字幕列表 影片播放 列印英文字幕 As the coronavirus recession requires the Internet to take on an even more central role in our economy, its major stakeholders are changing the landscape. The Justice Department set to put forward a plan as soon as today to roll back legal protections that online platforms have enjoyed for more than two decades. There's a lot of line here in terms of the soul of the country. The president becomes increasingly concerned that some of these platforms are perhaps violating free speech and also bias against conservatives. Twitter attempted to control the narrative by starting to fact check tweets on its platform, specifically those by world leaders. President Trump responded with an executive order re-examining the ability for social media platforms to monitor speech. What they choose to fact check and what they choose to ignore or even promote is nothing more than a political activism group or political activism. And it's inappropriate. But I think one of the most terrifying parts of it involves a suggestion that the government should be setting ground rules for what speech is or is not allowed on a platform. That video that can demonstrate the eight minutes of torture that an African-American man had under the police can be put on a medium like Facebook or Twitter and have different interpretations. But I don't think that Facebook or Internet platforms in general should be arbiters of truth. The battle over who regulates the platform and the Internet overall started long before social media was even an idea with the actual hardware of the network. The dark side began to appear when money became the driver. And while our digital avatars become ever more important to our physical livelihoods and our understanding of the world around us, one question remains: who controls the Internet? The Internet was originally developed by computer scientists so they could better share their research with each other. The U.S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA, financed the project. It was an uncontrolled new environment. Start at the end research. The research was everything. Arpanet, as it was called, was focused on sharing packets of digital information. I developed basically a mathematical theory of packet to achieve network the networks we have today called the Internet. ARPA said we need a network. Here finally was the promise that we could implement this technology that I had been working on for so many years. So sure enough, in less than nine months, Berrinagon Nooman, the company that won the contract delivered the first switch. What, we now call a router to UCLA. We connected it up to our computer. And a month later, in October 1969, Stanford Research Institute, 400 miles of the north, got their router. And we deployed a high speed link between the two and now had two node network. Over time, more research facilities started joining the network. And it started to grow. The National Science Foundation, or NSF, also opened up the networks users from just computer scientists to any researcher or educational institution that could reach it, free of charge. NSF built the hardware that became the backbone of the network. Personal computers were also becoming more common, and the graphical interface of the World Wide Web was being developed. All of these items together grew into what is now known as the Internet. At the same time, private companies started building their own networks. In 1991, then Senator Al Gore sponsored a bill to help fund what he calls the Information Superhighway. That bill injected 600 million dollars into the development of the Internet. Al Gore put together an a wonderful constituency of academia, industry and government to basically deploy a very high speed gigabit per second backbone network. So people like to snicker at that. He made a major contribution in deploying the backbone. This bill encouraged the Internet to grow in both private and public sectors. In 1995, NSF then awarded contracts for access points for private companies to maintain the backbone of the Internet and decommissioned its own NSF net backbone in April of that year. Over the next three years, NSF helped create the framework the Internet has today officially ending its direct role in the Internet in 1998. That's an example where the government creates really something innovative like it did with the Internet and then handed over to the private sector to take that and make it something that's usable for the common person. Many of these innovations have been able to evolve due to the light touch regulatory framework that we've had since the Clinton-Gore administration. I thank the vice president who fought for this bill for so long on behalf of the American people. And I thank the members of Congress in both parties, starting with the leadership who believed in the promise and the possibility of telecommunications reform. So the '96 Communications Act update really provided for more spectrum, because what regulators found was that as these systems were actually evolving, they needed more fuel. It was a very much a consensus bill and it really did pave the way for the Internet that we see today. With so many new stakeholders in the backbone of the Internet. More voices started gaining traction. This now became a world that the consumer could enter and business could enter. Now, once that happens, there's a major change in the taste and the character of this network, namely, it is now a money machine. The Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, regulates the infrastructure that supports the Internet. How far that regulation extends, has been a challenge for policymakers. There's a belief that the FCC should step in and dictate the extent to which this subdominant of company when it comes to their content. And again, whether or not they preference that content, by putting it over others or they discriminate against other content by not letting you see it or the throttle it, slow it down.You know, all of that comes under the net neutrality provision, which the FCC kicked out. Many question if the Internet should be considered a public utility or remain a service provided by private companies. The coronavirus pandemic heighten the debate after companies like Facebook, YouTube, Netflix and others responded to a request from the European Union to stream their content in a lower quality in Europe. However, the network in the U.S. was able to withstand the increase in data usage without having to throttle. And I'm very proud that it didn't collapse. That it was right there. It hardly basically shuddered when this demand came in. Paid prioritization would allow companies to sell what they call a fast lane. Can the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, dictate where the businesses must lay cable? The underlying speeds that they may maintain and whether they can do a paid prioritization? What I personally don't want is to allow a provider to decide who gets bandwidth, who gets how much bandwidth and if and when that benefit gets turned off. At the end of the last administration, the Federal Communications Commission declared that there can be no paid prioritization. Then in 2016, the U.S. Congress enacted a bill to override that decision by the Federal Communications Commission, which handed back to the broadband deployers the option to do paid prioritization. So that's kind of where it stands now. While the courts are still deciding who regulates access to the Internet. The conversations taking place online are growing increasingly tense. Today, I'm signing executive order to protect and uphold the free speech and rights of the American people. Currently, social media giants like Twitter receive an unprecedented liability shield based on the theory that they're a neutral platform, which they are not. Not an editor with a viewpoint. My executive order calls for new regulations. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to make it that social media companies that engage in censoring or any political content will not be able to keep their liability shield. That's a big deal. Days after President Trump signed this executive order, it was challenged in the courts. On the false assumption that's being made is you either are a neutral platform or you moderate content. And that's a false choice. And that's not what the law requires. The law says you can be whatever type of platform you want. And when you remove content that you consider to be objectionable, you're not going to assume liability for that. I think for the most part, tech companies don't want their content to lead to unlawful activity, but they actually have a huge challenge when it comes to the recent activities of the president's tweet that in some way could have been perceived as inciting violence. Twitter obviously came through and said, hey, we're just going to mark this as a potential for that. Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg basically said Facebook is staying out of it because they're not the arbiter of anybody's troop. When it came to the president's executive order, it's there's a lot of different components in it that are worth unpacking. But I think one of the most terrifying parts of it involves a suggestion that the government should be setting ground rules for what speech is or is not allowed on a platform. That suggestion was first explored in the 1996 Communications Decency Act aimed at curtailing the presence of pornography and illicit activity on the Internet. The entire Communications Decency Act was found to violate the First Amendment, except for Section 230. Those two important provisions. One, it makes clear what is called conduit immunity, which basically says if you are just the intermediary, you are not responsible for the content that is transmitted. Good example that would be in a library. But the more important provision is the second section which made clear that platforms could moderate content that could remove lewd, lascivious or otherwise objectionable content without assuming liability or either the removal of that content or the failure to catch any content that they didn't remove. Section 230 empowers somebody who's setting up a social media Web site for cat lovers to remove any dog related content. In effect, President Trump's executive order would change how social media platforms are treated under the law and consider them publishers, which could make them liable for all content written on their sites. Just like media organizations like CNBC. The DOJ has been working on this for about a year. But it does dovetail with the president's recent executive order, which require the FCC or would at least ask the FCC to promulgate new regulations in this space as well. It wants Congress to rewrite Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to remove the liability shield for civil action if platforms are found to facilitate or solicit federal criminal activity, such as fraud or scams. All of these changes could upend the business model for tech's biggest companies. Industry groups are against it. And the big caveat here is that the DOJ cannot do this alone. It would need Congress to act.