Platforms

Sohn set out recommendations to ensure that the Internet is accessible and affordable and that broadband Internet access service (BIAS) providers and online platforms are transparent about how they conduct their businesses. Affordable access to the Internet is rarely discussed in conversations about Internet openness. An open network is of limited value, however, if significant numbers of people cannot access it for cost or other reasons. In the United States, fully twenty percent of Americans are not connected to BIAS.

In my Georgetown Law Technology Review article, I propose a new policy framework to restore an open Internet ecosystem.

In my previous post, I highlighted four reasons why the U.S needs a unified policy framework for an open Internet ecosystem: 1) lack of competition/incentive and the ability to discriminate; 2) collection of and control over personal data; 3) lack of transparency; and 4) inadequacy of current laws and enforcement. Many of these problems can be addressed with targeted legislative and regulatory interventions.

[Analysis] In a new article for the Georgetown Law Technology Review, I seek to jumpstart a conversation about how to shape an Internet ecosystem that will serve the public interest. First, let me lay out the rationale for a new, unified policy framework for an open Internet: 1) Lack of Competition/Incentive and Ability to Discriminate, 2) Collection of and Control over Personal Data, 3) Lack of Transparency, and 4) Inadequacy of Current Laws and Enforcement.

Whether it’s based on hallucinatory beliefs or not, an artificial-intelligence gold rush has started over the last several months to mine the anticipated business opportunities from generative AI models like ChatGPT. App developers, venture-backed startups, and some of the world’s largest corporations are all scrambling to make sense of the sensational text-generating bot released by OpenAI in November 2022. But while companies and executives see a clear chance to cash in, the likely impact of the technology on workers and the economy, on the whole, is far less obvious.

TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew tried to allay mounting national security concerns about the Chinese-owned video app but encountered open hostility in his first appearance before Congress, a five-hour thrashing that underscored the popular app’s precarious future in the United States. Lawmakers from both parties sought to tie Chew personally to the Chinese Communist Party, frequently interrupted him and called him “evasive.” While he p

Gov. Spencer Cox (R-UT) signed two bills into law that would impose sweeping restrictions on kid and teen use of social media apps such as Instagram and TikTok — a move proponents say will protect youth from the detrimental effects of internet platforms. One law aims to force social media companies to verify that users who are Utah residents are over the age of 18. The bill also requires platforms to obtain parental consent before letting minors use their services, and guardians must be given access to their child’s account. A default curfew must also be set.

The House Commerce Committee’s Republican leadership has scheduled the latest Big Tech beating on Capitol Hill and they have signaled it will be filled with Republican red-meat issues. The official beating will commence on March 28 at 10:30 a.m., but it has already begun. Unlike a recent Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee hearing that had bipartisan backing, the House hearing notice is filled with partisan shots. In a joint statement, House Commerce Chair Cathy Mc

Every 15 years or so, it seems, the US economy rolls into a ditch — and the tech industry pulls something remarkable out of its labs. Here we are again! Silicon Valley's favorite bank has failed, while its top firms continue to lay off hordes of workers — but, at the same time, industry leaders foresee vast new growth spurred by artificial intelligence (AI).

The images appeared on Twitter in late 2016 just as the presidential campaign was entering its final stretch. Some featured the message “vote for Hillary” and the phrases “avoid the line” and “vote from home.” Aimed at Democratic voters, and sometimes singling out Black people, the messages were actually intended to help Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton. The goal, federal prosecutors said, was to suppress votes for Clinton by persuading her supporters to falsely believe they could cast presidential ballots by text message.