Frontier told the Federal Communications Commission it would “welcome the inclusion” of the census blocks where it claims to newly offer broadband service into the upcoming Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF). Seeking to “clarify” its position, Frontier indicated that it would not fight to exclude the 17,000 census blocks in question despite maintaining that it does offer 25/3 Mbps speeds in those areas. The company followed up with a longer filing that responded to comments filed by ILSR and others and asserted that its claimed broadband speeds are correct. Frontier says most of the census blocks currently in question had available speeds of just 25/2 Mbps prior to December 2019. However, Frontier fails to explain why it’s now claiming that those areas now have access to 25/3 Mbps or why it reported sub-broadband speeds in the first place. With no reason provided for these changes, it seems like Frontier could be intentionally dancing around the definition of broadband to land on speeds that are convenient for the company if not always an accurate representation of reality.

The Federal Communications Commission approved an additional 53 funding applications for the COVID-19 Telehealth Program. Health care providers in both urban and rural areas of the country will use this $18.22 million in funding to provide telehealth services during the coronavirus pandemic. To date, the FCC’s COVID-19 Telehealth Program, which was authorized by the CARES Act, has approved funding for 185 health care providers in 38 states plus Washington, DC for a total of $68.22 million in funding. [See list of health care providers that were approved for funding at the link below]

It is the policy of the United States to foster clear ground rules promoting free and open debate on the internet.  Prominent among the ground rules governing that debate is the immunity from liability created by section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act (section 230(c)).  47 U.S.C. 230(c).  It is the policy of the United States that the scope of that immunity should be clarified: the immunity should not extend beyond its text and purpose to provide protection for those who purport to provide users a forum for free and open speech, but in reality use their power over a vital means of communication to engage in deceptive or pretextual actions stifling free and open debate by censoring certain viewpoints. In particular, subparagraph (c)(2) expressly addresses protections from “civil liability” and specifies that an interactive computer service provider may not be made liable “on account of” its decision in “good faith” to restrict access to content that it considers to be “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable.”  It is the policy of the United States to ensure that, to the maximum extent permissible under the law, this provision is not distorted to provide liability protection for online platforms that — far from acting in “good faith” to remove objectionable content — instead engage in deceptive or pretextual actions (often contrary to their stated terms of service) to stifle viewpoints with which they disagree. 

To advance this policy, all executive departments and agencies should ensure that their application of section 230(c) properly reflects the narrow purpose of the section and take all appropriate actions in this regard.  In addition, within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), in consultation with the Attorney General, and acting through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), shall file a petition for rulemaking with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requesting that the FCC expeditiously propose regulations to clarify:

• the interaction between subparagraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of section 230, in particular to clarify and determine the circumstances under which a provider of an interactive computer service that restricts access to content in a manner not specifically protected by subparagraph (c)(2)(A) may also not be able to claim protection under subparagraph (c)(1), which merely states that a provider shall not be treated as a publisher or speaker for making third-party content available and does not address the provider’s responsibility for its own editorial decisions;
• the conditions under which an action restricting access to or availability of material is not “taken in good faith” within the meaning of subparagraph (c)(2)(A) of section 230, particularly whether actions can be “taken in good faith” if they are:
  • deceptive, pretextual, or inconsistent with a provider’s terms of service; or
  • taken after failing to provide adequate notice, reasoned explanation, or a meaningful opportunity to be heard; and
• any other proposed regulations that the NTIA concludes may be appropriate to advance the policy described in subsection (a) of this section.

The head of each executive department and agency (agency) shall review its agency’s Federal spending on advertising and marketing paid to online platforms.

It is the policy of the United States that large online platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook, as the critical means of promoting the free flow of speech and ideas today, should not restrict protected speech. In May of 2019, the White House launched a Tech Bias Reporting tool to allow Americans to report incidents of online censorship.  In just weeks, the White House received over 16,000 complaints of online platforms censoring or otherwise taking action against users based on their political viewpoints.  The White House will submit such complaints received to the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  The FTC shall consider taking action, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce

The Attorney General shall establish a working group regarding the potential enforcement of State statutes that prohibit online platforms from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The working group shall also develop model legislation for consideration by legislatures in States where existing statutes do not protect Americans from such unfair and deceptive acts and practices. The working group shall invite State Attorneys General for discussion and consultation, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.

The Attorney General shall develop a proposal for Federal legislation that would be useful to promote the policy objectives of this order.

Twitter continued to add new fact-checking labels to hundreds of tweets, even as the Trump administration issued an executive order to curtail the legal protections that shield social media companies from liability for the content posted on their platforms. Twitter’s move escalated the confrontation between the company and President Donald Trump, who has fulminated over actions taken by his favorite social media service. Twitter had appended fact-checking labels for the first time to two of Trump’s tweets about mail-in ballots, rebutting their accuracy. In response, President Trump accused Twitter of stifling speech and declared that he would put a stop to the interference. But Twitter has doubled down, adding fact-checking labels to messages from Zhao Lijian, a spokesman for China’s foreign ministry who had claimed that the coronavirus outbreak may have begun in the United States and been brought to China by the US military. Twitter also added notices on hundreds of tweets that falsely claimed a photo of a man in a red baseball cap was Derek Chauvin, an officer involved in the death of George Floyd, an African-American man who died this week after being handcuffed and pinned to the ground by police. The Twitter label alerted viewers that the image was “manipulated media.”

Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr slammed social media and their Sec. 230 exemption from liability for how they handle third-party content--both taking it down and leaving it up. Tucker Carlson asked Commissioner Carr why the White House and Congress had not done anything about the exemption. Commissioner Carr cited the reports that the President's executive order would be "addressing some of these issues," then went off on social media himself.  He said that if social media want to be political actors, "they have First Amendment rights, but they shouldn't necessarily have these special bonus protections that only that set of actors have in Sec. 230." Commissioner Carr added his own twist to the argument, suggesting Twitter was engaged in the kind of unfair and deceptive business practice that the Federal Trade Commission should be interested in checking out.  "Put aside the fact that they can choose to speak," he said, "you can't have it both ways. You can't go to Congress and say 'we're neutral politically and then engage in this type of conduct.'"