Darrell West

The Trump campaign of 2016 will doubtlessly go down as one of the most dramatic and sensational in history, especially considering Trump’s tendency to spark national controversy on Twitter. Although the president-elect’s style of social media usage is of a kind highly unusual in the political sphere, the rising importance of digital media in presidential campaigns cannot be solely attributed to one candidate. The use of social media as a major campaign strategy was first pioneered by President Barack Obama in the 2008 election and was repeated successfully in 2012. His strategy encompassed a range of elements, including Facebook, online fundraising, and a YouTube channel, paired with more traditional forms of outreach via phone and direct mail.

The millennial generation (those born between 1981 and 1998) has been a driving force behind the rise of social media and is attributed with tipping the scales in President Obama’s favor both election cycles. Given that social media has become an integral component of the political process during a time of dramatic polarization, there is a concern that the digital world has become a means to filter out opposing opinions from one’s personal online universe – creating an “echo chamber.” Data from the Pew Research Center reveal that the echo chamber is not necessarily born of a refusal to consider opposing viewpoints, but has developed out of the negative political climate and of the desire to avoid confrontation.

Summer 2016, the United Nations declared that it considers the Internet to be a human right. Specifically, an addition was made to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Section 32 adds “The promotion, protection and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet” and another 15 recommendations that cover the rights of those who work in and rely on Internet access. It also applies to women, girls, and those heavily impacted by the digital divide. In a world where

Internet shutdowns are increasing year to year, it is important that the right steps are taken to improve the relationship between governments and citizens and to uphold all human rights. The UN could advance the cause of universal Internet access by using the sustainable development goals as a stepping stone; those whose livelihoods depend on Internet access or who fear that their access will be terminated will have the most to gain. The 193 signatory countries have already committed to improving Internet quality, sustainability, and accessibility—a first step to Internet access truly being treated as a human right.

In June 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution condemning the intentional shutdown or disruption of domestic Internet access. Despite the support of many member states, governments such as India, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Iraq, Brazil, the Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Syria, Turkey, and Algeria have shut down Internet or mobile service, sometimes for an extended period. In my new paper, I detail the economic costs to countries that intentionally disrupt citizens’ digital access. I found 81 short-term Internet shutdowns that occurred in 19 countries between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016, and estimated that such obstruction cost the global economy at least US$2.4 billion. During the past year, India lost $968 million from Internet shutdowns, Saudi Arabia lost $465 million, Morocco lost $320 million, Iraq lost $209 million, Brazil lost $116 million, and the Republic of the Congo lost $72 million, among other nations.

[Commentary] On July 28, Facebook issued a Safety Check in response to a shooting in a Chicago (IL) neighborhood, asking its users located in the area to verify if they were safe. Rather than wait for one of its employees to issue a Safety Check in the wake of a crisis, Facebook has recently begun using community-generated Safety Checks. These alerts are generated when a spike in user statuses tells the algorithm that there’s a crisis underway, which Facebook can follow-up with an employee-initiated Safety Check. As Facebook strives to make its crisis alert features faster and more precise, it gains use as a real-time crisis management tool rather than simply a crisis news source.

Using Facebook’s unique platform, Safety Check offers a clear advantage over inadequate government crisis alert mechanisms. First, “check in” messages instantly relay a tacit “stay away” to nearby citizens, increasing their emergency situational awareness. Second, Safety Check offers an alternative to telephone networks, which often jam up during crises. Third, today’s crises affect victims from many different nations, which makes reporting even more chaotic. With its centralized network of over 1.13 billion daily users, Facebook fills the need for a global crisis communication tool. By allowing users to quickly communicate that they are okay to loved ones or friends, Facebook can absorb some of the work of overburdened government crisis-response programs, allowing them to focus on other critical tasks like searching for missing persons. Such help would be welcomed by the government: in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, the State Department urged citizens to check in with family, not to contact the US Embassy. In the immediate wake of a crisis, the government lacks Facebook’s capacity to update billions of people on a person’s status.

The 2016 Brookings Financial and Digital Inclusion Project (FDIP) evaluates access to and usage of affordable financial services by underserved people across 26 geographically, politically, and economically diverse countries. The 2016 report assesses these countries’ financial inclusion ecosystems based on four dimensions of financial inclusion: country commitment, mobile capacity, regulatory environment, and adoption of selected traditional and digital financial services.

We identify four priority areas where action is needed to advance inclusive finance: 1) an increased focus on establishing (and then achieving) specific, measurable financial inclusion targets; 2) promoting more comprehensive data collection and analysis regarding financial access and usage, particularly among traditionally underserved groups such as women; 3) advancing regulatory efforts designed to facilitate financial inclusion; and 4) enhancing financial capability to promote sustainable financial inclusion. Taken together, progress on these action items would amplify opportunities for underserved populations to participate in the digital economy and leverage formal financial services to
improve their well-being.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission in 2015 redefined broadband as connections with 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download speeds and 4 Mbps upload speeds. This is more than six times the previous standard of 4 Mbps download, allowing for multiple simultaneous video streams. According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 10 percent of Americans lack access to broadband by this definition. This number, however, fails to illustrate the stark contrast between rural and urban access to broadband. Rural areas have significantly slower Internet access, with 39 percent lacking access to broadband of 25/4 Mbps, compared to only 4 percent for urban areas. This rural/urban “digital divide” in access severely limits rural populations from taking advantage of a critical component of modern life.

The FCC has been responsible for universal service of telecommunications since its inception in 1934, creating equal access to communications like phone service. In 2007, the Joint Board of the FCC redefined the concept of universal service to include broadband. Coupled with the recent network neutrality decision, the FCC wields a powerful precedent to create equal access to broadband. To fulfill its role, the FCC must do more as a regulatory body to ensure equal access to this public utility. It has made efforts in recent years to expand the Connect America Fund, providing funding to create broadband access for over 7 million consumers over the next 6 years. However, the FCC must expand access alongside advances in technology rather than after the fact, satisfying increased demands for faster internet with infrastructure growth. Otherwise, rural communities will continue to play catch up with their urban counterparts and the US will remain digitally divided.

[Commentary] In May, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) generated controversy with its ruling on privacy. The case involved a Spanish man’s grievance with Google over a search result for his name that linked to information outlining a 15-year-old bankruptcy proceeding. The ECJ ruled that Google, and other search engines, should be required to remove the information that is deemed “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant, or excessive in relation to the purposes for which they were processed and in the light of the time that has elapsed”.

The ECJ held search engines responsible for the results delivered to its users. This ruling suggests that search engines can affect the reputation of an individual person, as opposed to functioning as a tool that enables users to access information across the Internet.

The ECJ acknowledges that this ruling will not deter potentially damaging information from being discoverable since the information will still exist on the Internet even if a search engine can’t link directly to the result. Would this type of ruling ever occur in the United States? It’s difficult to imagine a ruling like this to come from an American court, for the following reasons:

• One: Given the First Amendment, it would be difficult to justify limits on publication of digital material.
• Two: The United States and Europe have fundamentally different approaches to protecting privacy. In his recent paper Cameron Kerry describes the political and legal differences between the EU and the US.

It is a time of great change in telecommunications -- new platforms have emerged that stream video and voice over the Internet and deliver content via tablets and smartphones.

These systems have broadened our horizons with respect to communications, entertainment, and commerce.

This paper examines the future of video streaming and digital content delivery systems during a time of major transformation. It discusses what these changes mean for people, businesses, and governments.

The argument is made that there are many opportunities in the move to a multi-platform world and new models have the potential to become more flexible, adaptive, and cost-effective. But Federal Communications Commission leaders need to promote innovation that maximizes the benefits of new developments.

We need to make sure that those living in rural areas, in addition to elderly and disabled populations, are able to reap the benefits of the technology revolution. Several benchmarks in the evolution of video streaming and digital content delivery include:

• The explosive growth of video streaming
• The Internet protocol transition
• Smart devices and the “Internet of Things”
• Improving spectrum access
• Protecting consumers during periods of technological disruption

Imagine a mobile application where you can share messages and photos with other users, but without an Internet connection.

These applications take advantage of mesh networking. In a mesh network devices use Bluetooth peer-to-peer connections and Wi-Fi networks to communicate “off the grid“.

Engineers originally developed the technology for the military. Over the years small scale projects have found varying levels of success but few have broken through to the mainstream.

The newest version of iOS has incorporated mesh networks into its operating system, which allows developers to create applications that take advantage of this technology without having to reinvent the wheel. Beyond messaging applications, mesh networks have the potential to make hard-wired Internet devices obsolete.

Mesh networking has a number of policy implications. Here are a few that TechTank will look out for in the future:

1. Natural Disasters
2. Promoting Democracy and Activism
3. Expanding Connectivity Benefits to Rural Areas

[Commentary] To get actionable results, Big Data analytics designers must develop a theory of how students learn and map which data points allow for inferences about those skills.

Standards make big data analytics work because they support the creation of more rigorous models of student learning and enable larger big data systems. Improving efficiency also lowers barriers to entry which encourages greater competition and frees up analytics designers to innovate. Standards can serve as the base of such a model because they consist of skills and the appropriate sequence for acquiring those competencies.

[March 7]