Op-Ed

[Commentary] I left the White House that day with dramatically mixed emotions. I remain convinced that we should help a government initiative that can do real good, despite my deep concerns about the current administration’s policies. I saw only a sliver of all that went on that day, given the many concurrent sessions, but I wish I’d seen more evidence that the leadership of the tech industry can actually help government do a better job, given that so many of those who seem to be engaging have a lot invested in the status quo. I guess in some way that means that I leave this event not that far from where I started, remembering that “No one is coming. It is up to us.”

[Jennifer Pahlka is Founder and Executive Director of Code for America]

[Commentary] The tremor in Silicon Valley emerged from Brussels, not the San Andreas Fault. The European Union’s decision on Google’s search practices makes clear the absence of domestic regulation has opened the door for policies to be decided by foreign governments. It should be a worry – and a wake-up – for all the companies whose platforms drive internet services. The EU has leveled a record-breaking $2.7 billion fine against Google for its search practices. But that’s just money (albeit lots of money).

A more pervasive consequence is the EU mandate that Google alter the manner in which its search results are presented. Domestic internet programs might want to consider their own corporate interest in embracing domestic policy regulatory oversight. The decision of the EU is a wake-up call that perhaps having policies established by the US government isn’t such a bad idea after all.

[Tom Wheeler is a former Chairman to the Federal Communications Commission]

[Commentary] It’s clear that most US consumers depend upon a few big players in order to access the internet. Therefore, the critical question is whether these companies have the incentive and ability to harm consumers and competition. That is, are they motivated to control what kinds of innovations come to consumers? And do they have the tools to do so? Both the Federal Communications Commission and the Department of Justice have recognized in recent proceedings that the answers are yes and yes.

In 1776, Thomas Paine didn’t need the permission of any other content creator or distributor to circulate Common Sense. But without rules prohibiting blocking, throttling, and the like, broadband providers would gain the power to limit what unpopular content flows over their networks—to the detriment of consumers and democracy. One challenger to the 2015 Open Internet Order argued exactly this to the DC Circuit: that the rules violated its right to block legal but unpopular content. An Open Internet has worked for America, creating a virtuous circle of innovation, trust, adoption, and further innovation. That circle should not be broken.

[Terrell McSweeny is a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission. Jon Sallet is the former general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission. Both are alumni of the antitrust division of the Department of Justice]

[Commentary] The problem with regulating technology companies is that, faced with tough new rules, they can eventually innovate their way out, often by switching to newer, unregulated technologies. The risk of targeted regulation informed by little other than economic doctrines might even be fuelling a corporate quest for eternal disruption: instead of surrendering to the regulators, technology firms prefer to abandon their old business model. It’s through this lens that we should interpret the likely fallout from the €2.4bn fine imposed on Alphabet, Google’s parent company, by the European commission. It arrives after a lengthy, seven-year investigation into whether the company abused its dominance to promote its own online shopping service above search results. The commission’s case seems sound; the sad fate of small online retailers, unable to compete with Alphabet over the past decade, suggests as much.

However, one should not mistake the factual correctness of the commission’s case for an informed strategic vision: if it has a clue about effective ways to limit the power of data platforms, it’s not showing it. The reality is that even though advertising-powered search still accounts for the bulk of Alphabet’s earnings, the company’s real focus these days is on finding lucrative and creative uses for the troves of data that it has already extracted, processed and turned into artificial intelligence. Alphabet’s future revolves around information-intensive services, not around running matchmaking platforms for advertising.

[Evgeny Morozov is a visiting scholar at Stanford University and a Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation.]

[Commentary] The online privacy debate belongs in the halls of Congress, with Republicans and Democrats forging a consensus on how best to protect and empower consumers. I know members on both sides genuinely share concerns about protecting Americans' privacy. The BROWSER Act's opt-in regime will give consumers greater control over how their sensitive personal information is shared and establish regulatory consistency by treating Internet service providers and "edge" providers the same. Having two cops on the beat enforcing different sets of rules isn't fair to anybody and will lead to less certainty when it comes to protecting the privacy of Americans.

[Commentary] Network neutrality matters to any Texan who relies on the internet to access journalism, stream videos and stay in touch with friends and family. It’s also particularly critical to Texan startups and entrepreneurs, who rely on the internet to reach new customers without meddling from big, established players.

At Mozilla, we’ve been collecting signatures, comments and voicemails from Americans to share with the FCC. The results have been overwhelming: We’ve already received more than 100,000 signatures, 21,000 comments and 50 hours of voicemails. So, what can Texans do? Speak up during the 90-day public comment period, which runs through mid-August. A broad network of individuals and organizations are preparing an official brief to submit to the Federal Communications Commission that will express our concerns with their policy during this open comment period. We’re also engaging with civic leaders and policymakers here in Texas to discuss the importance of net neutrality. We need to make the coming weeks count — for Texas, all Americans and the internet.

[Surman is executive director of Mozilla. Yokubaitis is co-founder and co-CEO of Data Foundry in Austin.]

[Commentary] Democracy and a stable economy demand access to information. Every citizen and business who values the freedom to search the Internet without restrictions and receive all content consistently should lend their voice to preserving network neutrality rules by submitting comments with strong arguments and clear facts and talking to your peers and representatives about the potential impacts of this plan. The comment period closes July 17, 2017.

[Stewart is a security fellow with Truman National Security Project]

[Commentary] We don’t yet know to what extent Donald Trump will succeed in remaking the United States, but his candidacy and presidency are already remaking American journalism. It is not just that the ranting and raving on talk radio, on cable news, on websites, on Twitter have grown, if anything, louder. What’s more significant is how the political world’s encounter with President Trump is changing our most respected journalism organizations—including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the network evening newscasts and CNN.

The big news in American journalism today has been that reporters, editors and producers at legacy journalism organizations have become so eager to dispute the more questionable pronouncements and proposals of the Trump administration. Increasingly, they are prepared to label the president’s wilder statements and tweets “falsehoods” or even “lies.” The big news is that many of our best journalists seem, in news coverage, not just opinion pieces, to be moving away from balance and nonpartisanship.

[Mitchell Stephens is a professor of journalism at New York University]

[Commentary] Recently, Amazon, Netflix, and Mozilla have taken note of the success of astroturfing and are leveraging a “stick-it-to-the-man” ethos to advocate for internet regulation, in this case advocacy to regulate internet providers under Title II of the Communications Act, which empowers the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadband through price controls as well as tax consumers to raise funds for government run networks. A culmination of their efforts will take place on a July 12th “Day of Action,” which will display their protests both on and offline to pressure Congress and the FCC to capitulate to its agenda to take control of the internet.

The event is yet another campaign funded by Battle for the Net, an organization of radical left-wing activists, including Free Press, Fight for the Future, and Demand Progress, seeking more regulation and government control over markets This July 12th, remember that what you will witness on website and browsers is one heck of an astroturf campaign, and their mission is straightforward: take control of the internet, by any means necessary.

[Roslyn Layton is a Visiting Fellow at the Center for Internet, Communications and Technology Policy at the American Enterprise Institute and served on the President Elect Transition Team for the FCC from 2016-2017.]

[Commentary] Some partisan activists have sought to leverage the public’s privacy concerns to advance their political agenda and have resorted to spreading accusations and false information that misleads the public. Immediately after the Congressional vote, the media was flooded with stories suggesting that internet privacy had been “repealed.” Other stories made misleading claims that Congress “voted to allow your web history to be sold to the highest bidder.” None of this is true. Congress did not repeal internet privacy. They kept the FTC’s two decades of privacy rules in place while preventing the inequitable Obama mandates from going into effect.

Congress did the right thing by stopping the FCC’s power grab to protect consumer privacy and indeed protect the internet itself. It is far better public policy to leave the internet in the free market to continue to bring us innovation after innovation which has transformed our lives for the better in the past generation. Take a moment and send an email of appreciation to the members of the Iowa delegation who stood up for you, your family, and your neighbors in this cause.

[Donald P. Racheter is president of the Public Interest Institute, a public policy research institute in Muscatine]