As participation in society becomes largely dependent on use of internet-enabled technologies, internet non-users may seek alternative ways of using the internet. Proxy internet use (PIU), where internet non-users ask internet users to perform online activities on their behalf, is a strategy for obtaining (indirect) internet access.

This study examines factors for engagement in PIU, focusing specifically on how non-users’ reasons for disengagement relate to their engagement in PIU. The results from multivariate analyses of survey data from a nation-wide representative sample show that 47% of internet non-users in Slovenia who report having someone available for PIU, in fact, engage in PIU. In analysing four types of reasons for internet non-use—those related to interest, access, costs, and skills—the results show that access issues are negatively related to engagement in PIU. Conversely, reasons related to skills issues are positively related to engagement in PIU. Considering that access to online services through PIU offers an important degree of digital inclusion, the results of this study have important policy implications. Policy initiatives tackling digital inequalities should be sensible to access and skills issues resulting in disengagement. For example, policies directed at providing and maintaining internet access at a household level may result in non-users’ increased opportunities for PIU. In contrast, skills policies should be directed at creating opportunities for informal and person-centred learning of digital skills, considering that non-users who are more aware of their deficiency in skills might be more aware of online opportunities.

It’s one of the cruelest ironies in education: today’s schools must build and maintain robust high-speed, fiber-optic internet connections. But the process involved in finding funds for these upgrades can feel like a laggy dial-up modem, slow to a crawl—when it’s not cutting out completely. For more than 20 years, the Federal Communications Commission has directed the multi-billion dollar E-rate program, which provides taxpayer-supported construction and service discounts that districts and libraries can use toward internet costs. The program isn't static, and changes big and small continue to shape its direction.

In 2014, the FCC modernized the E-rate program, raising the overall funding cap to about $4 billion, making more money available for schools and libraries. But along with modernization came EPC—pronounced “epic”—an online application portal, which critics say has caused numerous delays and a spate of application rejections around fiber internet construction. Originally developed to help streamline the process, applicants charge the EPC system with losing completed applications due to glitches, being confusing to navigate and making it tough to input and sort relevant data, according to a recent anonymous survey of applicants conducted by E-rate consulting firm Funds For Learning. “The implementation of EPC, while a good idea in theory, has contributed significantly to the increase in complexity,” wrote one applicant in the survey’s comments section. 

The Rural Wireless Association (RWA), which represents rural carriers, told the Federal Communications Commission that Verizon "grossly overstated" its 4G LTE coverage in government filings, potentially preventing smaller carriers from obtaining funding needed to expand coverage in underserved rural areas. In 2017, the Federal Communications Commission required Verizon and other carriers to file maps and data indicating their current 4G LTE coverage. The information will help the FCC determine where to distribute up to $4.5 billion in Mobility Fund money over the next 10 years. The funds are set aside for "primarily rural areas that lack unsubsidized 4G," the FCC says. If Verizon provided the FCC with inaccurate data, the company's rural competitors might not be able to get that government funding.

"Verizon's claimed 4G LTE coverage is grossly overstated," the Rural Wireless Association told the FCC. "Verizon should not be allowed to abuse the FCC challenge process by filing a sham coverage map as a means of interfering with the ability of rural carriers to continue to receive universal service support in rural areas." The RWA asked the FCC to investigate Verizon's claimed coverage.

Reps Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Mike Doyle (D-PA) asked the Federal Communications Commission to investigate whether Sinclair Broadcast Group broke laws by allegedly influencing ad sales at rival Tribune Media, another potential setback in the TV station owners’ effort to merge. “An FCC investigation is warranted in light of recent reports that the Department of Justice is investigating whether the sales teams of Sinclair and Tribune were improperly coordinating regarding their advertising sales performance, resulting in higher rates,” they wrote in a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. In their letter, the Committee Democrats asked the FCC to investigate whether Sinclair violated the Communications Act, including Section 310(d), which prohibits the de facto transfer or control of a broadcast television license without FCC’s consent. The Democrats also requested that if either the FCC or DOJ find that Sinclair or Tribune engaged in illegal activity during the pending merger that the FCC should take such findings into consideration when reevaluating the companies’ broadcast licenses. 

Apple, Google and Facebook erased from their services many — but not all — videos, podcasts and posts from the right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his Infowars site. And Twitter left Jones’s posts untouched. The differing approaches to Jones exposed how unevenly tech companies enforce their rules on hate speech and offensive content. There are only a few cases in which the companies appear to consistently apply their policies, such as their ban on child pornography and instances in which the law required them to remove content, like Nazi imagery in Germany. When left to make their own decisions, the tech companies often struggle with their roles as the arbiters of speech and leave false information, upset users and confusing decisions in their wake. Here is a look at what the companies, which control the world’s most popular public forums, allow and ban.

Not long after several of the country’s biggest tech firms — Apple, Facebook and Google — kicked the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones off their various online platforms, Jones’s allies complained that he had been deprived of his First Amendment rights to free speech. Several scholars of free speech had already concluded that many of the things he has said online were not in fact protected by the First Amendment. 

In a recent court filing, four law professors who specialize in free-speech issues said that Mr. Jones’s oeuvre was riddled with “absurd conspiracy theories” and urged a federal judge considering a lawsuit against him not to let him hide behind the First Amendment while publishing his rhetoric. “False speech does not serve the public interest the way that true speech does,” the scholars wrote. “And indeed, there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact.” While they acknowledged that the protection of speech is “a priority of the first order,” the First Amendment scholars, from institutions like Rutgers University and the University of Chicago Law School, noted that since the Middle Ages defamation law has created “social boundaries about what speech is and is not acceptable.” It has also, they wrote, long sought to balance the freedom of expression with the safeguarding of people’s reputations.