Digital Content

We should view user data as a public resource, akin to the broadcast spectrum. The spectrum broadcasters use is “owned by the people.” It is governed so as to assure that the select few who have the privilege to access the spectrum serve the public interest. User data, in its aggregate form, can — and should — be treated similarly, as a public resource. Just as broadcasters built their businesses on the collectively owned spectrum, social media platforms built their businesses on our data, data that are best thought of as being collectively owned.

Americans have complicated views about the role social media companies should play in removing offensive content from their platforms. A sizable majority of U.S. adults (66%) say social media companies have a responsibility to remove offensive content from their platforms, but just 31% have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in these companies to determine what offensive content should be removed.

While the White House created its hotline for social media bias tips, frustrated consumers had already turned to the Federal Communications Commission to lodge grievances about online platforms — despite the agency’s lack of jurisdiction over tech companies. Since 2018, more than 100 people filed complaints alleging bias or censorship from Facebook, Twitter or Google. The bulk of the complaints were aimed at Facebook and Twitter from self-identified conservatives, although some also complained about Google and YouTube.

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Doug Collins (R-GA) released guiding principles for legislation he plans to draft and introduce to protect online data as the property of consumers and establish privacy protections for online users. “When consumers generate data, they should have a powerful voice in who gets to use it, how much of it is used and under what conditions. Since it’s their property, consumers should also determine how much privacy they want surrounding their data,” Rep Collins said.

The 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Amazon can be sued over third-party sales on its platform, setting a potentially damaging precedent for the company. While Amazon sells goods itself, it also allows vendors to sell their products through its Marketplace platform, taking a cut in the process. In late 2014, a woman named Heather Oberdorf ordered a dog collar from a Marketplace seller, but it broke on a walk, sending the leash flying and permanently blinding her in one eye. The seller hasn’t been found, but Oberdorf sued Amazon, accusing the company of negligence.

Sen Ron Johnson (R-WI) sent a letter to Head of Instagram Adam Mosseri and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, requesting information on how algorithms and artificial intelligence suggest content and users to engage with on their platforms. “After conducting a number of algorithm-related studies, Pew Research Center concluded, ‘Americans express broad concerns over the fairness and effectiveness of computer programs making important decisions in people’s lives.’ As we become aware of the society-wide significance of this influence, the lack of transparency regarding human bias and the use of algo

Facebook, Twitter, and Google defended their efforts to combat extremist content and misinformation online before the House Homeland Security Committee on June 26, but lawmakers walked away complaining that they aren’t satisfied with the tech giants’ efforts. “They’re going to have to do more,” said Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS), noting that he was dissatisfied with answers on a range of issues. Rep Max Rose (D-NY) offered some of the sharpest criticism, saying the tech firms are offering “technocratic” explanations while “people are being killed.” 

A group of experts warned the House Counterterrorism Subcommittee that artificial intelligence is not capable of sweeping up the full breadth of online extremist content — in particular posts from white supremacists. Lawmakers cast doubt on claims from top tech companies that artificial intelligence, or AI, will one day be able to detect and take down terrorist and extremist content without any human moderation.

Lawmakers expressed disbelief when Maggie Stanphill, Google’s director of user experience, told the Senate Communications Subcommittee “No, we do not use persuasive technology at Google.” At issue before the panel was how algorithms used by companies like Google, Facebook and others might influence their users. Stanphill's statement prompted pushback from senators who had been scrutinizing the company over its content decisions on platforms like YouTube. “You don’t want to clarify that a little further?” Sen Brian Schatz (D-HI) asked.