Google, Facebook, and Twitter have no incentive to inject bias in their platforms, because consumers across the political spectrum use social media and discriminating against any of them could drive people away. Consumers would be substantially worse off if social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter were broken up. Their value to consumers derives in no small part from the fact that they allow people to communicate with their friends and families with a single click.

If policymakers are genuinely concerned about the value internet platforms are providing to their consumers, the answer is not to demand that they prioritize political neutrality in their search results. That would necessarily force them to de-emphasize other factors such as timeliness, relevance and accuracy, which consumers tend to favor. Instead, policymakers should allow businesses to determine the best way to serve their customers. The Justice Department should back off its unseemly political attacks on social media platforms, and policymakers should continue to employ a light-touch regulatory approach, so consumers can benefit from the platforms’ continued growth and innovation.

[Daniel Castro is vice president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and director of its Center for Data Innovation. Michael McLaughlin is a research assistant at ITIF.]

Twitter announced a new policy addressing “dehumanizing speech,” which will take effect later in 2018, and for the first time the public will be able to formally provide the company with feedback on the proposed rule. The policy will prohibit “content that dehumanizes others based on their membership in an identifiable group, even when the material does not include a direct target.” It expands upon Twitter’s existing hateful conduct policy prohibiting users from threatening violence or directly attacking a specific individual on the basis of characteristics such as race, sexual orientation, or gender. Susan Benesch, whose research Twitter cites in its announcement, defines dehumanizing speech as “describing other people in ways that deny or diminish their humanity,” like comparing them to insects, demons, or bacteria. Twitter is hosting an open comment period on the rule before it goes into effect, a practice seemingly modeled after the US federal rule-making process. The comment period will remain open until Oct 9th.

The Senate Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on Sept 26 on “Examining Safeguards for Consumer Data Privacy,” intended as an opportunity for lawmakers to learn about “possible approaches to safeguarding privacy more effectively.” That’s great except for two small things. No consumers were invited to speak on safeguarding consumer data privacy. No consumer advocates were invited to speak on safeguarding consumer data privacy. Who was invited? That would be representatives of some of the country’s biggest tech and telecom companies — businesses that have a highly vested interest in collecting and exploiting as much consumer data as they can get their mitts on. A likely upshot of the hearing is that each company will make the case for why a federal data-privacy law should preempt state laws. And there’s a good reason for that. They’re terrified of a landmark privacy law passed by CA in June and set to take effect at the beginning of 2020.

If nothing else, here’s what lawmakers need to keep in mind: The federal government can and should set regulatory base lines for businesses. But states — as conservatives keep telling us — know their citizens best and should have the last word. Enact a federal privacy law. Please. But make it clear that any such law will be superseded by stronger provisions at the state level. Because Republicans believe in states’ rights. Right?

[David Lazarus is a business columnist for the LA Times]

The Federal Communications Commission has voted to confirm that a local franchise authority's (LFA) ability to regulate cable service does not extend to broadband and other non-cable services. Additionally, the FCC voted to confirm that in-kind commitments those authorities get from providers as part of franchise agreements count toward the 5% franchise fee cap, with the exception of providing public, educational and government (PEG) channels. The FCC has now deleted the "Clarifying Local Franchising Authorities Regulation of Cable Operators" item from its Sept 26 meeting agenda, saying it has now already been adopted. The Free State Foundation, whose supporters include major media companies, had hailed the FCC's planned Sept. 26 vote as important pushback on localities trying to re-regulate internet access. In its vote, the FCC has now responded to a 2017 court ruling by telling the court that the "mixed-use network ruling should be applied to prohibit LFAs from using their video franchising authority to regulate non-cable services offered over cable systems by incumbent cable operators," which includes internet access services, and clarifying that they can still regulate institutional networks. 

Lawmakers and consumer advocates are pressing telecommunication companies to ensure that rural areas are not left behind in the race to adopt fifth-generation, or 5G, mobile broadband technology. Rural advocates from both parties, such as Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Jon Tester (D-MT), note that large areas of America still lack 4G or even 3G coverage. While most urban areas have access to high-speed internet and 4G mobile broadband, outside of the highways that cut across the country, huge swaths of America often lack any consistent broadband connection. Industry insists 5G broadband will help address the “digital divide” between highly connected urban areas and rural areas that have few and in some cases no options for affordable high-speed broadband. It sees wireless broadband as a means to provide connectivity to hard-to-reach rural areas.

The Federal Trade Commission is sending out 22,671 refund checks to people who lost money to a mobile cramming operation that placed tens of millions of dollars in charges on their mobile phone bills without their permission. The refunds stem from a major FTC crackdown first announced in 2013. As part of the scheme, the defendants sent text messages containing celebrity gossip alerts, horoscopes, or “fun facts” to consumers and placed monthly subscription fees for these “services” on their mobile phone bills without their authorization. The practice of placing unauthorized charges on a consumer’s mobile phone bill is known as mobile cramming. This is the third round of refunds issued as part of the FTC’s crackdown on mobile cramming. The latest round of refunds, totaling $2,107,156.24, comes from assets recovered as part of a settlement with Tatto, Inc. The average check amount is $92.95.

The Center for Digital Democracy, Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and the Benton Foundation told the Federal Communications Commission that if the agency proceeds with its proposed deregulation of children's TV rules, it could spell the end of children's programming on broadcast TV. "The FCC’s assumption that children’s television guidelines are no longer necessary because programming is available on other platforms is simply wrong," the groups told the FCC. "To obtain access to non-broadcast programming, households must have access to cable or broadband service, and be able to afford subscription fees and equipment. Many families, especially low-income families and families in rural areas, cannot access or afford alternative program options." 

"Only children’s programs on broadcast and cable are subject to advertising limits and policies prohibiting deceptive and unfair advertising practices such as host-selling, and only television broadcasters are mandated to provide programming specifically designed to educate and inform children." By contrast, online offerings are for the most part “program-length commercials and 'native' ads designed specifically to promote and sell toys, fast-food and other products." The groups also cite the privacy drawbacks of relying on over-the-top. "[T]he NPRM fails to address the problem that children watching videos on YouTube, on mobile apps, and even on premium OTT [over-the-top] services, are subjected to invasive data collection, profiling and interactive ad targeting practices."

After a year of continued tension between President Donald Trump and the news media, the partisan divides in attitudes toward the news media that widened in the wake of the 2016 presidential election remain stark, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis. Specifically, strong divisions between Republicans and Democrats persist when it comes to support of the news media’s watchdog role, perceived fairness in political coverage, trust in information from both national and local news organizations, and ratings of how well the news media keep people informed.

Americans are particularly divided politically on whether or not they think news media criticism keeps political leaders in line – the so-called “watchdog role” of the news media. A vast majority of Democrats (82%) say in the survey conducted earlier in 2018 that they support the news media’s watchdog role, believing that news media criticism keeps political leaders from doing things that shouldn’t be done. On the other hand, the majority of Republicans (58%) think news media criticism gets in the way of political leaders doing their job. The 44-percentage-point gap between Democratic and Republican support for the watchdog role (82% vs. 38% respectively), along with the 47-point difference in 2017, are the largest measured by Pew Research Center in the more than three decades the question has been asked. In contrast, members of the two parties were about equally likely to support the news media’s watchdog role in 2016 during the Obama administration.

The findings also reveal low levels of trust in social media as a source for news and information among the public and members of both parties. While one-in-five Americans (21%) have a lot of trust in the information they get from national news organizations, that share is about five times as high as the portion that have a lot of trust in the information they get from social media sites (4%). 

Commissioner Maureen K. Ohlhausen announced her departure from the Federal Trade Commission upon the expiration of her term Sept 25. Ohlhausen was sworn in as a Commissioner on April 4, 2012, and served as Acting Chairman of the agency from January 25, 2017 to May 1, 2018. Commissioner Ohlhausen previously served the FTC in various capacities, including four years as the Director of the Office of Policy Planning.  During her time leading the agency, the FTC was highly active in efforts to protect consumer privacy and promote data security. The agency brought 20 actions, including significant cases against the ride-sharing company Uber, the first connected toys case against VTech Electronics, as well as actions against computer manufacturer Lenovo, peer-to-peer payment service Venmo, and the revenge porn website MyEx.com. The FTC also increased enforcement of the European Union-United States Privacy Shield framework, settling charges against three US companies for misleading consumers about their participation in the framework. In addition, Commissioner Ohlhausen convened an Informational Injury Workshop to examine injuries to consumers from the use and exposure of their personal information, and issued a report recommending steps mobile device manufacturers can take to enhance security for users.