Digital Content

President Donald Trump issued a pair of executive orders that will impose new limits on Chinese social-media apps TikTok and WeChat, effectively setting a 45-day deadline for an American company to purchase TikTok’s US operations. The orders bar people in the US or subject to US jurisdiction from transactions with the China-based owners of the apps, effective 45 days from Aug 6. That raises the possibility that US citizens would be prevented from downloading the apps in the Apple or Google app stores.

President Donald Trump has sent a message to the Federal Communications Commission: Cross me for misusing my powers in this way, and you’ll be punished, too. The president wants Mike O’Rielly, his fellow FCC commissioners, and appointees across agencies to know what happens when they dare to put the rule of law first, just as the president wants Twitter, and Facebook, and all influential companies on the Internet or off to know how carefully they must tread with him in charge.

Companies like Apple, Alphabet, Facebook and Amazon provide consumers with a wider array of goods and services than ever and at remarkably low prices. But there’s a catch: The same companies that have improved consumer access to cheap products are increasingly limiting options in the marketplace of ideas and raising the cost of ideological dissent.

Twenty state attorneys general called on Facebook to better prevent messages of hate, bias and disinformation from spreading, and said the company needed to provide more help to users facing online abuse. In a letter to the social media giant, the officials said they regularly encountered people facing online intimidation and harassment on Facebook. They outlined seven steps the company should take, including allowing third-party audits of hate content and offering real-time assistance to users.

The Federal Communications Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau will invite public input on the Petition for Rulemaking recently filed by the Department of Commerce regarding Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Longstanding rules require the agency to put such petitions out for public comment ‘promptly,’ and we will follow that requirement here. I strongly disagree with those who demand that we ignore the law and deny the public and all stakeholders the opportunity to weigh in on this important issue. We should welcome vigorous debate—not foreclose it.

It was the “Wizard of Oz” in digital format as the four titans of Big Tech testified via video before the House Antitrust Subcommittee. Just like in the movie, what the subcommittee saw was controlled by a force hidden from view. The wizard in this case—the reason these four companies are so powerful—is the math that takes our private information and turns it into their corporate asset. It is the 21st century equivalent of Rockefeller’s 20th century monopoly over oil. Unlike industrial assets such as oil, data is reusable. Data is also iterative, as its use in a product creates new data.

The chief executives of Amazon, Apple, Google and Facebook -- four tech giants worth nearly $5 trillion combined -- faced withering questions from Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike for the tactics and market dominance that had made their enterprises successful. For more than five hours, the 15 members of an antitrust panel in the House lobbed questions and repeatedly interrupted and talked over Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of

Commerce CommitteeRanking Member Greg Walden (R-OR) and Consumer Protection and Commerce Subcommittee Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) wrote to Apple CEO Tim Cook and Google CEO Sundar Pichai asking several questions related to the companies’ app stores and processes undertaken to vet applications, particularly for foreign sourcing and potential ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

The White House said the National Telecommunications & Information Administration petition to the Federal Communications Commission on clarifying how Sec. 230 does and does not apply to third-party content online is an example of the President fighting back against "unfair, un-American, and politically biased censorship of Americans online." White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said the petition was meant to "clarify' that "Section 230 does not permit social media companies that alter or editorialize users’ speech to escape civil liability." 

The First Amendment protects us from limits on speech imposed by the government—not private actors—and we should all reject demands, in the name of the First Amendment, for private actors to curate or publish speech in a certain way. I shudder to think of a day in which the Fairness Doctrine could be reincarnated by some other name, especially at the ironic behest of so-called speech “defenders.” Further, like it or not, the First Amendment’s protections apply to corporate entities, especially when they engage in editorial decision making.