Tag: bipartisan
Bipartisan Senate group reintroduces a revised Kids Online Safety Act
US Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) reintroduced a bill today that would put the onus on social media companies to add online safeguards for children. The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) was first introduced last February (sponsored by the same pair) but never made it to the Senate floor after backlash from advocacy groups. The revamped legislation “provides specific tools to stop Big Tech companies from driving toxic content at kids and to hold them accountable for putting profits over safety,” said Blumenthal. It follows a separate bill introduced last month with a similar aim.
Like the original KOSA, the updated bill would require annual independent audits by “experts and academic researchers” to force regulation-averse social media companies to address the online dangers posed to children. However, the updated legislation attempts to address the concerns that led to its previous iteration’s downfall, namely that its overly broad nature could do more harm than good by requiring surveillance and censorship of young users. The EFF described the February 2022 bill as “a heavy-handed plan to force platforms to spy on young people” that “fails to properly distinguish between harmful and non-harmful content, leaving politically motivated state attorneys general with the power to define what harms children. One of the primary fears is that states could use the flimsy definitions to ban content for political gain.”
The rewritten bill adds new protections for services like the National Suicide Hotline, LGBTQ+ youth centers and substance-abuse organizations to avoid being unnecessarily harmed. In addition, it would make social platforms give minors options to safeguard their information, turn off addictive features and opt out of algorithmic recommendations. (Social platforms would have to enable the strongest settings by default.) It would also give parents “new controls to help support their children and identify harmful behaviors” while offering children “a dedicated channel to report harms” on the platform. Additionally, it would specifically ban the promotion of suicide, eating disorders, substance abuse, sexual exploitation and the use of “unlawful products for minors” like gambling, drugs and alcohol. Finally, it would require social companies to provide “academic and public interest organizations” with data to help them research social media’s effects on the safety and well-being of minors.
The American Psychological Association, Common Sense Media and other advocacy groups support the updated bill. It has 26 cosponsors from both parties, including lawmakers ranging from Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Blackburn told CNBC today that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is “a hundred percent behind this bill and efforts to protect kids online.”
Despite the Senators’ renewed optimism about passing the bill, some organizations believe it’s still too broad to avoid a negative net impact. “The changes made to the bill do not at all address our concerns,” Evan Greer, director of digital rights advocacy group Fight For the Future, said in an emailed statement to Engadget. “If Senator Blumenthal’s office had been willing to meet with us, we could have explained why. I can see where changes were made that attempt to address the concerns, but they fail to do so. Even with the new changes, this bill will allow extreme right-wing attorneys general to dictate what content platforms can recommend to younger users.”
The ACLU also opposes the resurrected bill. “KOSA’s core approach still threatens the privacy, security and free expression of both minors and adults by deputizing platforms of all stripes to police their users and censor their content under the guise of a ‘duty of care,’” ACLU Senior Policy Counsel Cody Venzke toldCNBC. “To accomplish this, the bill would legitimize platforms’ already pervasive data collection to identify which users are minors when it should be seeking to curb those data abuses. Moreover, parental guidance in minors’ online lives is critical, but KOSA would mandate surveillance tools without regard to minors’ home situations or safety. KOSA would be a step backward in making the internet a safer place for children and minors.”
Blumenthal argues that the bill was “very purposely narrowed” to prevent harm. “I think we’ve met that kind of suggestion very directly and effectively,” he said at a press conference. “Obviously, our door remains open. We’re willing to hear and talk to other kinds of suggestions that are made. And we have talked to many of the groups that had great criticism and a number have actually dropped their opposition, as I think you’ll hear in response to today’s session. So I think our bill is clarified and improved in a way that meets some of the criticism. We’re not going to solve all of the problems of the world with a single bill. But we are making a measurable, very significant start.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/bipartisan-senate-group-reintroduces-a-revised-kids-online-safety-act-212117992.html?src=rss
Peter Morici: How to end the U.S. debt ceiling standoff: Reduce entitlements and hammer out a bipartisan compromise.
Bipartisan bill would require that social networks have ‘clear’ content policies
American politicians are split on many aspects of social networks’ content moderation policies, but they might find common ground on setting those policies. A bipartisan group of senators led by Brian Schatz and John Thune has introduced the Internet Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act (Internet PACT), a bill that would set “clear” content moderation policies they consistently enforce. The amendment to the Communications Act would require that online services explain their moderation in an “easily accessible” usage policy, and share biannual reports with anonymized statistics for content that has been pulled, downranked or demonetized. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would also lead development of a voluntary framework to set industry-wide practices.
The Internet PACT Act would also amend the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230 to require that “large” platforms pull content within four days if deemed illegal by courts. Those big services would need systems to handle complaints and appeals, and users would need to be notified of any decisions regarding their content within three weeks. Smaller providers would have “more flexibility” in addressing complaints and illegal content, according to the senators.
The bill would also bar companies from using Section 230 as a shield when the Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other national regulators engage in civil actions. State attorneys general could enforce federal civil laws when used against online platforms, while the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would have to study the viability of an FTC-run program for whistleblowers from within online platform companies.
The measure theoretically addresses longstanding complaints from both sides of Congress. Democrats have argued that social media giants aren’t consistent in applying their policies, and carve out exceptions for accounts that spread hate or misinformation. Republicans, meanwhile, have accused social networks of censoring conservative views while giving creators little chance to respond.
There’s no certainty the Internet PACT Act will become law. The bipartisan support may help, though. Whether or not the proposed Section 230 amendments will satisfy politicians is another matter. Both Democrats and Republicans have previously called for large-scale reforms, but the changes here would be relatively limited. They would, however, pressure companies to act quickly on illegal content.
Biden calls for bipartisan legislation to keep Big Tech in check
In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, President Joe Biden has called on Democrats and Republicans who are sitting in Congress to set aside their differences and work on strong bipartisan legislation to keep major technology companies in check — without calling any businesses out by name. While he said he was proud of the success of the American tech industry, Biden expressed concern about how some actors “collect, share and exploit our most personal data, deepen extremism and polarization in our country, tilt our economy’s playing field, violate the civil rights of women and minorities and even put our children at risk.”
Biden has pinpointed three areas that he says require reform, starting with privacy. He argued that “serious federal protections” are needed in this area, including “clear limits on how companies can collect, use and share highly personal data,” such as location, browsing history and communications, as well as health, biometric and genetic data. Biden says companies shouldn’t be collecting much of that data at all.
“These protections should be even stronger for young people, who are especially vulnerable online,” Biden wrote. “We should limit targeted advertising and ban it altogether for children.” Just yesterday, Meta said Facebook and Instagram could still target teens with ads based on their age and location, but not their gender.
In discussing the need for “Big Tech companies to take responsibility for the content they spread and the algorithms they use,” the president reiterated his belief that lawmakers should reform Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which protects online platforms from liability for what their users do. In the leadup to the 2020 election, Biden claimed that he would see Section 230 “revoked, immediately” if he became president. While that hasn’t happened yet, senators and members of Congress have introduced several bills over the last few years with the aim of curtailing Section 230.
Meanwhile, Biden demanded much more transparency from major tech companies about the algorithms they use “to stop them from discriminating, keeping opportunities away from equally qualified women and minorities, or pushing content to children that threatens their mental health and safety.” Algorithmic bias has been a hot-button issue in some circles for many years. Some, for instance, incorrectly believed that Twitter’s algorithms were biased against conservative perspectives. Elected officials have made several attempts to make tech companies accountable for algorithmic bias too.
Senators have also expressed concern that platforms haven’t done enough to protect children. A bipartisan bill submitted last February sought to give children more privacy and safety protections on social media while requiring platforms to minimize their exposure to content concerning things like self-harm, eating disorders, sexual exploitation and alcohol.
The third area Biden wants to focus on is bolstering competition in the tech industry. “When tech platforms get big enough, many find ways to promote their own products while excluding or disadvantaging competitors — or charge competitors a fortune to sell on their platform,” he wrote. “My vision for our economy is one in which everyone — small and midsized businesses, mom-and-pop shops, entrepreneurs — can compete on a level playing field with the biggest companies.”
Biden called for legislators to offer upstart companies a chance to succeed by bringing in fairer rules. “The next generation of great American companies shouldn’t be smothered by the dominant incumbents before they have a chance to get off the ground,” he argued.
The president also noted that his “administration has made strong progress in promoting competition throughout the economy, consistent with my July 2021 executive order.” At that time, he urged the Federal Communications Commission to undo the previous administration’s dismantling of net neutrality and said that mergers would face more scrutiny. However, there’s only so much the executive branch can do.
“We need bipartisan action from Congress to hold Big Tech accountable. We’ve heard a lot of talk about creating committees. It’s time to walk the walk and get something done,” Biden concluded. “There will be many policy issues we disagree on in the new Congress, but bipartisan proposals to protect our privacy and our children; to prevent discrimination, sexual exploitation and cyberstalking; and to tackle anticompetitive conduct shouldn’t separate us. Let’s unite behind our shared values and show the nation we can work together to get the job done.”
Following the 2022 midterm election, Biden is now contending with a split Congress. Democrats managed to hang onto control of the Senate but lost the House to the Republicans. That will make it more difficult for Biden to carry out his agenda. By publishing an op-ed in a major newspaper, he’ll be looking to earn support from the public on these issues and put pressure on Republicans to acquiesce.
Bipartisan bill targets crypto money laundering in wake of FTX collapse
US Senators Elizabeth Warren and Roger Marshall have introduced a bipartisan bill designed to crack down on illegal uses of cryptocurrency. If passed, The Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act would extend aspects of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), a Nixon-era law Congress passed to combat money laundering, to cover crypto entities such as wallet providers and miners. Specifically, the new legislation would apply so-called “Know-Your-Customer” rules to those entities by directing the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to treat them as money service businesses. Another BSA expansion would require US citizens to file a report with the Internal Revenue Service whenever they engage in transactions that involve more than $10,000 in digital assets.
Additionally, the legislation would direct FinCEN to implement a rule the agency proposed at the end of 2020 that would require financial institutions to report transactions involving “unhosted” digital wallets. Per CoinDesk, those are wallets where the user has complete control over the contents — rather than an exchange or other third party. The legislation would also prohibit financial institutions from using or transacting with digital asset mixers, which are frequently used to obscure the origin of funds.
“Rogue nations, oligarchs, drug lords, and human traffickers are using digital assets to launder billions in stolen funds, evade sanctions, and finance terrorism,” said Senator Warren. “The crypto industry should follow common-sense rules like banks, brokers, and Western Union, and this legislation would ensure the same standards apply across similar financial transactions. The bipartisan bill will help close crypto money laundering loopholes and strengthen enforcement to better safeguard US national security.”
The push from Senators Warren and Marshall to crack down on crypto money laundering comes a day after the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission announced civil and criminal charges against FTX founder and former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried. Due to time constraints, the likelihood of the bill passing in the current lame-duck session is low. Warren and Marshall will almost certainly need to reintroduce it next year.
The Satanic Panic Is Back, And It’s Bipartisan – Reason
— Delivered by Feed43 service
Bipartisan bill would push Google and Meta to negotiate fair rates with news orgs
A bipartisan group of US senators and members of Congress have released a new version of a bill that aims to make it easier for news organizations to bring the likes of Google and Meta to the negotiating table. The lawmakers said in a statement that the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act would remove “legal obstacles to news organizations’ ability to negotiate collectively and secure fair terms from gatekeeper platforms that regularly access news content without paying for its value.” The legislation would, for instance, offer eligible digital publishers “limited safe harbor from federal and state antitrust laws.”
Senate Judiciary Committee members Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Kennedy (R-LA) and House Judiciary Committee members David Cicilline (D-RI) and Ken Buck (D-CO) are all backing the bill. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the chairs of the committees, have pledged their support too.
A previous version of the legislation was introduced last year, but it failed to gain enough traction. The latest attempt would allow publishers with fewer than 1,500 full-time employees and non-network news broadcasters to collectively negotiate with certain platforms over access to their news content. The proposed legislation states that publishers would be able to demand arbitration if they reach a stalemate in talks.
The rules would apply to very few companies, specifically ones with more than 50 million US users that have at least a billion monthly active users worldwide or are “owned or controlled by a person that has either net annual sales or market capitalization greater than $550 billion.” While Google and Facebook meet those benchmarks, Twitter does not.
Google and Meta have siphoned away billions of dollars of ad revenue from news organizations. Both companies have voluntarily offered payments to publishers in some regions. However, Meta said last month it would no longer pay US publishers for news content after its revenue dropped for the first time.
Other countries have considered ways to make Google and Meta pay publishers for featuring their news. Early last year, the Parliament of Australia passed a law that forces Google and Meta to pay publishers for using their news. Canada’s ruling Liberal Party has tabled similar legislation.
Inaccurate maps are delaying the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s broadband funding
Nearly nine months after Congress passed President Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure bill, the federal government has yet to allocate any of the $42.5 billion in funding the legislation set aside for expanding broadband service in underserved communities, according to The Wall Street Journal. Under the law, the Commerce Department can’t release that money until the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) publishes new coverage maps that more accurately show homes and businesses that don’t have access to high-speed internet.
Inaccurate coverage data has long derailed efforts by the federal government to address the rural broadband divide. The previous system the FCC used to map internet availability relied on Form 477 filings from service providers. Those documents have been known for their errors and exaggerations. In 2020, Congress began requiring the FCC to collect more robust coverage data as part of the Broadband DATA Act. However, it wasn’t until early 2021 that lawmakers funded the mandate and in August of that same year that the Commission published its first updated map.
Following a contractor dispute, the FCC will publish its latest maps sometime in mid-November. Once they’re available, both consumers and companies will a chance to challenge the agency’s data. As a result of that extra step, funding from the broadband plan likely won’t begin making its way to ISPs until the end of 2023, according to one analyst The Journal interviewed.
“We understand the urgency of getting broadband out there to everyone quickly,” Alan Davidson, the head of the Commerce Department unit responsible for allocating the funding, told the Journal. “We also know that we get one shot at this and we want to make sure we do it right.”