The communicators is at the state of the net conference in washington, d. C. We will show you some of the interviews we conducted with members of congress, government officials and technology users. Joining us on the communicators is susan, what were some of the issues you dealt with back in the 1990s when you were the fcc commissioner . It was the golden age of the federal communications commission. We moved all of the lanes of the communication highway, from analog to digital. That was cable broadcasts, satellite had been launched but the service had not yet begun. We came up with the Digital Television standards, which are radio standards. My First Commission meeting we did band plans for pcf. And we began the first auction, at which point they actually used the hand placard to bid. It was an exciting time to be there. We also implemented the 1996 telecom act, which dramatically changed the landscape by introducing competition in local telephony and video. And also radically changed the landscape for broadcasts. Widening the ability to consolidate broadcast properties. Looking back 20 years later, did you get it right . Susan some of it we did. The other thing we did, and which is so important, and cspan can appreciate this greatly, is Childrens Television programming. We instituted the requirement three hour for Childrens Television on broadcast. Some of it we got very right, some of it, the marketplace said they were not sure if they needed it anymore. The commission implements a law. The issue with the 1996 telecom act was basically the congress was looking backwards and was basically settling battles that had taken place during the prior 10 years. Not looking forward. Not looking at what that might be about. Whether the commissioned need the tools to grapple with going forward. In that respect, the introduction of competition, in local telephony, that was a big deal. But the bell operating companies, the seven baby bells, were not interested in competing against each other. You can basically drag them to the lake for water but you , cannot make them drink. Similarly, we introduced Video Service that the Telephone Companies could do, but later that became somewhat irrelevant as we moved on. Certainly on other areas that we were implementing. The concept of competition in communication was the foundation that we built and nourished. At the end of the day it exists largely today. Host so, when you look back and look now, did you have any idea where we would be in 2020 . Susan no clue. No clue. Basically, if you go back, the internet had existed, but two years before i joined the commission was when the World Wide Web was created. It was really an interuniversity governmental dark system that had just been commercialized. I dont think anybody had been , had a full vision of where that was going. The good news is that we at the commission did look at the development of modem activity, the ability up and down in connection with the internet and we said, this is a young service. We dont know where it is going to go. We are going to let it develop we are not going to regulate it. We are going to let it develop and see where it is headed. We took the position you can do more harm than good if you are trying to think about where 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, where we are in telecommunications . Guest with respect to the internet, do i believe government should regulate portions of it . We are at a point today, not the fcc, more the federal trade commission, but at a point today where privacy is an important human right. 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. So, 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. So, there is greater impetus for or desire to do something acrosstheboard for the u. S. Gdpr, the general Data Protection act, a regulation act from europe, is largely felt here. Not entirely. For example, many broadcast and other companies, will not their Online Platforms will not service europe. That said, that rule tends to be governed by process. 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 it is important for us to do our own privacy system in the u. S. There is 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, that is something that is extremely important. As a commissioner, i held the First Amendment with great respect. Today, as a private citizen, i do the same. So, i would be very cautious about any effort to regulate content online. There are other things that need to be addressed. Certainly pushing platforms, both large and small, to focus in 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. Id share a highlevel commission which includes government officials, tech companies, ngos and academics to , identify what is working and what is not working. To protect both freedom of expression and at the same time, internet, and address hate, extremism and viral deception online. We have come up with a number of different recommendations we will be putting forth in the coming months. This is the time when we need to be collaborating with europe. To undergird fundamental values. Not enough of that has been done. That is 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. It is the smaller folks like wikipedia that have small staff. Like the internet archive, which has, i dont know, maybe 150 people in its employ. They are often the ones impacted by wellintended but poorly drafted regulation. Host what is the name of your commission . Guest it is a ridiculous name. Thes under the auspices of Annenberg Public Policy Center is called the transatlantic highlevel working content and expression. Host you mentioned earlier that some u. S. Companies are not operating necessarily in europe. Yes, our group had a in vienna. He osce, dont ask me what the acronym stands for. In any event, we had dinner with the u. S. Ambassador. To the osce, the former governor in virginia. His wife was commenting she could no longer get the virginia times. The reason is they shut off because of gdpr and not wanting to be liable, they have shut off access to european citizens. World wide web . Guest the internet is fractured. You have a number of different internets. You have 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 working to address intermediary liability, and other roles involving platform behavior this year. And then, of course you have , what is 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 with necessarily the same necessarily with the same approach of the same rules. In terms of dealing 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 is the course that was in north america. It have been given at the university and it could harm her appearance. Then she was told, how about , auditing the course . And she said, i cannot do that either. Because i know among students there are spies who will report that. I am hopeful that is not the direction the entire world is headed. But protecting freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, all of the freedoms we take basically just assume will exist forever, they are fragile. Our democracy is fragile. We really need to work hard to make sure it continues to work for our society and abroad. Host that kind of begs the question about section 230 and whether Internet Companies should be free from liabilities. What are your thoughts . Guest there are a lot of different pieces when you take that apart. Our group issued a paper on intermediary liability. At, if you are going to do something here are the , ramifications. It is very detailed. Papers on ourur website,. Ivir. Nl twg the whole point of that was basically to say, it is now the go to answer for all the harms on the internet. As a practical matter, it will have a dramatic and negative impact. Two the extent one plays around with it too much or removes it. It will have a dramatic and 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 the section 230, to give the protections for platforms to actually monitor and take down harmful content where it appears. Where it violates terms of service. You are not going to have that. You are going to have much more of a take down 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. If that cant stand the test in one direction or another, it is going to be a valuable resource. That would be destroyed. Are there ways of addressing it . One thing i would for sure do is to make sure 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 was taken down inappropriately. 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 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 than a town square. No one really expects everything that everything that is said as you are walking along is going to be truthful or provable. 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 picture. The platforms need to be more transparent about what they are doing. When they take down, how they do it. Provide opportunities for appropriate researchers to dig in to see what has been taken down or not taken down. Platforms need to be cooperating more, and i think they are beginning to do this. Where it is extremely harmful situations. For example, terrorist content, they do already cooperate in that. I think there is going to be an effort from the u. N. To have some steering committee. A database that companies, when they find terrorist content, they will tag so others do not copy it. There is more cooperation than we had two years ago but there is a tremendous amount that needs to be done. Pressure needs to be there. I am not sure the solution is eliminating section 230 or the commerce provisions which will be amended hopefully to provide good opportunities in europe. With both sides of the atlantic being looked at very carefully. How did you get into this line of work . When i was in college in the dark ages, i had a radio show. Wrsu radio. I had the opportunity because i was fascinated by montreal expo 67. I had the opportunity to take wrsu radio and broadcast the in montreal. Po 67 in the first meeting of broadcasters, we had 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. Went to business school, looking at communications. I worked at a Communications Company for almost a decade. Then went on the federal communications commission. Susan ness, thank you for sharing some of your expertise background, and current work. Just a reminder, this Communicators Program and all others are available as podcasts. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] cspan has unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from the president ial primaries through the impeachment process, and now the federal response to the coronavirus. Public watch cspans Affairs Programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app. The part of the conversation through cspans washington journal program. Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies as a public service, and brought to you by your television provider. American history tv on cspan3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. Coming up this weekend, saturday at noon eastern on the presidency, former white house curator on the 1962 to with first Lady Jacqueline kennedy and the white house collections. Its 6 00 p. M. Eastern, American Civil War interpreter on fighters who became outlaws. Sunday at 4 00 p. M. Eastern on real america, the 1936 film about two massive dam projects. Story. Ng the american watch American History tv this weekend on cspan three. President trump says he is terminating the u. S. Relationship with the world health organization. In a statement from the white house rose