Robbie McBeath  |  Analysis  |  Benton Foundation

A mass murderer shot and killed 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh (PA) on Oct 27, in what is believed to be the deadliest attack against the Jewish community in the United States, ever. The mass shooting followed a week of reporting on a series of bombs sent by a FL terrorist to prominent Democrats, George Soros, and CNN. Both men posted violent, hateful content online, including politically extremist views on immigration. The events tragically bring into focus, again, the very-real danger of hateful political rhetoric. Could they also mean we’ll see tougher scrutiny of how the organized, white-nationalist movement spreads its message inside the U.S.? What are the responsibilities of social-media platforms for the discourse they monetize?

Anne Applebaum  |  Op-Ed  |  Washington Post

We have learned a lot about online disinformation — and we are doing nothing.  For these same distorting techniques are still in operation. They will affect the midterm elections. They continue to shape political debate in many countries around the world. They are being used not just by Russians, but by people in the countries they seek to influence. These campaigners, often hiding behind fake accounts, continue to act with impunity, promoting false narratives and relying on the main platforms — Facebook, Twitter, Google, and especially YouTube — to amplify their messages.

After the midterm elections are over, we need an informed national debate, a Congressional investigation that looks into all of the possible options, as well as a commitment by political leaders to take control of the information anarchy that will eventually consume them all.

[Anne Applebaum is a Washington Post columnist. She is also a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and a professor of practice at the London School of Economics.]

Brian Stelter, Julia Waldow  |  CNN

Americans living in "news deserts" with few or no local news outlets may be in a bind now that it's time to vote in the midterm elections. Fewer and fewer reporters are employed by the papers that typically cover community and state-level races. More and more of the papers are going out of business altogether. As a result there is less vetting of candidates and more confusion about what's even on the ballot. Americans have new tools in their hands -- cell phones with access to Facebook and other websites -- but social networks don't fill the void left by local reporters. If anything, these sites just create even more confusion.

Most issues look different from rural America, and that’s especially true of internet neutrality. No one doubts that net neutrality policies to keep the internet open and free for all users is vital. No internet provider or tech company should be allowed to block websites, censor or discriminate against viewpoints, manipulate cyberspace to shut out competition or otherwise interfere with our online experience. But for many activists and tech advocates in high-connectivity urban areas, that’s all that net neutrality means. In rural America, however, effective net neutrality means much more. Most fundamentally, net neutrality policies must also accelerate the deployment and buildout of new high-speed networks to rural areas. A neutral internet doesn’t mean much if you don’t have network access in the first place and almost 40 percent of rural Americans still lack high-speed broadband. This is a key issue often overlooked in the debate.

[Niel Ritchie is CEO of Main Street Project and director of the League of Rural Voters]

Olivia Wein  |  Op-Ed  |  Governing

There's no better time for state and local governments to get serious about developing proactive approaches to keeping residents connected in the days, months and years following a natural disaster. Among the programs that should be advertised to disaster survivors is the federal Lifeline program, which provides a subsidy that covers all or a portion of the cost of wireless voice and internet services for low-income consumers who qualify. Individuals enrolled in the SNAP program, Medicaid, housing assistance and other programs for low-income families are likely to meet the eligibility requirements for Lifeline, but too few of them know the program exists and current Federal Communications Commission proposals could severely limit the program's reach. Maintaining affordable voice and broadband internet service during a natural disaster and after services are restored can be a matter of life and death. In California, for example, residents with phone and internet service can receive county-by-county alerts on the paths of wildfires and receive up-to-the-minute updates, including evacuation orders and other life-saving instructions. Low-income Californians enrolled in the Lifeline program can connect with financial assistance, temporary housing services, rebuilding programs, debris removal, and low-cost legal services. While the needs of natural-disaster survivors vary from event to event, low-income residents will consistently need help keeping their lights on and staying connected to a network of resources and support. By urging the FCC to reject proposals to limit the Lifeline program's reach and encouraging utilities to work with displaced residents, state governments can go a long way toward getting survivors the help and tools they need as they start out on the long road to recovery.

[Olivia B. Wein is a staff attorney in the Washington office of the National Consumer Law Center, where she represents the interests of low-income clients at the federal and state level on energy and utility issues.]

Mike Farrell  |  Multichannel News

NCTA–The Internet & Television Association CEO Michael Powell, called for tighter controls against massive tech companies like Google, Facebook and Netflix on issues like privacy and data collection, but added that moves to implement net neutrality rules on a state level isn’t the solution. He said that federal regulators have failed to see the influence of companies like Google and Facebook, adding that in the government’s eyes, they are tech companies that need to be protected. 

I think there is a fundamental underappreciation in policy circles about the extraordinary power of the platforms and the data that rides on these companies and value of that information both as a competitive advantage as a platform and the potential dangers to consumers.