Federal communications commission. The lanes of the communications highway from analog to digital. That was cable, broadcast. Satellite. The satellites had been launched but the services had not yet begun. With the Digital Television standard, the radio standard. Meeting, itmission was an extraordinary time. We begin the first auction, at used handt they placards to bid. Implementedat, we this 1996 telecom act which dramatically changed the landscape by introducing in the video. Dramatically changed the landscape for broadcast. Widening the ability to consolidate broadcast properties. Looking back, did you get it right . Did the groundwork laid correctly . I think we did. And cspanwe did can appreciate this requirement for Childrens Television in broadcast. Some of it we got very right. Some of it, the marketplace said, we are not sure we need this anymore. The mission implemented the law. Issue with this telecom act isbasically congress basically settling battles that priorken place during the 10 years. Not looking forward, looking at what this internet might be about. What are some of the issues we need to be grappling with . Respect, the introduction of competition, that was a big deal. The operating companies were not interested in competing against each other. Them tobasically drive the lake for water but you cannot make them drink. We introduced a video service. Later, that became somewhat relevant as we moved in. Certainly in some of the other areas we were implementing. , the underlying concept of competition in communications with the foundation we built and nourished. At the the day, exist in large measure today. And lookou look back now, did you have any idea where we would be in 2020 . No clue. Basically, if you go back then, but twornet had existed years before i joined the commission was when the World Wide Web was created. Really, an, government system that had just been commercialized. Had ihink anybody had no vision of where it was going. The good news is we at the commission did look at the of modem activity, the ability up and down in connection with the internet and said this is a young service. We dont know where it is going to go. We are going to let it develop and see where it is headed. We took the position you can do if you arehan good trying to think about where a brandnew service is going to go. We thought the marketplace would be the best determinant of that outcome. Indeed. Do you still hold that opinion today, where we are until communications . Internet,spect, the do i believe government should regulate portions of it . Today more thent federal trade commission, where privacy is an important human right. Where we need to be focused more withw we provide citizens a greater control over what information is gathered and used about them. I am hopeful congress will finally get its act together and pass a privacy act. California and other states certainly are doing that right now. Incidence,eater desire to do something acrosstheboard for the u. S. Are, and a regulation from here. , is largely felt not entirely. For example, many broadcast and , their onlines platforms will not service europe. Said, that been world tends to be governed by process. That are be other ways more central to what we do and how users can take advantage of the system. Do ourmportant for us to own privacy system in the u. S. Of talk about regulating the internet as a general matter. Where suche areas oversight makes sense. Certainly in the area of transparency and accountability, that is something that is extremely important. Commissioner, i hold the First Amendment with great respect. Today, as a private citizen, i do the same. I would be very cautious about any effort to regulate content online. There are other things that need to be addressed. Pushing platforms, both large and small, to focus on trying to address some of these issues like bad actors, bad behavior. I think working both with governments on a transatlantic basis. Which is what i do right now. It includes tech companies. Ngos. Academics. Identifying what is working and what is not working. Both freedom of ,xpression and at the same Time Perception online. We have come up with a number of different recommendations in the coming months. Time when we need to be collaborating with europe. That is one of our main objectives. Working with platforms again, large and small. The big platforms, they will be fine. The smaller folks like wikipedia that have small stamps. Archive, which has, maybe 150 david people in its employ. They are often the ones impacted by regulation. What is the name of your commission . Auspices of the center at penn. It is called the high level working group. Earlier somened u. S. Companies are not operating necessarily in europe. Example, our group had a session in vienna. Acronymk me what the stands for. Dinner with, we had the u. S. Ambassador. From a government in virginia. Commentingeding she could no longer get the virginia times. Rhey shut off because of gdp a e and not wanting to play liable, they have shut off access to european citizens. A try we heading toward for kidded World Wide Web . The internet is fractured. You have a number of different internets. China. Russia is trying to replicate that in large measure, where they control input and output. Certain europe and they are working to address liability. Some of the rules involving behavior this year. And then of course you have what is going on in the u. S. Europe inalues with large measure. Working together, i think is beneficial on both sides of the atlantic, even if we dont come up with necessarilys same approach. China,s of dealing with we know that is a threat. Example someone that is a student of one of our members has said she could not take a particular course because it would be reflected poorly in china. Course in north america. Told, how about auditing the course . Do that, i cannot either. Is not thel that direction the entire world is headed. Expressionfreedom of , freedom of assembly, all of basicallyms we take just assume will exist forever, they are fragile. Our democracy is fragile. To maketo work hard sure it works for our society. That kind of begs the question about whether Internet Companies should be free from liabilities. What are your thoughts . There are a lot of different pieces. A paper onssued intermediary liability. If you are going to do something, here are the ramifications. It is very detailed. There are papers on our website. The whole point of that was basically to say, it is now the go to answer on the internet. Matter, it will have a dramatic and negative impact. The extent one plays around with it too much or removes it. It will have a dramatic and negative impact on freedom of expression. Liability, you are not going to try to take things down to give the protections for monitors to actually and take down harmful content where it appears. Where it violates terms of service. You are going to have much more of a take down and ask questions later. That is not good for a free society, particularly and other put upwhere people information about governments that are corrupt. If that cant stand the test in one direction or another, it is going to be a valuable resource. Ways of addressing it . Is thing i would for sure do to make sure platforms are concisep with clear and terms of service. That they actually enforce their terms of service. Appropriate and immediate redress for something that is taken down. Beone believes it will inappropriate. They are not gaming the system, which often times happens. There is a method of appeal of a decision from a platform. I think there are some things platforms can do to demonstrate they are deserving of that protection. People should not look at the internet and social media as being the functional equivalent of the town square. It is more like a walk in central park than a town square. Expects everything that is said as you are walking along is going to be truthful or provable. People also have to be armed with a better understanding of what is and what is not good digital hygiene. What you can believe, what you cannot believe. It is going to be an effort on a number of different parts. The transparency is an important part of this picture. The platforms need to be more transparent about what they are doing. How they do it. Foride opportunities appropriate researchers to dig what has been taken down or not taken down. Platforms need to be cooperating and i think they are beginning to do this. Where it is extremely harmful. For example, terrorist content, they do already cooperate in that. I think there is going to be an to haverom the land some steering committee. In a database that companies, when they find terrorist content, they will tag so others do not copy it. There is more cooperation than two years ago but there is a tremendous amount that needs to be done. I am not sure the solution is 230 or the section which willovisions be provided. Atlantic,des of the things worked out. How did you get into this line of work . When i was in college in the dark ages, i had a radio show. Opportunity because i by montreal expo 67. Toad the opportunity broadcast the opening in montreal. , we hadirst meeting folks like walter cronkite. I had access to the whole place. The notion of communication, transatlantic or transnational youth and communication as a way to improve conversations around the world, i thought would be a great one. Later, i went to law school, got a degree. Business school, looking at communications. For almost a decade. Susan ness, thank you for sharing some of your expertise, and background on the company caters. Reminder, this program as well as all others are available as podcasts. Cspan, created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. The hill