Commission, we moved all of the length from analog to digital. So that was cable, broadcast, satellite. The satellites have been launched but the service had not yet begun. We came up with a Digital Television standards, radio standards. My First Commission meeting, we did band plan and we were just getting auction authority. We begin the first auction at which point they used the hand placards to bid on. It was an exciting time to be there, plus on top of all that we implemented the 1996 telecom act which dramatically changed the landscape by introducing competition in local telepathy and video. And also dramatically changed the landscape for broadcast, widening the ability to consolidate broadcast propertie properties. Host looking back 20 years later, did you get it right . Did the groundwork laid correctly . Guest some of the did. Keep in mind the other thing we did which is so important, and cspan can appreciate this greatly, is Childrens Television programming, three hour requirement for childrens requirement on broadcast. Some of it we got very right. Some of it, the marketplace said, were not sure we need this anymore. Basically the commission implemented the law, and the issue with the 1996 telecom act was basically the congress was looking backwards, was basically settling battles that it taken place during the prior ten years, and not looking forward, not looking at what might this internet really be about . And what are some of the issues that we need to be grappling with, the commission needs the tools to grapple with Going Forward . So in that respect the introduction of competition in local telepathy, that was a big deal. But the Bell Operating Companies that within in existence were not interested competing against each other. You can basically dragged them to the lake for water that you cant make them drink. Similarly, we introduce Video Service that the Telephone Companies to do. But later that became somewhat irrelevant as we moved on. Certainly on some other areas that we were implementing the concept of the underlying concept of competition in communications was the foundation that we build and nourished. And at the end of the day you could large measure today. Host when you look back and look now, did you have any idea where we would be in 2020 . Guest no clue. No clue. Basically, if you go back then, the internet had existed but two years before i joined the commission was when the World Wide Web was created. It has been really an interuniversity governmental darpa system that had just been commercialized and i dont think anybody had i certainly did not have a vision of where that was going. The good news is we at the commission did look at the development of motor activity, the ability up and down, the connection with the internet, and we said this is a very young we dont know what is going to go, were going to let it develop fnc where its headed. So we took the position that you can do more harm than good if you are trying to think about what a brandnew service is going to go. We thought the marketplace would be the best determinant of that outcome, and, indeed, it was. Host do you still hold that opinion today, when we are in telecommunications . Guest with respect to the internet, do i believe that government should regulate . I think were at a point today, this would not be more the federal trade commission but we are at a point today where privacy is an important human right, and where we need to be focused more on how we provide citizens with greater control over what information is gathered and used about them. And so im hopeful that congress will finally get its act together and pass a privacy act. California and other states certainly are doing that right now, so theres greater incidence for, or i desire to do something across the board for the united states. Gdpr, the general Data Protection act and regulation from europe, is now largely felt here. Not entirely. For example, many broadcast and other companies will not their Online Platforms will not service europe. That having been said, that rule tends to be very much governed by process and there may be other ways that are more central to what we do and how users can take advantage of the system. So i think its important for us to do our own piracy system in the united states. We need legislation for that. Theres a lot of talk about regulating the internet as a general matter. There may be areas where such oversight makes sense. Certainly in the area of transparency and accountability, thats something thats extremely important. But as a commissioner i held the First Amendment with great respect, and today as a private citizen, i do the same. I would be very cautious about any effort at this point in time to regulate content online. There are other things that need to be addressed, and certainly pushing platforms, both large and small, to focus in on trying to address some of these issues like bad actors, like bad behavior on the net, have a lot about you. I think working both with government on a transatlantic basis, which is what i do right now. I cheer highlevel commission that includes legislators, government officials, tech companies, ngos and academics to identify whats working, whats not working, to protect both freedom of expression as well as the vibrant internet, and at the same time address hate speech, violent extremism and viral deception online. We have come up with a number of different recommendations that we will be putting forth in the coming months, but this is the time when we need to be collaborating with the europe to undergird fundamental values. Not enough of that has been done. Thats one of our main objectives. And working with platforms, again, large and small. The big platforms, they will be fine. Any regulation or they can do. Its the smaller folks, folks like wikipedia that have small staff, like the internet archives which has, i think, i dont know, maybe when hundred 50 people in its employ. They are the ones oftentimes are impacted by well intended regulation. Host what is the name of your commission . Guest its a ridiculous name. I take responsibility but it is under the auspices of the policy center at penn and it is called the transatlantic High Level Working Group on content moderation and freedom of expression. Host you mentioned though that, earlier that some u. S. Companies are not operating necessarily in europe and, in fact, guest for example, our group had the session at the osce in indiana, and dont ask there with the acronym stands for because i always forget. But in any event, we had dinner with the u. S. Ambassador to the osce, former governor of virginia. His wife was, and she canola can get the virginia times. And the reason for that basically is they shut off because of gdpr and not wanting to be liable, they have shut off access to european citizens. Host so are we heading towards a bifurcated, i try for gated World Wide Web internet . Guest the internet is fractured. You have a number of different internet right now. Youve got china, which operates on its own system. Russia is trying to replicate that in large measure where they control all input and output. You have certainly the rules in europe, and they are looking to address liability and some of the other rules involving platform behavior this year. And then of course you have whats going on in the u. S. We have these the shared valueh europe in large measure, and working together i think is beneficial both sides of the atlantic even if we dont come up necessarily with the same approach for the same rule. In. Translator do with china, we know that is a threat. We know, for 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. This this is a course that was n north america, given at a university, and could harm her parents. And she was told, well, how about auditing the course . She said i cant do that either because i i know among students that are spies who will report that. Im hopeful that is not the direction were headed, but protecting freedom of expressio expression, freedom of assembly, all of the freedoms that we take basically just assume will exist forever are fragile, and our democracy is fragile. We really need to work hard to make sure that continues to work to our society. Host that kind of begs the question about section 230 of whether Internet Companies should still be free from liability. What are your thoughts . Guest well, there are a lot of different pieces when you start to take them apart. Our group, in fact, issued a paper on intermediary liability, looking at, if youre going to do something, here are the ramifications. So its very detailed. One can find our papers on our website which is www. I www. I ct in l twg. But the whole point of that was basically to say it is now the go to answer for all harms on the internet, but as a practical matter it will have dramatic and negative impact to the extent one place about it too much or remove it. It will have dramatic and negative impact on freedom of expression because if you have liability you are not going to try to take things down, which we can name point in section 230 to give the protection for platforms to actually monitor intake down harmful content where it appears, or it violates the terms of service. So youre not going to have that. You have much more takedown and of questions later, and that is that good for a free society, particularly in other places where people put up information about governments that are corrupt. And if that cant stand the test in one direction or another, it is going to be a valuable resource that will be destroyed. So are there ways of addressing it . One thing i would for sure do is to make sure that platforms are, in fact, coming up with clear and concise terms of service, that they actually enforce their terms of service, that there is appropriate and immediate redress for something that is taken down. If one believes it is taken down inappropriately, and not gaming the system which oftentimes happens. And that theres a method of appeal of a decision from a platform. I think there are some things that platforms can do to demonstrate that they are deserving of that protection. But people should not look at the internet and social media platforms as being the functional equivalent of the town square. Its more like a walk in central park that the town square. No one really expects that everything that is said as youre walking along is going to be truthful or provable, et cetera. And 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 cant believe. So its going to be an effort on a number of different parts. The transparency is an important part of this whole picture. Platforms need to be more transparent about what theyre doing when they takedown, how theyre doing it, and provide opportunities for appropriate researchers to dig into seats what has been taken down or not taken down. And platforms need to be cooperating more, and a think they are beginning to do this, where it is extremely harmful situations, for example, on terrorist content, they do already cooperate on that and i think theres going to be an effort from the u. N. To have some Steering Committee on whats called gifct, which is a database that hashes when companies when they find terrorist content they will tag so that others dont copy it. And theres a much greater cooperation that we had even two years ago. But there still a a tremendous about needs to be done. The pressure needs to be there, but im not sure the solution is eliminating section 230 or the commerce provisions which will be amended, hopefully to provide good narrative opportunities. So this on both sides of the atlantic is being looked at very carefully. Host how did you get into this line of work . Guest oh, gosh it when i was in college we back in the dark ages, i had a radio show. I actually had the opportunity because i was fascinated by expo 67 in montreal, but i had an opportunity to take that Radio Station and broadcast the opening of montreal expo. The first meeting of broadcasters, because thats what was there at the time, we had folks like Walter Cronkite and all these others. We had an engineer. I had access to the whole place. Absolute faceting. So the notion of communication, and transatlantic or transnational youth and communication as a way to improve conversations around the world i thought would be a great thing to be doing. So later i went to law school, data degree, went to school looking at communications, looking at a Communication Company for almost a decade and it went on the communications commission. Host susan ness, thanks for sharing some of your switches, background and current work with us on the communicators. Guest its been my pleasure. Thank you. Host just a reminder that this Communicators Program as well as all others are available as podcasts here. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. Created by cable in 1979 and brought you today by your television provider. If it comes out to be a campaign in which we are one candidate who is standing up for the working class and the middle class, were going to win that election. For those, those have been knocked down, counted out, left behind, this is your campaign. The president ial primaries and caucuses continue tuesday for six states including idaho, michigan, mississippi, missouri, north dakota and washington. Watch our campaign 2020 coverage of the candidates speeches and results tuesday evening live on cspan, cspan. Org, or listen from wherever you are on the free cspan radio