Host the communicators is at the state of the net conference in washington, d. C. We are going to show you some of the interviews were conducted with members of congress, government officials and technology leaders. And now joining us on the communicators is susan ness. Commissioner ness, what were some of issues you dealt with back in the 90s when you are an fcc commissioner . Guest peter, was the golden age of the federal communications commission. We moved all of the length of the communications highways from analog to digital. So that was cable, broadcast, satellite. The satellites have been launched but with the service d not yet begun. We came up with the Digital Television standards which is radio standard. My First Commission meeting we did band plan. It was an extraordinary time. And we were just given Auction Authority so we began the first auction at which point they actually used the hand placards to bid. So 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 both 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 wicked. Keep in mind the other thing we did which is important, and cspan can appreciate this greatly, is Childrens Television programming. We instituted a threehour requirement for Childrens Television on broadcast. Some of it we got very right. Some of it, the marketplace said were not sure we need this anymore, it basically the commission implements the law. The issue with the 1996 telecom act was basically the congress was looking backwards, was basically settling battles have 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 at the commission Going Forward . So in that respect the introduction of competition in local telepathy, that was a big deal. But the Bell Operating Companies that would been in existence were not interested into meeting against each other, and you can basically dragging them to the lake for water which you cant make them drink. Similarly, we introduced the Video Service that the Telecom Companies could do. But later that became somewhat irrelevant as we moved on. Certainly on some of the other areas that we were implementing, the concept of the underlying concept of competition in communication with the foundation that we build and nourished, and at the end of the day exists in 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 a few years before i joined the commission was when the World Wide Web was created. It had been really an interuniversity governmental darpa system that had just been commercialized. I dont think anybody had come perhaps they had a vision but i certainly did not have a vision of where that was going. The good news is we at the Commission Look at the development of modem activity, the ability up and down in connection with the internet, and we said this is a very young service. We dont know where this is going to go. Were not going to regulate it. Were going to let it develop and see where its headed. So we took the position that you can do more harm than good if you are trying, in your own mind, think about where a brandnew service is going to go, and without the marketplace would be the best determinant of that outcome. And indeed it flourished. Host do you still hold that opinion today where we are in telecommunications . Guest with respect to the internet, do i believe that government should regulate portions of it . I think we are at a today, this would not be the fcc, more the federal trade commission, but we are at a point today where privacy is an important human rights and what we need to be focused more on how we provide citizens with a 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 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 many companies, 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 that i think its important for us to do our own privacy system in the united states. I would like to see 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 that is extremely important, but as the commissioner i hold 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 the other things thad 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 of value. And i think working both with government on a transatlantic basis, which is what i do right now. I chair a highlevel commission that includes legislators, government officials, tech company execs, ngos and academics to identify whats working, whats not working, protecting both freedom of expression and at the same Time Perception online. Weve come up with a number of different recommendations that we will be putting forth in the coming months. But this is a time when we need to be collaborating with 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, because the big platforms, they will be fine. Any regulation they can do. Its the smaller folks, folks like wikipedia that have small staffs, like the internet archive which have i think, i dont know, maybe 150 people in its employ. They are the ones who oftentimes are impacted by well intended but poorly drafted relation. 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 earlier that some u. S. Companies are not operating necessarily in europe and maybe guest yeah, for example, our group had a session at the osc see dont ask what the acronym is because i always forgot. In any event we had dinner with the u. S. Ambassador to the osce from a governor from virginia and his wife is coming she could no longer get the virginia times. The reason for that basically is a 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, trifurcated World Wide Web internet . Guest the internet is fractured. You have a number of different internets. Right now yet 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 whats going on in the u. S. We share values with europe in large measure, and working together i think is beneficial on both sides of the atlantic, even if we dont come up necessarily with the same approach or the same rule. In 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. Now, this is a course that was in north america being given at a university and could harm her parents. And then she was told, well, how about auditing the course . She said she couldnt do that either because i know among students there are sites that were reports that. Im hopeful that that is not the direction which the entire world is headed. But protecting region of expression, freedom of assembly, all of the freedoms that we take basically just assume will exist forever, they are fragile, and our democracy is fragile. We really need to work hard to make sure that it continues to work for our society. Host that panda begs the question about section 230 and whether Internet Companies should still be free from liability. What are your thoughts . Guest there are a lot of different pieces when you start to take that 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 bir. The whole point of that was basically to say it is now the go to answer for all the harms on the internet, but as a practical matter it will have dramatic negative impact to the extent one place around with it too much or moves it. It will have dramatic negative impact on freedom of expression because if you have liability, you are not going to try to take things down which was the main point of section 230 to give the protection for platforms to actually monitor and take down harmful content where it appears, where it violates terms of service. So youre not going to have that. You have much more of a takedown and ask questions later, and that is not 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 that it was taken and inappropriately, and not gaming the system which oftentimes happen. And that theres a method of repeal of the decision from a platform. So 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. Its more like a walk in central park that a town square. No one really expects that everything that is sent as you are walking along will be truthful or movable, et cetera. And 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 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. The platforms need to be more transparent about what they are doing, when they takedown, how they do it, and provide opportunities for appropriate researchers to dig in to see what has been taken down or not taken down. And platforms need to be cooperating more, and i think they are beginning to do this, where it is extremely harmful situation, for example, on terrorist content. They do already cooperate on that, and to think there is going to be an effort on the u. N. To have some Steering Committee on whats called which is a database that companies when they find terrorist content they will tag so that others dont copy it. And just a much greater cooperation m had even two years ago, but there still is tremendous unmet needs to be done. The pressure needs to be there, but im not sure that the solution is a limiting section 230 or the ecommerce provisions which will be amended hopefully to provide Good Samaritans opportunities in europe. So its on both sides of the atlantic being looked at very carefully. Host how did you get into this line of work . Guest oh, gosh. 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 67 in montreal, and, of course, i have just given away my age. But i had an opportunity to take the Radio Station and broadcast the opening of expo 67 67 in montreal. In the first meeting of broadcasters, to guess thats what was there at the time, we folks like Walter Cronkite and all these others. I had accessible place, as was fascinating. So 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 thing to be doing. And so later i went to law school, got a degree, when to Business School looking at communications. And then went on the federal communications commission, susan ness, thanks for sharing some of your expertise, background and current work with us on the communicators tragic its been my pleasure. Thank you, peter. Host just a reminder that this Communicators Program as well as all others are available as podcasts. Cspan has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the Supreme Court in Public Policy events from the president ial primaries to the impeachment process, and now the federal response to the coronavirus. You can watch on cspans Public Affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app and be part of the National Conversation through cspans data Washington Journal Program or through our social media feeds. Cspan, created by americas cabletelevision companies as a Public Service and brought you today by your television provider. Having lived through loss of confidence in her constitution that is left is unable to trust what we are told by anyone who calls himself an expert, it becomes very difficult for us to rise to a challenge like this. Our first reaction is to say no, theyre lying to. There only in it for themselves and a lot of our national seditions have got to take on the challenge of persuading people again that they exist for us, that the here for the country. Sunday noon for a live conversation with author and American EnterpriseInstitute Scholar yuval levin. His most recent book is a time to build. Other titles include the great debate, and a fractured republic. Join the conversation with your phone calls, tweets, texts and facebook messages. Watch in depth with yuval levin on booktv on cspan2. Axios