In the 1990s when you are the fcc commissioner . An it was the golden age of the federal communications commission. Were they moved all of the lanes from analognication to digital. , broadcast,le satellite. Satellite had been launched. Did we came up with the. Igital television standard my First Commission meeting it was an extraordinary time. We began the first option, at which part they used the hand pluckers. To be an exciting time there. Plus, on top of all of that, we implemented the 1996 telecom act , which dramatically changed the landscape by introducing competition in local and video. And also dramatically changed the landscape for broadcast, widening the ability to consolidate broadcast properly. Looking back 20 years later, did you get it right . Was the groundwork laid correctly . That wehe other thing did, which is so important and pan can appreciate lists appreciate this greatly, is the programming requirements for Childrens Television on broadcast. Some of it we got very right. Some of it marketplace said, we are not sure we need this anymore. Basically the commission implements the law. With the 1996 telecom act was basically congress was looking backwards. Was basically settling battle that had taken place during the prior 10 years and not looking forward. Not looking at what might this internet really be about. What are some of the issues that we need to be grappling with and for us to grapple with going forward. In that respect, the introduction of competition was a big deal. But the Bell Operating Companies were not interested in competing against each other. We could basically drag them to the lake for water, but you cannot make them drink. Some reintroduced a service that the Telecom Companies can do. Was as we moved 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 built and nursed, and at the end is what we use enlargement today. Did you have any idea where we would be in 2020 . Clue. No no clue. Then the, back internet had existed, but two years before i joined the commission was when the World Wide Web was created. Internreally an University Government system that had just been commercialized. Had a vision,ody but i did not have a vision of where that was going. The good news is, we at the commission looked at the activity,t of modem up and down in connection with the internet. We said this is a very young service. We dont know where this is going to go. We are going to let it develop and see where its headed. The decision to do more harm than good if you are trying where thebout Services Going to go. We felt the marketplace would be the best determinant of that outcome. Do you still hold that opinion today, where we are in telecommunications . Susan with respect to the internet, do i believe that government should regulate portions of it . Todayk we are at a point where it would be not the fcc, more of 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. 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. There is greater incidence for or desire to do something acrosstheboard for the u. S. Gdpr, a regulation act from europe, is largely felt here. Not entirely. For example, many broadcast and other companies, their Online Platforms will not service europe. That having been said, that world 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. I think it is important for us to do our own privacy system in the u. S. So to see legislation for that. 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 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. 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. It includes tech companies, ngos, and academics to identify what is working and what is not working. Protecting both freedom of expression as well as a vibrant at the same time protect hate speech and violent extremism at the same time online. We have come up with a number of different recommendations in the coming months. This is the time when we need to be collaborating with europe. Not enough of that has been done. That is one of our main objectives. Working with platforms again, large and small. The big platforms, they will be fine. Any regulation they can do. It is the smaller folks like wikipedia that have small staff. The internet archive, which has, i dont know, maybe 150 people in its employ. They are often the ones impacted by well intended but poorly drafted regulation. What is the name of your commission . Susan it is a ridiculous name. I take responsibility, but its under the auspices of the policy center at penn. It is called the transatlantic high level working group. On content, moderation and freedom of expression. You mentioned earlier that some u. S. Companies are not operating necessarily in europe. Susan for example, our group had a session in vienna. Dont ask me what the acronym stands for. In any event, we had dinner with the u. S. Ambassador. From a government 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. Are we heading toward a bifrocated World Wide Web . Susan the internet is fractured. You have a number of different internets. You have china. Russia is trying to replicate that in large measure, where they control input and output. You have certainly the rules in europe and they are working to address liability. Some of the rules 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. Working together, i think is beneficial on both sides of the atlantic, even if we dont come up with necessarily the same approach. 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 could harm her appearance. She was told, how about auditing the course . She said, i cannot do that either. I am hopeful that is not the direction the entire world is headed. 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 need to work hard to make sure it works for our society. That kind of begs the question about section 230 and whether Internet Companies should be free from liabilities. What are your thoughts . Susan there are a lot of different pieces when you take that up part. Our group issued a paper on intermediary liability. If you are going to do something, here are the ramifications. It is very detailed. One can find the papers on our website. 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. 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, 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. 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 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 mended, hopefully to provide good samaritans. On both sides of the atlantic, things worked out. How did you get into this line of work . Susan 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 opening in montreal. In the first meeting of rod casters, we had folks like broadcasters, because thats what was there at the time, 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. 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. Now the federal response to the coronavirus. You can watch all of cspans Public Affairs programming on television, online, or listen on our free radio app and be part of the National Conversation through cspans the leak washington journal program, or through our social media feed. Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies as a public service, and brought to you today by your television provider. Next, briefings on the virus violence following the africanamericans during an arrest in minnesota. President donald trump, attorney general william barr, and Homeland SecurityDepartment Officials all with comments. After that, coverage of the launch of nasas Space X Mission to the International Space station, featuring the lift off, President Trump comments from cape canaveral, and nasas postlaunch briefing. President trump talked about the violence and rioting following the death of george floyd while in Police Custody in minneapolis. There is a portion of his remarks in florida after the launch of the space x dragon capsule. I want to say a few words about the situation in minnesota. Floyd on thegeorge streets of minneapolis was a grave tragedy. It should never have happened. It has failed americans all over the country with horror, anger, and grief. Yesterday i spoke to georges family, i expressed the sorrow of our entire