Diversity

In making decisions about the limits of free speech, Facebook often fails the racial, religious and sexual minorities CEO Mark Zuckerberg says he wants to protect. The 13-year-old social network is wrestling with the hardest questions it has ever faced as the de facto arbiter of speech for the third of the world’s population that now logs on each month. In February, amid mounting concerns over Facebook’s role in the spread of violent live videos and fake news, Zuckerberg said the platform had a responsibility to “mitigate the bad” effects of the service in a more dangerous and divisive political era. In June, he officially changed Facebook’s mission from connecting the world to community-building. The company says it now ­deletes about 288,000 hate-speech posts a month. But activists say that Facebook’s censorship standards are so unclear and biased that it is impossible to know what one can or cannot say.

The result: Minority groups say they are disproportionately censored when they use the ­social-media platform to call out racism or start dialogues. “Facebook is regulating more human speech than any government does now or ever has,” said Susan Benesch, director of the Dangerous Speech Project, a nonprofit group that researches the intersection of harmful online content and free speech. “They are like a de facto body of law, yet that law is a secret.”

A Georgia federal judge dismissed a class-action racial discrimination lawsuit filed by one current and one former CNN employee against the network's parent company Time Warner. The lawsuit had alleged racial discrimination at the news organization for more than 20 years, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The two black men who filed the lawsuit alleged they were compensated less than their white co-workers, were denied promotions and pay increases and that the “Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in performance evaluations, compensations, promotions and terminations."

A diverse group of stakeholders is launching a new foundation to help diverse content creators find distribution. The Creative Thread Foundation is billed as a "a non-profit organization focused on breaking down barriers of entry for underrepresented content creators and those working behind the scenes in media and entertainment."

The coalition was launched in Washington on July 26, with the blessing and support of the Congressional Multicultural Media Caucus chairs Reps Tony Cardenas (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), and Judy Chu (D-CA) and with an assist from co-founder and Fusion TV Correspondent Kimberly Brooks. Founding partners, there are over 60 of them, include everyone from Viacom, 21st Century Fox, Disney, Amazon, Fusion, the National Association of Broadcasters and AT&T, to Black Mamas Matter and Green 2.0.

[Commentary] Minority-owned small businesses need two things to compete and thrive in an economy that is dominated more and more each year by global megafirms: a level playing field where everyone plays by the same rules of the road and stable and certain regulations that maximize their ability to invest and grow. This is true in the brick and mortar business world and even more so in the increasingly vital digital world, where a handful of dominant tech giants can use monopoly control over gateway services like search and social media and their ability to mine and exploit massive troughs of consumer data to choke off competition. That’s why the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to reform the internet regulations known as “net neutrality” is so important.

Americans deserve a permanent, stable and evenhanded net neutrality law that protects our data and fair competition online. That is something that can only be accomplished by Congress, where bipartisan support clearly exists to make net neutrality the law of the land. A law would put net neutrality beyond politics, eliminate the need to rely on legal contortions like Title II, and boost fair competition and equal opportunity everywhere online.

[Harry C. Alford is president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.]

Some 14% of US adults say they have been targeted for online harassment or abuse because of their political views, according to a new report from Pew Research Center. And while Republicans and Democrats are about equally likely to have been harassed online because of their political views (15% vs. 13%), there are some notable partisan differences in their views of the issue. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they have heard a great deal about the topic of online harassment (38% vs. 25%). In addition, a larger share of Democrats than Republicans (69% vs. 54%) consider online harassment to be a major problem.

Regardless of political affiliation, women in both parties are more likely than their male counterparts to view online harassment as a major problem, to think offensive content online isn’t taken seriously enough and to prioritize safe spaces over people being able to express themselves freely online.

Seattle’s Information Technology Department has won two awards from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors for its efforts to foster digital inclusion within the city. The awards are:

• 2017 Community Broadband Strategic Plan of the Year, for Seattle’s Strategic Plan for Facilitating Equitable Access to Wireless Broadband
• 2017 Community Broadband Digital Equity Project of the Year, for Seattle’s Technology Matching Fund

Following the 2016 election, which had one of the largest gender gaps in history, women are more likely than men to say they are paying increased attention to politics. And while far more Democrats than Republicans say they have attended a political event, rally or protest since the election, Democratic women – especially younger women and those with postgraduate degrees – are among the most likely to have participated in such a political gathering.

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 27 to July 9 among 2,505 adults, finds that 52% of Americans say they are paying more attention to politics since Donald Trump’s election; 33% say they are paying about the same amount of attention, while 13% say they are paying less attention to politics. The new survey also finds that, nearly nine months after the election, most people (59%) say it is “stressful and frustrating” to talk about politics with people who have a different opinion of Trump than they do; just 35% find such conversations “interesting and informative."

[Commentary] The internet plays a critical role in the dissemination of information and services specifically tailored for people of color and other marginalized groups, including LGBT people, because it provides the opportunity for us to tell our own stories and to organize for racial and social justice. That empowerment relies on an open internet and net neutrality...

If you want to weigh in on net neutrality and the Federal Communications Commission’s role in implementing it, you can contribute by submitting a comment no later than August 16th. As the United States transitions towards this internet-based communications network revolution, we must remain focused on the right goals: ensuring that the internet is affordable and accessible for all, not just the privileged. Digital social justice demands no less.

“The pen is mightier than the sword.” It’s true. Every day I watch as journalists’ pens cut down Black lives. Last week in Bridgeport (CT), Aaron Tucker skipped the job interview he was traveling to and instead jumped from a city bus to save a stranger from a burning car — only to be referred to as an “ex-con” in a CBS News headline. Did this headline commit any factual errors? No. What it committed was worse: perpetuation of toxic racial bias.

References like “ex-con” reduce Black folks’ humanity in a way that White subjects rarely experience. Aaron Tucker could have been referred to as “resident,” “young father,” “community hero” or simply “man” to the exact same effect. What will it take for journalists to understand that Black lives are greater than a small portion of their deeds, worthy of the same grace and complexity of perception afforded to those who happen to be White? When will journalists take responsibility for the way they wield their swords?

[Commentary] The Government Accountability Office issued a blistering report on the Federal Communications Commission’s efforts to assist low-income families. The report criticized the agency for spending $1.7 billion annually without knowing — or caring — whether any of this money actually helps narrow the digital divide. I advocated that Congress eliminate the Universal Service Fund’s shady, self-funding off-budget funding mechanism and instead make it a line item in the federal budget. This would make the program more transparent and subject to greater congressional oversight, which would help reduce fraud and abuse and keep program expenses tied to a fixed budget. Overall, the GAO report points to the difficulties that the FCC has, and will continue to have, by deciding simply to extend a Reagan-era telephone subsidy to cover broadband access. Unquestionably, the government should offer assistance to low-income consumers at risk of falling on the wrong end of the digital divide. But that assistance should be designed from the ground up, tailored to the needs of the population it seeks to serve, with controls to protect against fraud and abuse. As we have argued before, Lifeline needs revolutionary, not evolutionary, change.

[Lyon is an associate professor at Boston College Law School]