Op-Ed

[Commentary] In 2016, Pew's "State of the Media" report noted a circulation decline at “a handful of historically prominent black papers.” But that decline is not uniform. “Because so few of these papers have regularly audited circulation figures…it is difficult to acquire industry-wide measures,” according to the report. (The Richmond Free Press has been audited annually since 1993.)

As black communities risk being overlooked by many newsrooms, so do black newspapers risk being overlooked or undervalued by advertisers. During the next year, I’ll study family, legacy and the viability of black newspapers in America as a Knight-Wallace fellow. When I first returned to the Richmond Free Press, I felt consumed by questions: How might we keep the paper relevant, and financially sound? Those questions evade easy answers, but they’ll power my research, and they sustain my conviction that no community deserves to be left behind.

[Regina H. Boone is a staff photojournalist for the Richmond Free Press, published in her hometown of Richmond, Virginia.]

[Commentary] For some time now, the related issues of control and intelligent infrastructure have fuelled the network neutrality debate. Proponents of network neutrality are concerned that if internet service providers get to charge Netflix, YouTube or any website for the privilege of being downloaded at a faster speed than others - allowing some companies to avoid becoming slowed down - society would allow deep pockets to hijack our attention.

It's tempting to back Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai if it means we'll be able to stream movies faster and buffer-free. But while smart systems seem attractive, they'll inevitably be optimised for corporate profit and control. The principle of first-come, first-served is our best protection against interference. We need it on the web - and on the roads.

[Brett Frischmann is a professor at Cardozo Law School in New York City. Evan Selinger, Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the Rochester Institute of Technology]

[Commentary] Sometimes the noise drowns out the good news. And it certainly is right now. It would be hard to fault the average American for thinking all that’s going on in Washington these days is high-drama hearings and partisan sniping. But amid the countdown clocks and cable news chatter, something important is happening: Congress is getting things done to help improve people’s lives.

Here in the House of Representatives, we can do more than one thing at a time. And the truth is, even while carrying out our oversight responsibilities, we’ve been delivering on our promises to the American people. We are passing important legislation. We are doing our job. You just may not have heard about it.

[Commentary] The First Amendment protects our right to use social networks like Facebook and Twitter, the Supreme Court declared. The decision called social media “the modern public square” and “one of the most important places” for the exchange of views. The holding is a reminder of the enormous role such networks play in our speech, our access to information and, consequently, our democracy. But while the government cannot block people from social media, these private platforms can. Today, as social media sites are accused of spreading false news, influencing elections and allowing horrific speech, they may respond by increasing their policing of content. Clarity about their internal speech regulation is more important now than ever. The ways in which this newfound transparency is harnessed by the public could be as meaningful for online speech as any case decided in a United States court.

[Margot E. Kaminski is an assistant professor at the Ohio State University Moritz College of Law. Kate Klonick is a Ph.D. candidate at Yale Law School.]

[Commentary] There are steps Congress can and should take to improve consumer privacy. Here are three big ones.

First, Congress should repeal the common-carrier exemption.
Second, Congress should pre-empt the current patchwork of state privacy laws by setting a single standard to govern consumer privacy throughout the country.
Third, Congress should direct the FTC to update its current privacy regime and reconsider which types of data are sensitive.

[Tom Struble is a technology policy manager with the R Street Institute. Joe Kane is a tech policy associate at the R Street Institute.]

[Commentary] Sharing economy companies have had no shortage of regulatory battles, but companies such as Uber, Airbnb, and TaskRabbit are innovating and improving regulation by incorporating the very trust created through their platforms. Arun Sundararajan, author of “The Sharing Economy: The End of Employment and the Rise of Crowd-Based Capitalism” (MIT Press, 2016), observes that regulation need not originate with the government. He writes that it can take a myriad of forms while still being rational, ethical, and participatory. He describes three models of regulation used by sharing platforms: peer-to-peer, self-regulatory, and data-driven delegation.

The way that sharing economy platforms are innovating regulation with digital trust systems exposes the effort by digital elites to impose Title II utility regulation from 1934 on the internet as backward and out of date. While sharing economy entrepreneurs are creating a decentralized, innovative, and distributed world and are finding and transforming passive assets into productive ones, Title II advocates want to centralize and aggregate power beneath a single government agency that we the people have never authorized to regulate broadband. We should resist this like we would any faction that wants to usurp power. Meanwhile, we should encourage the Federal Communications Commission and Internet service providers to experiment with these innovative forms of regulation.

[Roslyn Layton is a PhD Fellow at the Center for Communication, Media, and Information Technologies (CMI) at Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark. She is also a member of the Trump FCC Transition Team.]

[Commentary] The Trump Administration’s penchant for secrecy is not a media issue; it is a democracy issue. And that makes it the weak spot in President Donald Trump’s otherwise successful jihad against American journalism. The bottom line, particularly on the Right is this: They hate you. They really hate you. Trump’s strategy in declaring the media “enemies of the people” is clear: He delegitimizes an independent source of criticism and exposure, while providing his base with red meat. His approach is aped by his allies in the conservative media, including Fox News’s Sean Hannity, who has taken to using clumsy formulations like the “Destroy Trump Media.”

Journalists may regard the case for transparency in government as self-evident, but the case can and should be made anew. The Trump era provides an opportunity to go back to first principles and remind the public why the freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment. Don’t take it for granted that the public has connected all of those dots.

[Charlie Sykes is a political commentator who hosted the conservative radio talk show "Midday with Charlie Sykes" on WTMJ in Mlwaukee from 1993 to 2016.]

[Commentary] Two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission placed controversial, sweeping regulations on the internet. The goal was worthwhile – to establish universal net neutrality rules to protect consumers and content alike. However, rather than construct a modern regulatory framework for ever-evolving services, regulators simply jammed the internet into ill-suited public utility regulations, known as Title II.

If we want equal opportunity for students in Montana, if we want to encourage the use of technology in more sectors of our local economies to spur job creation, and if we want our burgeoning tech industry to continue to grow, we need to encourage broadband deployment and investment. Congress needs to step in and codify open internet principles into law. This would provide certainty, encourage innovation and finally put the issue to rest.

[Senator Fred Thomas is the Senate Majority Leader in the Montana State Senate.]

[Commentary] As the battle around net neutrality rages again, we need to take stock, and ask ourselves: What is the debate really about, and why should business leaders and entrepreneurs care?

Businesses of all sizes create value, jobs and investment opportunities online. Their innovation and value creation are wholly dependent on access to internet connectivity. Net neutrality is the principle that all content must be treated without discrimination, be it commercial or political. Neutral networks are critical to ensuring fair, open competition in the content market and driving America’s growth in the digital era. Net neutrality allowed me to invent the World Wide Web without having to ask anyone for permission or pay a fee to ensure that people could use my idea.

Now imagine what would happen if internet service providers—usually a handful of big cable companies that control the connectivity market—were allowed to violate net neutrality. Their gatekeeping powers could be used to require businesses and individuals to pay a premium to ensure their content is delivered on equal terms—or even at all. This would create barriers that disadvantage small businesses and startups across all sectors that rely on the internet in any way.

[Berners-Lee is inventor of the World Wide Web and founding director of the World Wide Web Foundation]

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission, once a sleepy regulatory backwater, has become a deeply political agency, governed less by the science of radio waves than by pressure from inside-the-Beltway groups. How did we get here? The answer, according to “The Political Spectrum”, a remarkable new book by Clemson University economist Thomas Hazlett, is that the agency began life with a political agenda, one that continues to override its technical experts.

With the skill of a TV detective, Hazlett reveals how the undefined “public interest” standard has proven itself a potent and malleable political weapon. As new information technologies are invented — from radio and TV to cable, satellite, cellular and now broadband — the FCC has wielded its power both intentionally and recklessly to benefit a changing cast of favored industries, restricting competition and all but the most mainstream content.

[Larry Downes is a project director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy]