 to 2015 had not already inspired authoritarians.)

The 2018 deregulation reduced Presidential power over Internet services. Yet, according to Freedom House, the President’s loss of power to prioritize communications is also a loss of freedom to Internet users.

The Freedom House US report omits these details, uncritically endorses net neutrality maxims, and therefore slightly downgrades the US score to 22 (lower is better). That puts the US in the same class as the UK (score: 23), a country that is arresting thousands of online trolls and posters annually for “grossly offensive” social media posts. This includes convictions for

• a teenage girl who posted the lyrics from Snap Dogg’s I’m Trippin’ to pay tribute to a boy who died in a road crash.
• a young man’s tasteless attempt to annoy his girlfriend, including by teaching her pug to do a Nazi salute.

Needless to say, nothing in the US, and certainly not the recent Internet deregulation, compares to these mass arrests and convictions for online behavior.

Ironically, the Freedom House US Internet report reveals the same deficiency as the 2015 Internet regulations: creating a standard that is aspirational, occasionally internally inconsistent, and multi-factor means that, too often, advocates can reach whatever pre-determined result they wish.

There has been an increasing outcry recently from conservatives that social media is conspiring to silence their voices.  Leading voices including President Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz have started calling for legislative or regulatory actions to correct this perceived “bias”. But these calls for fairness miss the importance of allowing such services to develop their own terms and for users to determine what services to use and the benefit that such services have been to conservatives.

Social media is becoming a part of our everyday lives and recent events have only increased our general awareness of this fact. More than half of American adults login to Facebook on a daily basis. As a result, some policymakers have argued that such sites are the new public square. In general, the First Amendment strictly limits what the government can do to limit speakers in public spaces and requires that such limits be applied equally to different points of view. At the same time, private entities are generally allowed to set terms regarding what speech may or may not be allowed on their own platforms.

The argument that modern day websites are the new public square and must maintain a neutral view point was recently rejected in a lawsuit between PraegerU and YouTube. Praeger believed that its conservative viewpoint was being silenced by YouTube decision to place many of its videos in “restricted mode.” In this case, the court found that YouTube was still acting as a private service rather than one filling a typical government role. Other cases have similarly asserted that Internet intermediaries have First Amendment rights to reject or limit ads or content as part of their own rights to speak or not speak. Conservatives have long been proponents of property rights, freedom of association, and free markets. But now, faced with platforms choosing to exercise their rights, rather than defend those values and compete in the market some “conservatives” are arguing for legislation or utilizing litigation to bully the marketplace of ideas into giving them a louder microphone. In fact, part of the purpose behind creating the liability immunity (known as Section 230) for such services was the principle that a variety of platforms would emerge with different standards and new and diverse communities could be created and evolve to serve different audiences.

A similar idea of a need for equal content was previously used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and known as “the fairness doctrine”. This doctrine required equal access for groups or individuals wanting to express opposing views on public issues. In the 1980s Reagan era Republicans led the charge against this doctrine arguing that it violated broadcasters’ First Amendment rights and actually went against the public interest. In fact, many have pointed out that the removal of the fairness doctrine is what allowed conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh to become major political forces.  In the 2000s, when liberals suggested bringing back the fairness doctrine, conservatives were aghast and viewed it was an attack on conservative talk radio.  Even now, President Trump has used social media as a way to deliver messaging and set his political agenda in a way that has never been done before. If anything, there are lower barriers to creating a new medium on the Internet than there are on the TV or radio airwaves. As a 2016 National Review article states if conservatives are concerned with how they are being treated by existing platforms, “The goal should not be to create neutral spaces; it should be to create non-neutral spaces more attractive than existing non-neutral spaces.” In other words rather than complaining that the odds are against them and demanding “equal time”, conservatives should try to compete by building more attractive platforms that promote the content moderation ideals they believe are best. But perhaps, the problem is they realize that ultimately difficult or unpopular content moderation decisions must be faced by any platform.

Content moderation is no easy task. Even for small groups differing beliefs can quickly result in grey areas that require difficult calls by an intermediary. For social media and other Internet intermediaries, when dealing with such issue on a scale of millions and a global diversity of what is and isn’t acceptable, content moderation becomes exponentially complicated. It is unsurprising that a rate of human and machine learning errors exist in making such decisions. AI might seem like a simple solution but such filters aren’t aware of the context in many cases. For example, a Motherboard article recently pointed out the difficulty that those with last names like Weiner and Butts face when trying to register for accounts on websites with AI filters to prevent offensive language. Leaving the task of content moderation to humans is both incredibly difficult on the moderators and may result in inconsistent results due to the large volume of content that must be moderated and differing interpretations of community standards. As Jason Koebler and Joseph Cox point out in their Motherboard article on the challenge of content moderation on a global scale that Facebook is dealing with, “If you take a single case, and then think of how many more like it exist across the globe in countries that Facebook has even less historical context for, simple rules have higher and higher chances of unwanted outcomes.” It is quite clear that if we as a society can’t decide on our own definitions of things like hate speech or bullying in many cases, how we can expect a third party public or private to make such decision in a way that satisfies every perspective?

The Internet has helped the world truly create a marketplace of ideas. The barriers to entry are rather low and the medium is constantly evolving. Because of social media and the Internet more generally conservative voices are able to reach a wider audience than before. Conservatives should be careful what they wish for with calls for “fairness,” because such power could actually prevent future innovation or new platforms and extend the status quo instead.

Thirteen years ago I penned an essay entitled, “Your Soapbox is My Soapbox!” It was condensed from a 2005 book I had released at the same time called Media Myths. My research and writing during that period and for fifteen years prior to that was focused on the dangers associated with calls by radical Left-leaning media scholars and policy activists for a veritable regulatory revolution in the way information and communication technology (ICT) platforms were operated. They pushed this revolution using noble-sounding rhetoric like “fairness in coverage,” “right of reply,” “integrity of public debate,” “preserving the public square,” and so on. Their advocacy efforts were also accompanied by calls for a host of new regulatory controls including a “Bill of Media Rights” to grant the public a litany of new affirmative rights over media and communications providers and platforms.

But no matter how much the so-called “media access” movement sought to sugarcoat their prescriptions, in the end, what those Left-leaning scholars and advocates were calling for was sweeping state control of media and communications technologies and platforms. In essence, they wanted to socialize private soapboxes and turn them into handmaidens of the state.

Here’s the way I began my old “soapbox” essay:

Imagine you built a platform in your backyard for the purpose of informing or entertaining your friends of neighbors. Now further imagine that you are actually fairly good at what you do and manage to attract and retain a large audience. Then one day, a few hecklers come to hear you speak on your platform. They shout about how it’s unfair that you have attracted so many people to hear you speak on your soapbox and they demand access to your platform for a certain amount of time each day. They rationalize this by arguing that it is THEIR rights as listeners that are really important, not YOUR rights as a speaker or the owner of the soapbox. That sort of scenario could never happen in America, right? Sadly, it’s been the way media law has operated for several decades in this country. This twisted “media access” philosophy has been employed by federal lawmakers and numerous special interest groups to justify extensive and massively unjust regime of media regulation and speech redistributionism. And it’s still at work today.

That was 2005. What’s amazing today is that this same twisted attitude is still on display, but it is conservatives who are now the ring-leaders of the push to socialize soapboxes!

Conservatives were squarely against such soapbox socialism when I penned my earlier essay and book. During that time, they feared that the media access movement would devolve into a political witch hunt aimed at singling them out and eliminating the many new popular personalities and platforms that offered the public Right-of-center voices and viewpoints.

But it’s a new day in America and conservatives have now flipped this script and are using the media access movement playbook to call for massive state control over private media and technology platforms in the name of eradicating supposed “bias” against them and their views.

Apparently everyone’s a Media Marxist these days, beginning with President Trump! Claiming that there is some sort of grand anti-conservative conspiracy afoot, President Trump and many of his defenders are pushing for greater government control of the media and tech companies. The White House is apparently “taking a look” at the idea of regulating Google because it is part of the “fake news media.” (Over at TechDirt, Zach Graves has a thorough debunking of such nonsense.) Of course, this follows Trump’s seemingly endless jihad against older media outlets, especially large newspapers and cable news enterprises that he disfavors.

Meanwhile, a new White House “We the People” petition to “Protect Free Speech in the Digital Public Square” already has almost 40,000 signatures. “The internet is the modern public square,” the manifesto begins. It continues on to claims that “the free and open internet has become a controlled, censored space, monopolized by a few unaccountable corporations” and that “[b]y banning users from their platforms, those corporations can effectively remove politically unwelcome Americans from the public square.” It concludes with the following call to action: “The President should request that Congress pass legislation prohibiting social media platforms from banning users for First Amendment-protected speech. The power to block lawful content should be in the hands of individual users – not [Facebook’s] Mark Zuckerberg or [Twitter’s] Jack Dorsey.”

Such rhetoric and proposals are indistinguishable from what the Left-leaning media access advocates were calling for in the past.

Is “media Marxism” too strong a term to use in this regard? Well, the textbook definition of Marxism involves state control of the means of production. In the case of information platforms, control of the means of production would involve the forcible surrender of some combination of the underlying editorial control that the owners have over their speech platforms as well as potential state control of the algorithms and other technical foundations of digital platforms.

And so let’s hear from former White House strategist Steve Bannon commenting to CNN on what he thinks needs to be done next:

>> Bannon said Big Tech’s data should be seized and put in a “public trust.” Specifically, Bannon said, “I think you take [the data] away from the companies. All that data they have is put in a public trust. They can use it. And people can opt in and opt out. That trust is run by an independent board of directors. It just can’t be that [Big Tech is] the sole proprietors of this data…I think this is a public good.” Bannon added that Big Tech companies “have to be broken up” just like Teddy Roosevelt broke up the trusts.” >> Bannon attacked the executives of Facebook, Twitter and Google. “These are run by sociopaths,” he said. “These people are complete narcissists. These people ought to be controlled, they ought to be regulated.” At one point during the phone call, Bannon said, “These people are evil. There is no doubt about that.” >> Bannon said he thinks “this is going to be a massive issue” in future elections. He said he thinks it will probably take until 2020 to fully blossom as a campaign issue, explaining, “I think by the time 2020 comes along, this will be a burning issue. I think this will be one of the biggest domestic issues.” Bannon said the “#MeToo movement has brought the issue of consent front and center” and argued that “this is going to bring the issue of digital consent front and center.”

On one hand, Bannon no longer works in Trump’s White House, so perhaps it isn’t fair to say that his views and prescriptions are tantamount to the President’s views. But Bannon was saying similar things while he was in the White House with Trump and the President’s surrogates have been continuously upping their rhetoric to suggest that they are serious about moving against the ICT sector in some fashion.

So, apparently we now inhabit a Bizarro World where the Hard Right has replaced the Hard Left in the U.S. in the never-ending drama of speech control. In past decades, some conservatives favored media regulation, of course. In fact, in the heyday of the Fairness Doctrine, many leading conservative voices insisted that regulation was needed to counter supposed “liberal bias” in broadcasting. It was only when Rush Limbaugh and many other conservatives came along in the late 1980s / early 1990s and gained a significant audience on talk radio that conservative sympathy for the Fairness Doctrine completely disappeared. In fact, conservatives then became vociferous critics of the Doctrine and demanded a stake be driven through its heart. Eventually, they did just that.  But even during the time when some conservative pundits supported the Fairness Doctrine, that support was fairly limited and tepid. And you almost never heard conservatives supporting radical state control of the press as a solution to perceived bias.

Yet, here we are now with Trump and many of his allies floating proposals to treat information platforms as the equivalent of essential facilities or “public squares” which would have some sort of amorphous fiduciary obligations or “public interest” responsibilities to serve the public however politicians and bureaucrats in Washington see fit. That could entail anything from “search neutrality” to a new Fairness doctrine / right of reply mandate to a full-blown antirust breakup.

Like the Hard Left before them, the Hard Right has apparently come to view ICT platforms as just another part of the socio-political superstructure to be controlled from above to achieve their own ends. Trump and his allies have repeatedly referred to the press as the “enemy of the American people.” (His latest tweet using that phrase has already racked up almost 84,000 likes.) That’s totalitarian talk, and it softens the ground for the sort of takeover that Bannon and others desire. The “Fake News” that President Trump and his surrogates decry includes not just traditional journalism outlets but all forms of information production and dissemination. Trump wants them all to bend the knee before him. Because they won’t, apparently they are to be punished.

If Trump and his allies get their way, America would join the ranks of repressive states around the globe who seek to control speech platforms for their own ends. That sort of totalitarian impulse is repugnant to the values of a democratic republic that values open inquiry, freedom of speech and expression, press freedom, and the freedom to know about and report on the world around us.

As I concluded my earlier “soapbox” essay back in 2005:

This arrogant, elitist, anti-property, anti-freedom ethic is what drives the media access movement and makes it so morally repugnant. Freedom doesn’t begin by fettering the press with more chains, it begins by removing those that already exist and then erecting a firm wall between State and Press. The media access crowd has succeeded in breaching that wall with seven decades of misguided and unjust regulation of the press. The movement back toward a truly free press begins by understanding the error in their thinking, rejecting that reasoning, and then embracing, once again, the original vision of the First Amendment as a bulwark against government control of speech and the press.

In closing, this is a good moment for those on the moderate Left to reflect upon what they have enabled by sketching out and defending this intellectual blueprint for media control. The Left helped make the bed that Donald Trump is now getting cozy in. Many Hard Left scholars repeatedly told us that it was with the very best of intentions that they advocated more state control of the ICT sectors. There’s no bringing those radicals around to seeing the mistake they made. They will just double down on their proposals and claim that once “their team” gets back in power, all will be fine. It is utter poppycock, but they won’t care one bit.

The moderate Left, however, should be more sensible than that because they have been the great defenders of the First Amendment and freedom of speech in modern American history. And they understand that the danger of the slippery slope is very real when it comes to speech controls and how they might undermine our First Amendment heritage. When the moderate Left allows radical media theorists and regulatory advocacy groups to push extreme media control measures, however, they are creating speech control mechanisms that are very susceptible to being overtaken by their enemies and then used against them later on. And now we have a President who is doing exactly that.

It is a truly horrifying moment in the history of the American Republic. Hopefully we get through it and learn something from it.

A few states have passed Internet regulations because the Trump FCC, citing a 20 year US policy of leaving the Internet “unfettered by Federal or State regulation,” decided to reverse the Obama FCC’s 2015 decision to regulate the Internet with telephone laws.

Those state laws regulating Internet traffic management practices–which supporters call “net neutrality”–are unlikely to survive lawsuits because the Internet and Internet services are clearly interstate communications and FCC authority dominates. (The California bill also likely violates federal law concerning E-Rate-funded Internet access.) 

However, litigation can take years. In the meantime ISP operators will find they face fewer regulatory headaches if they do exactly what net neutrality supporters believe the laws prohibit: block Internet content. Net neutrality laws in the US don’t apply to ISPs that “edit the Internet.”

The problem for net neutrality supporters is that Internet service providers, like cable TV providers, are protected by the First Amendment. In fact, Internet regulations with a nexus to content are subject to “strict scrutiny,” which typically means regulations are struck down. Even leading net neutrality proponents, like the ACLU and EFF, endorse the view that ISP curation is expressive activity protected by First Amendment.

As I’ve pointed out, these First Amendment concerns were raised during the 2016 litigation and compelled the Obama FCC to clarify that its 2015 “net neutrality” Order allows ISPs to block content. As a pro-net neutrality journalist recently wrote in TechCrunch about the 2015 rules,  

[A] tiny ISP in Texas called Alamo . . . wanted to offer a “family-friendly” edited subset of the internet to its customers. Funnily enough, this is permitted! And by publicly stating that it has no intention of providing access to “substantially all Internet endpoints,” Alamo would exempt itself from the net neutrality rules! Yes, you read that correctly — an ISP can opt out of the rules by changing its business model. They are . . . essentially voluntary.

The author wrote this to ridicule Judge Kavanaugh, but the joke is clearly not on Kavanuagh.

In fact, under the 2015 Order, filtered Internet service was less regulated than conventional Internet service. Note that the rules were “essentially voluntary”–ISPs could opt out of regulation by filtering content. The perverse incentive of this regulatory asymmetry, whereby the FCC would regulate conventional broadband heavily but not regulate filtered Internet at all, was cited by the Trump FCC as a reason to eliminate the 2015 rules. 

State net neutrality laws basically copy and paste from the 2015 FCC regulations and will have the same problem: Any ISP that forthrightly blocks content it doesn’t wish to transmit–like adult content–and edits the Internet is unregulated.

This looks bad for net neutrality proponents leading the charge, so they often respond that the Internet regulations cover the “functional equivalent” of conventional (heavily regulated) Internet access. Therefore, the story goes, regulators can stop an ISP from filtering because an edited Internet is the functional equivalent of an unedited Internet.

Curiously, the Obama FCC didn’t make this argument in court. The reason the Obama FCC didn’t endorse this “functional equivalent” response is obvious. Let’s play this out: An ISP markets and offers a discounted “clean Internet” package because it knows that many consumers would appreciate it. To bring the ISP back into the regulated category, regulators sue, drag the ISP operators into court, and tell judges that state law compels the operator to transmit adult content.

This argument would receive a chilly reception in court. More likely is that state regulators, in order to preserve some authority to regulate the Internet, will simply concede that filtered Internet drops out of regulation, like the Obama FCC did.

As one telecom scholar wrote in a Harvard Law publication years ago, “net neutrality” is dead in the US unless there’s a legal revolution in the courts.  Section 230 of the Telecom Act encourages ISPs to filter content and the First Amendment protects ISP curation of the Internet. State law can’t change that. The open Internet has been a net positive for society. However, state net neutrality laws may have the unintended effect of encouraging ISPs to filter. This is not news if you follow the debate closely, but rank-and-file net neutrality advocates have no idea. The top fear of leading net neutrality advocates is not ISP filtering, it’s the prospect that the Internet–the most powerful media distributor in history–will escape the regulatory state.

Is code speech? That is one of the timeless questions that comes up again and again in the field of Internet law and policy. Many books and countless papers and essays have touched on this topic. Personally, I’ve always thought it was a bit silly that this is even a serious question. After all, if code isn’t speech, what the heck is it?

We humans express ourselves in many creative ways. We speak and write. We sing and dance. We paint and sculpt. And now we code. All these things are forms of human expression. Under American First Amendment jurisprudence, expression is basically synonymous with speech. We very tightly limit restrictions on speech and expression because it is a matter of personal autonomy and also because we believe that there is a profound danger of the proverbial slippery slope kicking in once we allow government officials to start censoring what they regard as offensive speech or dangerous expression.

Thus, we when creative people come up with creative thoughts and use computers and software to express them in code, that is speech. It is fundamentally no different than using a pencil and pad of paper to write a manifesto, or using a guitar and microphone to sing a protest song. The authorities might not like the resulting manifesto or protest song–in fact, they might feel quite threatened by it–but that fact also makes it clear why, in both cases, that expression is speech and that speech is worth defending. Moreover, the methods or mediums of speech production and dissemination–pencils, paper, guitars, microphones, etc.–are what Ithiel de Sola Pool referred to as “Technologies of Freedom.” They help people extend their voices and to communicate with the world, while also learning more about it.

Which brings us to the 3D printers and the code behind the open source blueprints that many people share to fabricate things with 3D printers.  Washington Post reporter Meagan Flynn was kind enough to call me last week and ask me to comment for a story she was putting together about the ongoing legal fights over 3D-printed firearms in generally and the efforts of Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed in particular. Wilson is a self-described crypto-anarchist who has landed in hot water with federal and state officials for making available open source blueprints for the 3D-printed firearms freely available to the public. Federal efforts aimed at stopping Wilson and Defense Distributed haven’t worked and now state attorneys general are seeking to impose legal restrictions on him.

Flynn’s WashPo article offered an outstanding overview of everything that is happening on this front, so I won’t rehash it all here. But I wanted to reproduce my portions of her story here and just add a few more thoughts. Here’s the block of the story that mentioned my thoughts:

Adam Thierer, who specializes in the intersection of free speech and technology at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, said the debate over the computer code for the 3-D-printable guns is the same song he heard during the Crypto Wars — but more like a remix. Guns, of course, pose different risks than encryption technology. Thierer said he thinks the Defense Distributed code is almost certainly speech, but the question is whether the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to regulate it.

The problem with the states’ argument, he contended, is that it would be a “stretch” for the judge to decide that the computer code itself skirts the states’ gun laws, as those laws generally center on possession of actual guns. It would be easier for the states to regulate 3-D-printed guns themselves through new laws, he said, rather than seeking to regulate the code that creates them. “They would have to make the argument that the speech itself is essentially the device,” he said. “Nothing is stopping them from regulating firearms. But the underlying speech is not in their purview. There has to be a distinction made between the speech and the byproduct of speech.”

In our recent essay, “3D Printers, Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Tech Regulation,” Andrea O’Sullivan and I offered more extensive discussion of the legal issues at play here. And in a 2016 law review article entitled, “Guns, Limbs, and Toys: What Future for 3D Printing?” my co-author Adam Marcus and I discussed several examples of how additive manufacturing and the “maker” revolution are making the governance of various emerging technologies quite challenging.

The key points my co-authors and I try to make in these articles is that:

1. These controversies aren’t going away; they are only going to expand as “evasive entrepreneurs” find new interesting ways to use 3D printers to express themselves.
2. Regardless of what is being produced with 3D printers, the code and blueprints behind them are speech and deserve protection. And under American free speech jurisprudence, such code will almost certainly win such protections from courts when legislators or regulators seek to censor or regulate them.
3. The better way to regulate 3D printing is to focus on the physical manifestations of speech/expression. That is, focus on the user and the use, not the speech behind it. As Marcus and I put it in our law review article, “the proper focus of regulation should remain on the user and uses of firearms, regardless of how they are manufactured.” The U.S. has an extensive array of federal and state firearm regulations, and they can and should continue to apply to 3D-printed weapons. Likewise, a 3D-printed prosthetic limb is still a medical device, and the Food and Drug Administration can regulate it according if it sees fit. But in neither case should the underlying speech (i.e., the code) behind such inventions be censored.

For decades, cities, the FCC, and Congress have mandated that cable TV operators carry certain types of TV programming, including public access channels, local broadcast channels, local public television, and children’s programming. These carriage mandates have generated several First Amendment lawsuits but cable operators have generally lost. Cable operators have junior varsity First Amendment rights and the content they distribute is more regulated than, say, newspapers, Internet service providers, search engines, and Netflix. I submitted public interest comments (with JP Mohler) to the FCC this week explaining why cable operators would likely win today if they litigated these cable carriage regulations.

Regulations requiring newspapers, book publishers, or Internet service providers to carry the government’s preferred types of content are subject to strict scrutiny, which means such regulations typically don’t survive. However, cable is different, the Supreme Court held in the 1994 Turner case. The Supreme Court said regulations about what cable operators must carry are subject to intermediate–not strict–scrutiny because cable operators (in 1994) possessed about 95% of the subscription TV market and nearly every household had a single choice for subscription TV–their local cable monopoly. In the words of the Supreme Court, cable’s content regulations “are justified by the special characteristics of the cable medium: the bottleneck monopoly power exercised by cable operators.”

As a result, the FCC enforces “leased access” regulations that require cable operators to leave blank certain TV channels and give non-affiliated programmers a chance to use that channel capacity and gain viewership. Cable operators in the 1990s sued the FCC for enforcing these regulations in a 1996 case called Time Warner v. FCC. The DC Circuit relied on the 1994 Turner case and upheld the leased access rules.

Recently, however, the FCC asked whether First Amendment interests or TV competition requires giving these regulations another look. In our public interest comment, JP and I say that these rules have outlived their usefulness and cable operators would likely win a First Amendment lawsuit against the FCC today.

Two things have changed. First, cable operators have lost their “bottleneck monopoly power” that justified, in the eyes of the Supreme Court in 1994, giving cable operators weakened First Amendment protection.

Unlike in the 1990s, cable operators face significant competition in most local markets from satellite and telco TV providers. Over 99 percent of US households have at least three pay-TV options, and cable has lost over 15 million subscriber households since 2002. In 1997, when Turner II was decided, cable had over 90 percent of the pay-TV market. Cable operators’ market share has shrunk nearly every year since, and in 2015 cable had around 54 percent market share. This competitive marketplace has stimulated massive investment and choice in TV programming. The typical household has access to far more channels than in the past. Independent researchers found that a typical US household in 1999 received about 50 TV channels. By 2014, the typical household received over 200 TV channels. In 2018, there will be an estimated 520 scripted TV series available, which is up nearly 50 percent from just five years ago.

This emergence of TV competition and its beneficial effects in programming and consumer choice undermines the justification for upholding cable content regulations like leased access.

Second, courts are more likely to view the Supreme Court’s Denver decision about leased access regulations in a new light.  In Denver, the Supreme Court divided into concurrences as to the proper First Amendment category of cable operators, and whether intermediate or strict scrutiny should apply to the leased access laws at issue. The “Marks test” is the test lower courts use for determining the holding of a Supreme Court decision where there is no majority supporting the rationale of any opinion. Viewed through the lens of the prevailing Marks test, cable operators are entitled to “bookstore owner” status for First Amendment purposes:

Given that four justices in Denver concur that one of the potential bases for deciding cable’s First Amendment status is the classification of cable operators as bookstores and three justices concur that this classification is the definitive justification for the judgment, the narrowest grounds for resolving the issue is simply this latter justification. Under the prevailing Marks test, then, lower courts will apply strict scrutiny to the leased access rules in light of the Denver decision.

For these reasons, and the need to conserve agency resources for more pressing matters, like rural broadband deployment and spectrum auctions, we encourage the FCC to discontinue these regulations.

You can read our public interest comment about the leased access regulations at the Mercatus Center website.

Leased Access Mandates Infringe on the First Amendment Rights of Cable Operators, and the FCC Should Decline to Enforce the Regulations

There are a growing number of voices raising concerns about privacy rights and data security in the wake of news of data breaches and potential influence. The European Union (EU) recently adopted the heavily restrictive General Data Privacy Rule (GDPR) that favors individual privacy over innovation or the right to speak. While there has been some discussion of potential federal legislation related to data privacy, none of these attempts has truly gained traction beyond existing special protections for vulnerable users (like children) or specific information (like that of healthcare and finances). Some states, notably including California, are attempting to solve this perceived problem of data privacy on their own, but often are creating bigger problems and passing potentially unconstitutional and often poorly drafted solutions.

All states have at least minimal data breach laws and the quality of such laws both in effectiveness and impact on innovation varies. Normally states work as “laboratories of democracy” and are able to test out different regulatory schemes for new technologies with less demosclerosis than the federal process. Similarly, they are better able to account for different preferences in tradeoffs, and in some cases, they are more able to remove barriers to entry by reforming existing areas of law like licensure or products liability to accommodate a new technology. In areas like autonomous vehicles, telemedicine, and drone policy states are often leading the way to embrace these new technologies. However, a new trend in some states to formally regulate the Internet through laws aimed at data privacy or net neutrality to achieve what they perceive as failures of the federal government to act ignores the potential damage to the permissionless federal policy that made the Internet what it is today.

California has passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and other states are likely to follow suit. Unfortunately, these type of statutes are likely to impact innovation in a misguided attempt to correct issues with data privacy. However, these statutes could reach far beyond state borders and illustrate the potential risks of a fifty-state privacy patchwork.

These laws will likely lead to a problem in identifying what entities are covered by the privacy legislation. California’s recent CCPA defines those who are required to comply so ambiguously that a reasonable interpretation would imply the law applies so long as a single user is a resident of California whether they are accessing the website from California or not and no matter if the website purposefully avails itself of California or not.

State laws also unintentionally make it more difficult for small, local companies to compete with Internet giants. Large companies like Google and Facebook can afford the cost of additional compliance but it is more difficult for smaller and mid-size companies to cover such costs. As a result, if they are able to comply they often are more limited in their ability to fund future innovation as they instead invest resources in compliance. In a world of state based privacy laws, it’s inevitable that some would impose contradictory standards and as a result might actually make it worse rather than better as companies pick and choose which states to comply with. What is already playing out in Europe where small and mid-size companies are choosing to exit the market rather spend the cost in complying with new restrictions could play out for states with more restrictive data requirements. And it’s not just fledging startups that have difficulty, the L.A. Times and Chicago Tribune have been unavailable to Europeans since GDPR became effective as they had not completed compliance by the May deadline. In some cases companies have founded it easier to block or exclude effected users than to comply with onerous data restrictions.

In some cases, states making exceptions for companies below a certain number of user also may discourage investment at a certain point. For example the CCPA kicks in at 50,000 users. As a result there is a large marginal costs for gaining 50,001 ^st user as compliance with the standards are immediately required. This might lead to caps on certain newer platforms or encourage innovators to look for loopholes to avoid the high cost of compliance early on.

But even if states were able to create a sort of interstate compact that created an effectively uniform state level set of privacy laws, it would still be an inappropriate use of federalism for the state to govern data privacy due to its de facto impact on interstate commerce and the First Amendment.

The Internet by its very nature transcends states borders and any state laws aimed at impacting privacy are likely to have national and global impact. This is not what is intended by federalism and not just the case for states like California with a significant amount of tech companies. If there are 50 different state laws than new online intermediaries will have  develop 50 different compliance policies or the most restrictive state will become the de facto standard for everyone left in the industry. As Jeff Kosseff points out, a world of 50 variations of the same privacy law based on users would require out-of-state content creators would likely require significant changes to their existing systems and place an undue burden on content creators and users.

Additionally, there are legitimate concerns about the First Amendment rights to share information that may be in conflict with the way privacy rights are enforced under proposed laws. Requiring otherwise lawful content to be removed silences the speaker. For example, if a friend posts a picture from a party that includes you and you ask all your data be removed is that data yours or your friends. To remove the data would silence a speaker and value one individual’s right to privacy over another’s right to speak. In some cases it seems such tradeoffs could be reasonable such as speech that is not just merely offensive but causes clear harm to the person it is about such as revenge porn, but in many cases it is far less clear. Unfortunately when faced with the crippling potential sanctions of such laws, many companies take a remove first question second approach as has been seen with copyright under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

While there is a growing voice for data privacy, there seems to be little willingness on the part of consumers or regulators to make such tradeoffs. The so called “privacy paradox” where people do not undertake the necessary actions to match with their stated desire for increased data privacy and many willingly admit they prefer the convenience they receive in exchange for their data. If action on data privacy is necessary, it should occur at a federal level to avoid the patchwork problems that would result from inconsistent state laws. Any law must be narrowly tailored to respect the First Amendment rights of both users and platforms. We also must be aware of the tradeoffs that we are making between innovation and privacy when we see calls for a US GDPR. At the same time we should be concerned that as a result of the heavy burden of compliance with GDPR, a more regulated Internet where only those who can afford to comply survive may replace the permissionless start-up American driven version.

While federal preemption may be needed to address a patchwork of state privacy laws, we should be cautious and seek to avoid the mistakes of GDPR type privacy laws that place a value on individual privacy above innovation and knowledge sharing. Simple steps in providing more transparent information and requirements for notification are more likely to allow individuals to make the privacy choices that best fit their needs.

A privacy patchwork of state based “solutions” is likely to create more problems than it solves. The real solutions to our current dilemmas will come from conversations about how we balance the rewards of innovation with individual preferences for privacy.

On March 19th, I had the chance to debate Franklin Foer at a Patrick Henry College event focused on the question, “Is Big Tech Big Brother?” It was billed as a debate over the role of technology in American society and whether government should be regulating media and technology platforms more generally.  [The full event video is here.] Foer is the author of the new book, World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech, in which he advocates a fairly expansive regulatory regime for modern information technology platforms. He is open to building on regulatory ideas from the past, including broadcast-esque licensing regimes, “Fairness Doctrine”-like mandates for digital intermediaries, “fiduciary” responsibilities, beefed-up antitrust intervention, and other types of controls. In a review of the book for Reason, and then again during the debate at Patrick Henry University, I offered some reflections on what we can learn from history about how well ideas like those worked out in practice.

My closing statement of the debate, which lasted just a little over three minutes, offers a concise summation of what that history teaches us and why it would be so dangerous to repeat the mistakes of the past by wandering down that disastrous path again. That 3-minute clip is posted below. (The audience was polled before and after the event and asked the same question each time: “Do large tech companies wield too much power in our economy, media and personal lives and if so, should government(s) intervene?” Apparently at the beginning, the poll was roughly Yes – 70% and No – 30%, but after the debated ended it has reversed, with only 30% in favor of intervention and 70% against. Glad to turn around some minds on this one!)

via ytCropper

Internet regulation advocates lost their fight at the FCC, which voted in December 2017 to rescind the 2015 Open Internet Order. Regulation advocates have now taken their “net neutrality” regulations to the states.

Some state officials–via procurement contracts, executive order, or legislation–are attempting to monitor and regulate traffic management techniques and Internet service provider business models in the name of net neutrality. No one, apparently, told these officials that government-mandated net neutrality principles are dead in the US.

As the litigation over the 2015 rules showed, o ur national laissez faire policy towards the Internet and our First Amendment guts any attempt to enforce net neutrality.  Recall that the 1996 amendments to the Communications Act announce a clear national policy about the Internet:

It is the policy of the United States . . . to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation.

In fact, that 1996 law was passed in order to encourage ISPs to filter objectionable content.

Further, regulators cannot prevent ISPs from exercising their First Amendment rights to curate the Internet. As Prof. Stuart Minor Benjamin wrote for the Harvard Law Review Forum in 2014,

If we really want to prevent Internet access providers from being speakers, we are going to have to radically reshape the Supreme Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence and understandings.

No radical reshaping of the First Amendment has occurred. For all these reasons, the Obama FCC attorney was forced to concede that

If they [that is, ISPs] filter the Internet . . . the [2015 Open Internet] rules don’t apply to them. 

Even Title II supporters EFF and the ACLU acknowledge in their FCC joint filing that ISPs are speakers who can filter content and escape Title II regulation.

ACLU & EFF throw in the towel—ISPs may block content under the 1st Amend. & are exempt from Title II. #netneutrality https://t.co/xU7uWfPIn4 pic.twitter.com/ZrXjs8bUtS

— Brent Skorup (@bskorup) September 1, 2017

At the end of the day, net neutrality, having lost its original definition, is simply a re-branding of Internet regulation.

State Internet regulations, therefore, are at odds with federal law and policy.  Let’s set aside federal preemption for the moment (Seth Cooper explained why preemption likely kills most of these state Internet regulations). There are other arguments for why states can’t impose baby “net neutrality” bills. 

Net neutrality bills likely violate the law

The state “net neutrality” bills and executive orders represent common carriage regulation. State officials make no attempt to hide this since they largely copy-and-paste the nondiscrimination obligations directly from the 2015 Open Internet Order. Here’s the problem for states: regulators can’t impose common carrier obligations on non-common carriers.

When nondiscrimination principles deprive operators of control of content, that amounts to common carriage. This was established in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Midwest Video II. In that case, the Supreme Court struck down common carriage obligations on cable operators, who are non-common carriers. The Court said ,

With its access rules, however, the Commission has transferred control of the content of access cable channels from cable operators to members of the public who wish to communicate by the cable medium. …The access rules plainly impose common-carrier obligations on cable operators.

The FCC, the Court said, had no authority to transform them into common carriers.

In fact, this is why the 2010 Open Internet Order was struck down in Verizon v. FCC. There, relying on Midwest Video II, the DC Circuit held that the net neutrality principles couldn’t be enforced on non-common carriers. As the DC Circuit said of the FCC’s common carrier obligations for ISPs: “Midwest Video II is indistinguishable.”

State “net neutrality” regulations will likely fail for the same reason.  The 2015 rules were upheld because “broadband Internet access service” was classified as a Title II common carrier service. “Broadband Internet access service” providers will no longer be common carriers once the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order takes effect. By imposing common carrier rules on non-common carriers, states run afoul of Midwest Video II and Verizon.

Net neutrality bills balkanize the Internet

State-based Internet regulation is also bad policy, and many who support net neutrality principles–like Google–oppose this legal regime. Internet regulation advocates, by encouraging regulation state-by-state and city-by-city, have finally dispensed with the fiction that “net neutrality” is about the “open Internet.” In their eagerness to have someone, anyone regulate the Internet, these advocates are willing to balkanize the US Internet into dozens, or even hundreds, of splinternets, each with a different local or state regulator.

The Montana governor, for instance, encouraged every state and city to regulate the Internet, even providing a customizable template:

Any city or state can do this. We made you a template: https://t.co/yYgQTWdat1 #NetNeutrality https://t.co/dz3BFiN0uN

— Steve Bullock (@GovernorBullock) January 22, 2018

Further, net neutrality rules are not easy to apply and interpret, particularly the “catch-all” Internet conduct standard. Net neutrality supporters take vastly different stances on identical ISP conduct.

One illustration: the common practice of zero rating by mobile providers. One prominent net neutrality supporter (then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler) said T-Mobile’s zero rating was “highly innovative and highly competitive.” Another (Prof. Susan Crawford) said it is “anti-competitive,” “dangerous,” and “malignant” and should be ended immediately. There were many advocates in both camps and everywhere in between.

Given the wide divergence of views on a single issue, dozens of “net neutrality” laws would create innumerable contradictions about what is allowed and disallowed online. The fragmented Internet and legal uncertainty would be particularly damaging to small app companies and competitive ISPs, who don’t have hallways of lawyers to ensure compliance, and who use or plan to use traffic priority techniques for gaming, disability services, VoIP, and driverless cars.

For the global, stateless Internet, having state and city CIOs create their own custom Internet regulation interpretations would destroy what made the Internet transformative–a permissionless, global network free of legacy regulations. State legislatures and governors, by ramming through “net neutrality,” are committing to waste countless taxpayer dollars in battling the federal government and telecom companies in (probably unwinnable) litigation. Their “best-case” scenario: a few states win in court and splinter the Internet.

Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and put state energies and treasure into doing something constructive about broadband, like urging reform of the $8.8 billion universal service fund or improving permitting processes and competition.

Broadcast license renewal challenges have troubled libertarians and free speech advocates for decades. Despite our efforts (and our law journal articles on the abuse of the licensing process), license challenges are legal. In fact, political parties, prior FCCs, and activist groups have encouraged license challenges based on TV content to ensure broadcasters are operating in “the public interest.” Further, courts have compelled and will compel a reluctant FCC to investigate “news distortion” and other violations of FCC broadcast rules. It’s a troubling state of affairs that has been pushed back into relevancy because FCC license challenges are in the news.

In recent years the FCC, whether led by Democrats or Republicans, has preferred to avoid tricky questions surrounding license renewals. Chairman Pai, like most recent FCC chairs, has been an outspoken defender of First Amendment protections and norms. He opposed, for instance, the Obama FCC’s attempt to survey broadcast newsrooms about their coverage. He also penned an op-ed bringing attention to the fact that federal NSF funding was being used by left-leaning researchers to monitor and combat “misinformation and propaganda” on social media.

The silence of the Republican commissioners today about license renewals is likely primarily because they have higher priorities (like broadband deployment and freeing up spectrum) than intervening in the competitive media marketplace. But second, and less understood, is because whether to investigate a news station isn’t really up to them. Courts can overrule them and compel an investigation.

Political actors have used FCC licensing procedures for decades to silence political opponents and unfavorable media. For reasons I won’t explore here, TV and radio broadcasters have diminished First Amendment rights and the public is permitted to challenge their licenses at renewal time.

So, progressive “citizens groups” even in recent years have challenged license renewals for broadcasters for “one-sided programming.” Unfortunately, it works. For instance, in 2004 the promises of multi-year renewal challenges from outside groups and the risk of payback from a Democrat FCC forced broadcast stations to trim a documentary critical of John Kerry from 40 minutes to 4 minutes. And, unlike their cable counterparts, broadcasters censor nude scenes in TV and movies because even a Janet Jackson Superbowl scenario can lead to expensive license challenges.

These troubling licensing procedures and pressure points were largely unknown to most people, but, on October 11, President Trump tweeted:

“With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”

With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 11, 2017

So why hasn’t the FCC said they won’t investigate NBC and other broadcast station owners? It may be because courts can compel the FCC to investigate “news distortion.”

This is exactly what happened to the Clinton FCC. As Melody Calkins and I wrote in August about the FCC’s news distortion rule:

Though uncodified and not strictly enforced, the rule was reiterated in the FCC’s 2008 broadcast guidelines. The outline of the rule was laid out in the 1998 case Serafyn v. CBS, involving a complaint by a Ukrainian-American who alleged that the “60 Minutes” news program had unfairly edited interviews to portray Ukrainians as backwards and anti-Semitic. The FCC dismissed the complaint but DC Circuit Court reversed that dismissal and required FCC intervention. (CBS settled and the complaint was dropped before the FCC could intervene.)

The commissioners might personally wish broadcasters had full First Amendment protections and want to dismiss all challenges but current law permits and encourages license challenges. The commission can be compelled to act because of the sins of omission of prior FCCs: deciding to retain the news distortion rule and other antiquated “public interest” regulations for broadcasters. The existence of these old media rules mean the FCC’s hands are tied.

By Brent Skorup and Melody Calkins

Recently, the FCC sought comments for its Media Modernization Initiative in its effort to “eliminate or modify [media] regulations that are outdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome.” The regulatory thicket for TV distribution has long encumbered broadcast and cable providers. These rules encourage large, homogeneous cable TV bundles and burden cable and satellite operators with high compliance costs. (See the complex web of TV regulations at the Media Metrics website.)

One reason “skinny bundles” from online video providers and cable operators are attracting consumers is that online video circumvents the FCC’s Rube Goldberg-like system altogether. The FCC should end its 50-year experiment with TV regulation, which, among other things, has raised the cost of TV and degraded the First Amendment rights of media outlets.

The proposal to eliminate legacy media rules garnered a considerable amount of support from a wide range of commenters. In our filed reply comments, we identify four regulatory rules ripe for removal:

• News distortion. This uncodified, under-the-radar rule allows the commission to revoke a broadcasters’ license if the FCC finds that a broadcaster deliberately engages in “news distortion, staging, or slanting.” The rule traces back to the FCC’s longstanding position that it can revoke licenses from broadcast stations if programming is not “in the public interest.”
  Though uncodified and not strictly enforced, the rule was reiterated in the FCC’s 2008 broadcast guidelines. The outline of the rule was laid out in the 1998 case Serafyn v. CBS, involving a complaint by a Ukrainian-American who alleged that the “60 Minutes” news program had unfairly edited interviews to portray Ukrainians as backwards and anti-Semitic. The FCC dismissed the complaint but DC Circuit Court reversed that dismissal and required FCC intervention. (CBS settled and the complaint was dropped before the FCC could intervene.)
  “Slanted” and distorted news can be found in (unregulated) cable news, newspapers, Twitter, and YouTube. The news distortion rule should be repealed and broadcasters should have regulatory parity (and their full First Amendment rights) restored.


• Must-carry. The rule requires cable operators to distribute the programming of local broadcast stations at broadcasters’ request. (Stations carrying relatively low-value broadcast networks seek carriage via must-carry. Stations carrying popular networks like CBS and NBC can negotiate payment from cable operators via “retransmission consent” agreements.) Must-carry was narrowly sustained by the Supreme Court in 1994 against a First Amendment challenge, on the grounds that cable operators had monopoly power in the pay-TV market. Since then, however, cable’s market share shrank from 95% to 53%. Broadcast stations have far more options for distribution, including satellite TV, telco TV, and online distribution and it’s unlikely the rules would survive a First Amendment challenge today.


• Network nonduplication and syndicated exclusivity. These rules limit how and when broadcast programming can be distributed and allow the FCC to intervene if a cable operator breaches a contract with a broadcast station. But the (exempted) distribution of hundreds of non-broadcast channels (e.g., CNN, MTV, ESPN) show that programmers and distributors are fully capable of forming private negotiations without FCC oversight. These rules simply make licensing negotiations more difficult and invite FCC intervention.

Finally, we identify retransmission consent regulations and compulsory licenses for repeal. Because “retrans” interacts with copyright matters outside of the FCC’s jurisdiction, we encourage the FCC work with the Copyright Office in advising Congress to repeal these statutes. Cable operators dislike the retrans framework and broadcasters dislike being compelled to license programming at regulated rates. These interventions simply aren’t needed (hundreds of cable and online-only TV channels operate outside of this framework) and neither the FCC nor the Copyright Office particularly likes being the referees in these fights. The FCC should break the stalemate and approach the Copyright Office about advocating for direct licensing of broadcast TV content.

[originally published on Plaintext on June 21, 2017.]

This summer, we celebrate the 20th anniversary of two developments that gave us the modern Internet as we know it. One was a court case that guaranteed online speech would flow freely, without government prior restraints or censorship threats. The other was an official White House framework for digital markets that ensured the free movement of goods and services online.

The result of these two vital policy decisions was an unprecedented explosion of speech freedoms and commercial opportunities that we continue to enjoy the benefits of twenty years later.

While it is easy to take all this for granted today, it is worth remembering that, in the long arc of human history, no technology or medium has more rapidly expanded the range of human liberties — both speech and commercial liberties — than the Internet and digital technologies. But things could have turned out much differently if not for the crucially important policy choices the United States made for the Internet two decades ago.

First, on June 26, 1997, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Reno v. ACLU, which struck down the Communications Decency Act’s provisions seeking to regulate online content under the old broadcast media standard. The Court concluded that there was “no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment scrutiny that should be applied to this medium” and rejected the congressional effort to pigeonhole this exciting new medium into the archaic censorship regimes of the past.

The Reno decision was tremendously important in protecting online speakers from the chilling effect of government “indecency” regulations. The decision also set a strong legal precedent and was cited in countless subsequent decisions involving not only online speech, but also efforts to regulate video game content.

Second, in July 1997, the Clinton Administration released The Framework for Global Electronic Commerce, a document that outlined the US government’s new policy approach toward the Internet and the emerging digital economy. The Framework was a bold vision statement that endorsed comprehensive online freedom of exchange, saying that “the private sector should lead [and] the Internet should develop as a market driven arena not a regulated industry.” The Administration rejected a restrictive regulatory regime for commercial activities and instead recommended reliance on civil society, contractual negotiations, voluntary agreements, and industry self-regulation.

To “avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce,” the vision statement recommended that “parties should be able to enter into legitimate agreements to buy and sell products and services across the Internet with minimal government involvement or intervention.” But, “[w]here governmental involvement is needed, its aim should be to support and enforce a predictable, minimalist, consistent and simple legal environment for commerce.”

Taken together, the Reno decision and the Clinton Administration’s Framework acted as a Magna Carta moment for the Internet and digital technologies. It signaled that “permissionless innovation” would become America’s governance stance toward online speech and commerce.

As I defined it in a book on the subject, permissionless innovation, “refers to the notion that experimentation with new technologies and business models should generally be permitted by default. Unless a compelling case can be made that a new invention will bring serious harm to society, innovation should be allowed to continue unabated and problems, if any develop, can be addressed later.” The primary advantage of permissionless innovation as a governance disposition is that it sends a clear green light to citizens telling them they are at liberty to pursue their own interests and passions, free from the suffocating grip of prior restraints on free speech and free exchange.

But the Reno decision and the Clinton Administration’s Framework are not the only critical policy decisions that helped enshrine permissionless innovation as the lodestar of online policy in the US. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton Administration made the decision to allow open commercialization of the Internet, which was previously just the domain of government agencies and university researchers. Even more crucially, when Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed into law the Telecommunications Act of 1996, lawmakers made it clear that traditional analog-era communications and media regulatory regimes would generally not be applied to the Internet.

The Telecom Act also included an obscure provision known as “Section 230,” which immunized online intermediaries from onerous liability for the content and communications that traveled over their networks. Section 230 was hugely important in that it let online speech and commerce flourish without the constant threat of frivolous lawsuits looming overhead. Internet scholar David Post has argued that “it is impossible to imagine what the Internet ecosystem would look like today without [Section 230]. Virtually every successful online venture that emerged after 1996 — including all the usual suspects, viz. Google, Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, Reddit, Craigslist, YouTube, Instagram, eBay, Amazon — relies in large part (or entirely) on content provided by their users, who number in the hundreds of millions, or billions,” he notes. It is unlikely that the vibrant marketplace of online speech and commerce we enjoy today could have existed without the protections afforded by Section 230.

Finally, in 1998, another important legislative development occurred when Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act, which blocked all levels of government in the US from imposing discriminatory taxes on the Internet. That made it clear that the Net would not be milked as a “cash cow” the way previous communications systems had been.

So, let’s recap how policymakers generally got policy right for the Internet in the mid-1990s by enshrining permissionless innovation as the law of the land:

• The Executive Branch set the tone for online freedom by fully privatizing the underlying network and then establishing a governance vision based upon minimal government interference with online speech and exchange.
• The Legislative Branch generally endorsed the Clinton Administration’s vision for the Internet and digital technologies by ensuring that new policies would not be based upon the failed regulatory and tax policies of the past.
• The Judicial Branch upheld the centrality of the First Amendment in the Information Age and made it clear that this new medium for speech would be granted the strongest protection against government encroachments on freedom of speech and expression.

The combined effect of these wise, bipartisan policy decisions was that the Net and digital tech were “born free” instead of being born into regulatory captivity. We continue to enjoy the fruits of these freedoms today as citizens here in the US and across the world take advantage of the unprecedented ability to connect and communicate to pursue their passions and interests as they see fit.

There’s still more work to be done, however. Online platforms and digital technologies continue to come under attack from regulatory activists both here and abroad. Many governments continue to push back against these online speech and commercial freedoms, meaning we’ll need to redouble our efforts to highlight and defend the benefits of preserving these important victories.

Finally, as the underlying drivers of the Digital Revolution continue to spread into other segments of the economy, these freedoms will come into conflict with older top-down regulatory regimes for automobiles, aviation, medical technology, finance, and much more. This will create an epic conflict of governance visions between the Internet’s permissionless innovation model versus the precautionary, command-and-control regulatory regimes of the industrial age. We already see tension at work in policy deliberations over the Internet of Things, “big data,” driverless cars, commercial drones, robotics, artificial intelligence, 3D printing, virtual reality, the sharing economy, and others.

If policymakers hope to preserve and extend the benefits of the hard-fought victories of the Internet’s past twenty years, they will need to restate and reinvigorate their commitment to permissionless innovation to help spur the next great technological revolutions in these and other fields.

Title II allows the FCC to determine what content and media Internet access providers must transmit on their own private networks, so the First Amendment has constantly dogged the FCC’s “net neutrality” proceedings. If the Supreme Court agrees to take up an appeal from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected a First Amendment challenge this summer, it will likely be because of Title II’s First Amendment deficiencies.

Title II has always been about handicapping ISPs qua speakers and preventing ISPs from offering curated Internet content. As former FCC commissioner Copps said, absent the Title II rules, “a big cable company could block access to an investigative report about its less-than-stellar customer service.” Tim Wu told members of Congress that net neutrality was intended to prevent ISPs from favoring, say, particular news sources or sports teams.

But just as a cable company chooses to offer some channels and not others, and a search engine chooses to promote some pages and not others, choosing to offer a curated Internet to, say, children, religious families, or sports fans involves editorial decisions. As communications scholar Stuart Benjamin said about Title II’s problem, under current precedent, ISPs “can say they want to engage in substantive editing, and that’s enough for First Amendment purposes.”

Title II – Bringing Broadcast Regulation to the Internet

Title II regulation of the Internet is frequently compared to the Fairness Doctrine, which activists used for decades to drive conservatives out of broadcast radio and TV. As a pro-net neutrality media professor explained in The Atlantic last year, the motivation for the Fairness Doctrine and Title II Internet regulation is the same: to “rescue a potentially democratic medium from commercial capture.” This is why there is almost perfect overlap between the organizations and advocates who support the Fairness Doctrine and those who lobbied for Title II regulation of the Internet.

These advocates know that FCC regulation of media has proceeded in similar ways for decades. Apply the expansive “gatekeeper” label to a media distributor and then the FCC will regulate distributor operations, including the content transmitted. Today, all electronic media distributors–broadcast TV and radio, satellite TV and radio, cable TV, and ISPs–whether serving 100 customers or 100 million customers, are considered “gatekeepers” and their services and content are subject to FCC intervention.

With broadband convergence, however, the FCC risked losing the ability to regulate mass media. Title II gives the FCC direct and indirect authority to shape Internet media like it shapes broadcast media. In fact, Chairman Wheeler called the Title II rules “must carry–updated for the 21st century.”

The comparison is apt and suggests why the FCC can’t escape the First Amendment challenges to Title II. Must-carry rules require cable TV companies to transmit all local broadcast stations to their cable TV subscribers. Since the must-carry rules prevent the cable operator editorial discretion over their own networks, the Supreme Court held in Turner I that the rules interfered with the First Amendment rights of cable operators.

But the Communications Act Allows Internet Filtering

Internet regulation advocates faced huge problem, though. Unlike other expansions of FCC authority into media, Congress was not silent about regulation of the Internet. Congress announced a policy in the 1996 update to the Communications Act that Internet access providers should remain “unfettered by State and Federal regulation.”

Regulation advocates dislike Section 230 because of its deregulatory message and because it expressly allows Internet access providers to filter the Internet.

Professor Yochai Benkler, in agreement with Lawrence Lessig, noted that Section 230 gives Internet access providers editorial discretion. Benkler warned that because of 230, “ISPs…will interject themselves between producers and users of information.” Further, these “intermediaries will be reintroduced not because of any necessity created by the technology, or because the medium requires a clearly defined editor. Intermediaries will be reintroduced solely to acquire their utility as censors of morally unpalatable materials.”  

Professor Jack Balkin noted likewise that “…§ 230(c)(2) immunizes [ISPs] when they censor the speech of others, which may actually encourage business models that limit media access in some circumstances.” 

Even the FCC acknowledges the consumer need for curated services and says in the Open Internet Order that Title II providers can offer “a service limited to offering ‘family friendly’ materials to end users who desire only such content.”

While that concession represents a half-hearted effort to bring the Order within compliance of Section 230, it simply exposes the FCC to court scrutiny. Allowing “family friendly” offers but not other curated offers is content-based distinction. Under Supreme Court RAV v. City of St. Paul, “[c]ontent-based regulations are presumptively invalid.”  Further, the Supreme Court said in US v. Playboy, content-based burdens must satisfy the same scrutiny as content-based bans on content. 

Circuit Split over the First Amendment Rights of Common Carriers

Hopefully the content-based nature of the Title II regulations are reason enough for the Supreme Court to take up an appeal. Another reason is that there is now a circuit split regarding the extent of First Amendment protections for common carriers.

The DC Circuit said that the FCC can prohibit content blocking because ISPs have been labeled common carriers.

In contrast, other courts have held that common carriers are permitted to block content on common carrier lines. In Information Providers Coalition v. FCC, the 9th Circuit held that common carriers “are private companies, not state actors…and accordingly are not obliged to continue…services of particular subscribers.” As such, regulated common carriers are “free under the Constitution to terminate service” to providers of offensive content. The Court relied on its decision a few years earlier in  Carlin Communications v. Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company that when a common carrier phone company is connecting thousands of subscribers simultaneously to the same content, the “phone company resembles less a common carrier than it does a small radio station” with First Amendment rights to block content. 

Similarly, the 4th Circuit in Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. US held that common carrier phone companies are First Amendment speakers when they bundle and distribute TV programming, and that a law preventing such distribution “impairs the telephone companies’ ability to engage in a form of protected speech .” 

The full DC Circuit will be deciding whether to take up the Title II challenges. If the judges decline review, the Supreme Court would be the final opportunity for a rehearing. If appeal is granted, the First Amendment could play a major role. The Court will be faced with a choice: Should the Internet remain “unfettered” from federal regulation as Congress intended? Or is the FCC permitted to perpetuate itself by bringing legacy media regulations to the online world?