Internet platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter use core algorithms to intentionally gather likeminded people and feed them self-validating content that elicits powerful reactions. Combine this with the platforms’ ability to finely target messaging and ads and you’ve created a potent formula for the virulent spread of disinformation, propaganda and hate. In response, more than three-dozen racial justice and civil rights organizations—including our group, Free Press—have spent more than a year evaluating the role of technology in fomenting hate. We unveiled a comprehensive set of model corporate policies for stopping hateful activities online, with an emphasis on the preservation of free speech and net neutrality. Our goal is for online platforms and financial transaction companies to adopt corporate policies that prevent the spread of hateful activities and follow procedures to ensure those policies are enforced in a transparent, equitable and culturally relevant way. That means employing a team that includes members of impacted communities, and providing clear and easy ways for people and groups to appeal removal of online content. These model policies align with our commitment to the First Amendment and net neutrality. If applied correctly, these policies would ensure that members of marginalized communities are able to fully participate in and express ideas on digital platforms without fear of abusive consequences in real life. 

[Carmen Scurato is the senior policy counsel at Free Press and Jessica J. González is the organization’s deputy director and senior counsel.]

Internet tools have empowered those driven by or capitalizing on hate. Following the violence in Charlottesville, the Center for American Progress joined with the Southern Poverty Law Center and Free Press to convene experts from civil, human, and media rights groups, as well as open internet organizations, to better understand how hate organizes online and to determine what could be done about it. We sought out and listened to experts on terrorism, human rights, media manipulation, technology, and law. We heard from those working domestically, as well as experts working in Asia, Africa, and Europe. We visited with colleagues tackling the same issues in Europe and met with leaders in the United Kingdom, Germany, and at the European Union to understand how they were addressing concerns in their communities. We focused on internet companies' self-regulation of what occurs on their platforms. Virtually all internet companies already have terms of service or acceptable use policies that purport to regulate hateful activities on their services. We decided to help make those user-facing policies more effective, fair, and transparent. This report details how those inciting hate are using technologies to grow their audiences; to target people based on their essential characteristics, such as race, religion, gender, LGBTQ status, immigrant status, among others; and to fund their activities. It outlines our research and analysis, shares what we learned, and includes a summary of our recommended policies. In addition, we discuss some of the thorny issues that will naturally arise when attempting to balance our desire for broad, accessible speech and actions with an effective response to activities by individuals or groups driven by or capitalizing on hate.

In moments of national crisis, presidents typically reach for unifying themes. But as pipe bombs are delivered to American around the country, President Donald Trump chose confrontation over conciliation. Upset that critics linked a spate of pipe bombs targeting his adversaries to his own angry messaging, President Trump abandoned the scripted call for national solidarity he issued the day before and lashed out at perceived enemies for fomenting the toxic political environment they say he has encouraged. Even though investigators have not named a suspect, let alone a motive, the debate that erupted focused new attention on the contagion of divisive and at times violent language that starts with the president and filters down to other politicians and to partisan media. Demonization has become mainstream, and the events of the past few days seem almost like a predictable but dangerous outcome of the rage and resentment that dominate the United States’ political conversation.

Just hours after the news broke that explosive devices had been sent to Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and other prominent Democrats, a conspiracy theory began to take shape in certain corners of conservative media. The bombs, this theory went, were not actually part of a plot to harm Democrats, but were a “false flag” operation concocted by leftists in order to paint conservatives as violent radicals ahead of the elections. Soon the fact-free explanation had gelled: The bombs were props, planted by Democratic operatives and amplified by a biased liberal media. Conspiratorial thinking has been turbocharged in the Trump era, as cable news networks and pliant social media networks allow hastily assembled theories to spread to millions in an instant. Often, by the time the official, evidence-based explanation has taken shape, it has already been drowned out by a megaphonic chorus of cranks and attention-hungry partisans.

The National Digital Inclusion Alliance has released its fourth annual “Worst Connected Cities” ranking, based on US Census American Community Survey (ACS) data for 2017, which was released in Sept 2018 by the US Census Bureau. NDIA ranked all 191 US cities with more than 50,000 households by the percentage of each city’s households that lack home Internet connections of any kind. This data is not an indication of the availability of home broadband service, but rather of the extent to which households are actually connected to it. The Census category “households with no Internet access” excludes all types of home Internet subscription — not only wireline (cable, fiber optic, DSL) but also satellite, 3G and 4G wireless services, and even dial-up modems.  It also excludes “Internet access without a subscription”. The top 5 worst connected cities are:

1. Laredo (TX)
2. Brownsville (TX)
3. Hialeah (FL)
4. Detroit (MI)
5. Cleveland (OH)

More than a dozen US cities are challenging federal regulators in court over a recent decision that could give telecommunication companies millions in financial and other breaks as they race to build a next-generation wireless network powered by 5G mobile data. On Oct 24, officials from Los Angeles (CA), Portland (OR), and Bellevue (WA), among others, asked the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review the rule change by the Federal Communications Commission, which restricts cities' ability to charge for access to public utility poles. Under the FCC’s new policy, telecom carriers seeking permits to install their network equipment on public infrastructure must have their requests reviewed more quickly by city officials. Cities are also required to charge carriers no more than $270 per year per cell site in access fees. Before the new policy, carriers could expect to pay $500 per pole annually, on average, according to an agency study.

Telehealth vendors have the frustrating experience of seeing their best efforts to serve rural populations thwarted by pathetic broadband connections. Or worse, no broadband at all. At least vendors and healthcare facilities have the benefit of serving urban areas because there, the broadband is always good. Or is it? Urban broadband availability is still a problem. Cities suffer from the legacy of broadband’s origins. Three steps to advancing telehealth networks:

1. Determine your role in community broadband
2. Lobby on behalf of local healthcare professionals and patients
3. Pilot test on community broadband

[Craig Settles helps communities get more from their broadband networks. His latest analysis report is Telehealth & Broadband: In Sickness and In Health, advocates for telehealth providers and community networks uniting]

Twitter reported its first consecutive quarterly drop in users, losing more than it had expected and signaling further declines to come as it continues to purge fake accounts. Even so, Twitter said it boosted revenue and swung to a profit in the third quarter as it extracted more advertising revenue out of its existing users. Twitter’s monthly active users world-wide fell by nine million from the second quarter to 326 million—its steepest decline ever.  The results reflect the toll on Twitter’s user base as the company combats what it calls spammy and suspicious accounts, particularly in the months leading up to the US midterm elections. Twitter blamed the drop in monthly users in part on the same factors that plagued it last quarter—removing fake accounts and the impact of Europe’s new privacy law. A clampdown on automated usage such as bots, as well as a since-resolved bug in email notifications, also contributed to the decline, the company said.

The Federal Communications Commission has received all approvals required to launch its new Office of Economics and Analytics (OEA), clearing the way for the office to become operational by the end of 2019. The FCC earlier in 2018 voted to create OEA to better integrate the use of economics and data into its rulemakings and other proceedings. This reorganization of the agency required approval from the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and the Office of Management and Budget. It also required the FCC to reach an agreement with the National Treasury Employees Union. All of these steps have now been completed.

OEA will bring together FCC economists, data professionals, and attorneys from across the agency, enabling them to work closely to improve economic analysis and data usage in agency proceedings. OEA will be staffed by approximately 100 employees drawn from bureaus and offices across the agency. The Acting Chief will be Giulia McHenry, who recently joined the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis (OSP) after previously serving as Chief Economist at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. OSP and its authorities and functions will shift to OEA.

Trained reporters play a critical role in identifying news events through following social media. When reporters have both professional training and experience with the organizers and actors on social media they can not only anticipate important news events, but they can also contextualize them for followers and authenticate the raw footage and real-time reporting. Even when considering the crisis of trust and generalized suspicion, it is important to distinguish the nuances. Many Americans may think that major news outlets are biased in their sympathies and how they cover events. The ability to use ubiquitous and widely accessible platforms for real-time reporting helps to alleviate the trust problem.

Platforms are not uniform, and do not need to be. While we must be mindful of algorithmic bias and other concerns, there is room for substantial differences in utilization of platforms for journalism. There is a lot more to social media and journalism than driving traffic or disseminating fake news. Skilled reporters can use social media platforms for a variety of purposes, including research and verification of stories. Platforms and new technologies can significantly reduce costs for traditional outlets, as well as for new entrepreneurial reporters. “Advocacy journalism” from activists or sympathetic reporters should not be simply dismissed. The questions are both whether the reporting meets professional standards and whether advocacy bias is appropriately disclosed. Upton Sinclair had an agenda. It did not make him wrong about food safety and exploitation of workers.

Throughout my time here in New Delhi, I look forward to strengthening friendships—and building new ones—with colleagues across both government and industry. Together, we can help deliver digital opportunity for all those we represent.

In this spirit of collaboration, let me briefly walk through some of the high-level principles that guide our work at the Federal Communications Commission as we work to expand digital opportunity. It starts with a posture of regulatory humility. The public interest is best served when the private sector has the incentives and freedom to invest and create. Another guiding principle, which I know is shared broadly, is the idea that everyone is better off when everyone, everywhere can get online and share in the benefits of the digital age.  [M]illions of Americans live in rural areas where there is no business case for the private sector alone to build broadband networks. The FCC has a role here.