Government. Created by cable in 1979 and brought to you today by your television provider. The communicators at the state conference in washington, d. C. We will show you some of the interviews we conducted with members of congress, government officials and Technology Leaders and now joining us on the communicators is susan, commissioner ness, tell us some of the issues you dealt with back in the 90s when you were an fcc commissioner. You know, the golden age of the commission. We moved all of the lanes of the communication from analog to digital. That was cable, broadcast, satellite, the satellite had been launched but it had not quite blowgun. We came up with the Digital Television standard, radio standard, my First Commission meeting, we did plans, and extraordinary time geared and we were just given auction authority. We began the first auction at which point they actually used the hand lacquered to bid on that. It was an exciting time to be there. We implemented this 1996 telecom act which dramatically changed the landscape by introducing competition in the local video and also dramatically changing the landscape for broadcast. Why did the ability to consolidate broadcast property. Looking back, 20 years later, did you get it right did the groundwork laid correctly . Some of it did. The other thing that we did which is so important and cspan can appreciate this greatly is Children Television programming. A requirement for Childrens Television on broadcast. Some of it we got very right. Some of it, the marketplace said we are not sure we need this anymore. Basically, the commission implements the law. The issue with the 1996 telecom act was basically Congress Looking backwards. Basically settling battles that had taken place the prior 10 years and not looking forward. What are some of the issues that we need to be grappling with it in that respect, the introduction of competition, that was a big deal. They were then in existence, not interested in competing against each other. You can basically drag them to the lake for water, but you cannot make them drink. Similar we introduced a Video Service that they could do. We moved on. Certainly on some of the other areas that we were implementing. The concept of the underlying concept of competition and communication. The foundation that we built and nourished and at the end of the day exists largely today. When you look back and you look now, did you have any idea where we would be in 2020 . No clue. No clue. Basically if you go back then, the intranet had existed, but two years before i joined the commission was when the World Wide Web was created. It had been an Inter University governmental system that has just been commercialized. I dont think that anybody had, i certainly did not have a vision of where that was going. The good news is at the commission we looked at the developments of modems activity, the ability up and down and connection and said this is a very young server. We dont know where this will go we will let it develop in and see where it is headed. We took the position that you can do more harm than good if you are trying to, in your own mind think about where it will go and we felt the marketplace would be the best determinant of that outcome. Do you still hold that opinion today where we are in telecommunications . With respect to the internet, do i believe that government should regulate portions of it . I think we are at a point today, more the federal trade commission. 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 a greater control over what information is gathered and used about them. I am hopeful that congress will finally get its act together and pass a privacy act, california and other states are certainly doing that right now. There are greater incidence of desire to do something across the board for the united states. Gdp r. Regulation from europe is now largely felt here. Not entirely, for example, many broadcast and other companies will not, their Online Platform will not serve that. That being 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. There is a lot of talk about regulating the internet in general. There may be areas where oversight makes sense. Certainly in the area of transparency and accountability that is something that is extremely important. As a commissioner, i held the first amendment. Today, as a private citizen, id do the same thing. Very cautious about any effort about regulating content online. 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 behaviors on the net have a lot of value. I think working both with government on the transatlantic basis, which is what i do right now, i share a High Level Commission that includes government officials, tech company, m geos and academics to identify what is working, what is not working, to protect both freedom of expression as well as a vibrant internet at the same time hates prehundred speech and deception online. We have come up with a number of different recommendations in the coming months. This is a time where we need to be collaborating on demand to fundamental values. None of that is been done. That is one of our main objectives. The big classroom, they will be fine did any regulation they can do. It is the smaller folks, folks like wikipedia that have a small staff. Like the internet archive which has, i think, i dont know, maybe 150 people. They are the ones that often times are contacted by will intended regulation. That is the name of your commission . It is a ridiculous name. I take the responsibility. The policy center and it is called the transatlantic highlevel working group on constant moderation and freedom of expression. You mentioned, though, earlier, that some u. S. Companies are not operating necessarily in europe. For example, our group had a session in indiana and, dont ask me what the acronym stands for because i always forget, in any event, we had dinner with the u. S. Ambassador, former governor of virginia. His wife was commenting and the reason for that basically is they shut off, not wanting to be liable, they have shut off access to european citizens. Are we heading towards a bifurcated World Wide Web internet . The internet is fractured. You have a number of different internets right now. You have china, which operates on its own system. Russia is trying to replicate that in large measure. Controlling all input and output you have certainly the rules in europe. They are looking to address liability and some of the other rules involving platform behavior this year and then, of course, you have what is going on in the u. S. We share values in europe a large portion. Working together on both sides is beneficial. Even if we dont come up with the same approach of the same rules, and terms of dealing with china we know that that is a threat. We know, for example, someone that is a student of one of our members had said she could not take a particular course because it would be reflected poorly in china. This is a course that was in north america being given at a university. She was told, while, how about she says i cannot do that either. There are those that report back. I am hopeful that that is not the direction in which the entire world is headed. But, protecting freedom of expression certain, all of the freedoms that we take basically just assume will exist forever, they are fragile. Our democracy is fragile. We need to work hard to make sure that it continues to work for our society. It kind of begs the question about section 230 about whether Internet Companies should still be free from liability. What are your thoughts . A lot of different pieces when you start to take that apart. Our group issued a paper on intermediate liability. Doing something here as a ramification. It is very detailed. One can find that on our website which is www. Ibi are. Ml twg. I am glad that i got that in. But the whole point of that is basically to say that it is now the old to answer for all the harms on the internet, but the practical matter, it will have a dramatic and negative impact to playing around with it too much or removing it. It will have a dramatic and negative impact because, if you have liability, you will not try to take things down, which is the main point in section 232 give the section to actually monitor and take down the harmful content where it violates the terms of service. You will not have that. You will have much more of a take down and ask questions later. That is not good for the society particularly in other places where people put up information about government that is corrupt and if that cannot stand the test in one direction or another , it is going to be a valuable resource that will be destroyed. Are there ways of addressing it, one thing i would for sure do is make sure that that platform is 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 thinks it is being taken inappropriately. Not gaming the system, which often times happens. There is a method of appeal of a decision from a platform. There are, i think there are some things that platforms can do to demonstrate that they are deserving of that protection. People should not look at the internet and social media platforms as being the functional equivalent of the town square. It is more like a walk in central park bandaid town square. No one really expects that everything is set as you are walking along will be truthful or provable, et cetera. People have to also 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 whole picture. The platforms need to be more transparent about what they are doing, what they take down and how they do it and provide opportunity for appropriate researchers to dig in to see what has been taken down or not taken down. Platforms need to be cooperating more. I think that they are beginning to do this where it is extremely harmful situation, for example, on terrorist content they do already cooperate on that. I think that there will be an effort from the un to have some steering committee. Which is a database that companies when they find terrorist content they will attack so that others do not copy it. There is now much greater cooperation that we had even a few years ago. I am not sure that the solution is eliminating section 230 or the ecommerce provisions which will be amended to provide Good Samaritans opportunities in europe. It is on both sides of the atlantic being looked at very carefully. How did you get into this line of work . When i was in college, way back in the dark ages, i had a radio show. I actually had the opportunity, because i was fascinated by expo 57 in montreal, of course that is giving away my age, but i had an opportunity, i picked that radio and broadcast the opening in montreal and the first meeting of broadcasters, because that is what was there at the time, we had walter and all of these others. I had access to the whole place. I was hooked. The notion of communication and transatlantic or Trans National using communication as a way to improve conversations around the world, i thought would be a great thing to be doing. Later i went to law school. Got a degree. Went to Business School looking at communication a Communication Company for almost a decade. And they went on the federal communications commission. Susan s. Thank you for sharing some of your expertise, background and current work on the communicators. My pleasure. Thank you. Just a reminder that this Communicators Program as well as all others are available as podcasts. 2020 president ial democratic candidate holds a Campaign Event in detroit. Watch live coverage at 7 30 p. M. Eastern on cspan2. Online cspan. Org or listen with the free cspan radio app. Senator Bernie Sanders holds a roundtable with Public Health experts and leaders in detroit. He will be discussing the global coronavirus and how to address it. Live coverage starts at 315 eastern today on cspan three. You can watch online or listen with the free cspan radio app. During this election season, the candidates beyond the talking points are only revealed over time. Since you cannot be everywhere, there is cspan. Our programming differs from all of their political coverage for one simple reason. It is cspan. We brought you your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979. Today we are bringing you a view this november. In other words, your future. This election season go deep, direct and unfiltered. See the biggest picture for yourself and make up your own mind with cspan campaign 2020. Brought to you as a Public Service by your television provider. Now a Panel Discussion on chinas use of technology, Artificial Intelligence and the threat it imposes to the united states