The U.S. has one of the most dynamic broadband networks in the world. Providers have poured more than $500 billion into building and upgrading broadband networks since 2019. The price of internet access has dropped 10% over the past 10 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, even while the overall price level has soared. All together, the share of consumer spending going to telecom, broadband and related services fell from 3% in 2014 to 2.4% in 2024. Moreover, many providers offer robust, low-cost services for economically disadvantaged populations.
But a piece of legislation under consideration by the California State Assembly, AB 353 could derail this success story in the nation’s largest state. It would require California internet providers to offer “eligible households” internet at $15 or less per month (inclusive of any recurring taxes and fees) with at least 100 megabits per second downstream and 20 megabits per second upstream. “Eligible household” means at least one resident of the household participate in a long list of qualified public assistance programs.
This type of regulatory burden — actually writing a price ceiling into law — is likely to impede investment and expansion by both new and existing providers. If there’s anything that economics teaches us, it’s that price ceilings result in less service and fewer competitors rather than more.
California already has one of the most competitive broadband markets in the country, with multiple providers offering a wide range of products, services and price points. This includes many that already offer low-cost services for families in need. Heavy-handed regulation will only serve to scare away investment and competitors, as recently seen in New York State.
From this perspective, AB 353 is a bad idea. However, if it is the intent of the legislature to proceed with some form of this bill, several commonsense changes should be made. These include narrower qualification standards, greater flexibility in speed requirements, and tying the price of the low-income service to the CPI. Additionally, to ensure a level playing field, the requirements of the legislation should apply to all broadband providers, regardless of whether they are public or privately owned. All of these would reduce the financial risk to providers, and thus not shut off the flow of future investment.
WASHINGTON — The shift toward digital government services is reshaping how Americans interact with public institutions, but a new report from the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) warns that this transformation risks leaving behind millions of vulnerable citizens. Titled “Closing the Digital Verification Divide,” the report, authored by Dr. Michael Mandel, Vice President and Chief Economist at PPI, highlights the urgent need for inclusive identity verification processes to ensure access to government services.
The report reveals that as federal, state, and local governments increasingly digitize their services, the existing digital verification divide is becoming a significant barrier for low-income and marginalized Americans. These individuals often lack the financial and identity documents, such as bank accounts or passports, that are commonly required for digital verification. The report stresses that without targeted interventions, these populations may be unable to access critical services like unemployment benefits, tax records, and social security.
“At every level of government, we’re grappling with how to make access both effective and inclusive for Americans,” said Dr. Michael Mandel. “The digitization of government is essential for making services more efficient, but it must be done in a way that doesn’t widen the divide between those who have easy access to verification and those who don’t. This report outlines actionable steps to ensure that digital government works for every American.”
The report identifies a significant “digital verification divide” that disproportionately affects low-income Americans, rural residents, and marginalized groups, all of whom often lack the documentation required to access digital government services. One key barrier is the reluctance to adopt biometric verification due to privacy and surveillance concerns. This has resulted in the underuse of effective tools that could help bridge the verification divide. The report advocates for the responsible use of biometric systems, integrated with alternative methods like video interviews, to ensure inclusivity.
To address these challenges, the report outlines several policy recommendations. It calls for the adoption of integrated verification systems that combine biometrics with alternative approaches, such as using trusted referees to conduct video interviews for those without traditional forms of identification. It also urges government agencies to follow the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) guidelines, which balance security and accessibility. Finally, the report emphasizes the need for greater support for trusted referees, who can help individuals navigate digital verification, particularly those in low-income or underserved communities.
The report concludes that implementing these recommendations is crucial for closing the digital verification divide and ensuring that all Americans can access the services they need. By making these changes, government agencies can not only improve efficiency but also ensure broader access to digital services in the modern era.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.
###
Media Contact: Ian O’Keefe – iokeefe@ppionline.org
California has found a better path forward in the long-running battle between newspapers and the tech industry. Led by state Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), the state brokered an agreement that benefits California residents and journalists, while avoiding the unintended consequences of legislation adopted in Australia, Europe, and Canada, and being considered elsewhere in the U.S.
The agreement, which does not require legislation, sets up a News Transformation Fund, totaling $125 million over five years, to be jointly funded by Google, the California state government, and perhaps other tech companies. The fund, which will support journalism in the state, would be overseen by the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.
In addition to these subsidies, the agreement provides a framework for a privately funded “National AI Accelerator” that would help develop AI tools for journalism and other industries. Google will maintain and expand its content licensing efforts for Google News Showcase, and continue the Google News Initiative.
Taken together, these three components of the agreement will help California newspapers and other news operations, which have been struggling with economic and journalistic challenges. The economic challenge is to maintain funding for news operations in the face of long-term declines in the price of advertising. Adjusted for inflation, the price for newspaper advertising has dropped roughly 40% since 2007 — good news for advertisers and consumers, but bad news for newspapers and their employees. That’s where the subsidies from the News Transformation Fund will help.
The journalistic challenge is to maintain the relevance of news operations in the face of competition from online influencers, independent podcasters, and other new media born in the digital world. No one knows the best answer, but it’s likely going to require the use of AI to boost the reach of working journalists, and produce innovative streams of news and revenues.
The California agreement is an alternative to cumbersome and unsuccessful legislative attempts in the United States and elsewhere to force tech platforms to pay for their “use” of the news. The California approach avoids bureaucratic collective arbitration mechanisms, as in Australia and Europe, and complex exemption procedures, as in Canada.
Because the funding will be monitored by a board that includes representatives from independent, Black, Latino, and diverse media and labor, it’s more likely to be targeted to underserved populations.
The California agreement sets a model for other states and countries. It’s not perfect, but it brings all the parties to the table in a way that starts to tackle both the economic and journalistic challenges facing the news media.
Just days before President Biden signed the landmark bipartisan infrastructure law, with a historic $65 billion investment in broadband, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo urged her home state to use the money wisely.
With more than 97% of Rhode Islanders already having high-speed broadband on their doorsteps, Raimondo warned that states like Rhode Island should “not spend this money overbuilding” because their needs “will be more around affordability.”
As a fiscally savvy former Governor, Raimondo knows what she’s talking about. The Ocean State’s officials should follow her lead as they decide how to use Rhode Island’s $108 million in broadband funds from the infrastructure program. We must not “overbuild” what we don’t need – meaning we don’t need to build duplicative broadband networks where they already exist — while under-investing in what we urgently need — assistance for folks who can’t afford internet service.
Washington, D.C. — Congress is in the process of reauthorizing and expanding the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act which provides the United States a plan for advancing quantum research and technological development. This bill, and others being considered by Congress, gives the United States government the ability to play an important role in supporting near-term quantum technologies that have the power to revolutionize private and public sector real-world challenges, such as electrical grid resilience, port optimization, and global supply chain management.
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute’s (PPI) Innovation Frontier Project (IFP) released a new report titled “U.S. Quantum Technology Leadership Hinges on Federal Policy in the 118th Congress,” which lays out the state of today’s quantum industry and identifies policy recommendations for the reauthorization and expansion of the NQI and related legislation. Report author Allison Schwartz, Vice President of Global Government Relations and Public Affairs at D-Wave explains the passage of these important bills will help close the gap that has emerged between the pace of quantum technological innovation and the domestic policies that guide the quantum industry.
“If the United States wants to remain a global leader in quantum technology, Congress must swiftly expand and pass the reauthorization of the National Quantum Initiative Act,” said Allison Schwartz, author of the report. “Doing so will help solve some of our nation’s most pressing public sector issues and put the U.S. in line with other leading nations who are investing in long-term quantum technology.”
The report makes the following policy recommendations for the reauthorization and expansion of the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act and related legislation:
Boosting investment in long-term hardware advancements to keep up with other countries.
Ensuring that the NQI inclusively incorporates the full range of near-term and long-term technologies, including quantum annealing, gate-model, and quantum-classical hybrid technologies.
Supporting the development and deployment of near-term use cases through new quantum sandbox programs.
Enhancing access to commercial quantum systems by funding the quantum user access program (QUEST) authorized in the CHIPS and Science Act.
Building an integrated high-performance computing and quantum computing data-center domestic infrastructure.
Supporting domestic component and chip fabrication in addition to commercial-scale rapid prototyping research and development.
Enhancing international quantum cooperation agreements to include commercialization, talent development, and supply chains as well as academic research.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.
Quantum computing, a technology that uses quantum mechanics to perform computation at speeds greater than today’s “classical” computers, has the power to revolutionize private and public sector problem-solving. Pressing real-world challenges such as electrical grid resilience, port optimization, global supply-chain management, emergency management and response, infrastructure development, sustainability, and the security of telecommunication networks can all be addressed by quantum applications.
This policy report examines the current state of the quantum industry, including rapid advancements that have occurred over the past five years. Two quantum computing “modalities” will be distinguished: annealing, which is being used to solve optimization problems today, and gate-model, where the applications are mostly further off in the future. Most problems will
continue to need classical computations for parts of those problems, therefore, quantum-classical hybrid applications — where quantum computing technologies work synergistically with classical computers — are being developed to solve challenging problems.
From the policy perspective, understanding the different quantum computing technologies is important because Congress is in the process of reauthorizing and expanding the National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Act which expired on September 30, 2023. In addition, a variety of other quantum-related initiatives are being considered by Congress.
Up to now, the federal government has mostly focused on supporting longer-term basic research in quantum technology, which is important for long-term competitiveness. But the government also has an important role to play in supporting near-term quantum technologies such as annealing.
This paper offers policy recommendations for the reauthorization and expansion of the NQI and related legislation, including:
• Boosting investment in long-term hardware advancements to keep up with other countries.
• Ensuring that the NQI addresses the full range of near-term and long-term technologies, including regularly conducting technology readiness-level (TRL) assessments.
• Supporting the development and deployment of near-term use cases through new quantum sandbox programs.
• Enhancing access to commercial quantum systems by funding the quantum user access program (QUEST) authorized in the CHIPS and Science Act.
• Building an integrated high-performance computing and quantum computing data-center domestic infrastructure.
• Supporting domestic component and chip fabrication in addition to commercial-scale rapid prototyping research and development.
• Enhancing international quantum cooperation agreements to include commercialization, talent development, and supply chains as well as academic research.
In addition, the NQI and related legislation must support the development of a skilled workforce that can support the growing U.S. quantum industry, and the end users of the technology both in the private and public sectors. That means funding talent programs that permit students to access the variety of quantum computing training courses created by industry, and supporting academic programs that attract and retain talent from diverse and underserved populations.
Standards for connectivity have evolved to reflect the transition to the online world, where fast internet connection is now a prerequisite for integral services such as education, healthcare, and access to the global economy. It is more important than ever that Americans have access to reliable, updated broadband options, and that both federal and state policy support the availability of these services. Yet, in California, outdated regulatory requirements may be holding the state back from widespread updates to network infrastructure needed to connect underserved communities to the benefits that come with high speed internet access.
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a new policy brief titled “The Opportunity Cost of Maintaining Copper Networks in California,” analyzing the challenges and costs posed by regulatory requirements to maintain outdated copper networks in California. Report author Malena Dailey, PPI’s Technology Policy Analyst, quantifies these costs in her brief and highlights the importance of updating policy to ensure that California can efficiently allocate available resources to expand broadband connection across the state.
Companies designated as Carriers of Last Resort in California are required to maintain the copper wires that carry voice traffic to certain customers, an expensive and arduous process which prioritizes legacy technology over modern network infrastructure. Though it is critical that connections are maintained in places where there are no alternatives, requiring maintenance of these networks may prevent reallocation of investment towards connecting rural communities to updated broadband.
“California can advance its broadband goals by allowing the replacement of copper networks, empowering access to the next generation of technology for those who have previously lacked access to the benefits of online services,” said Malena Dailey. “For California to reap the full benefits of private and public investment in telecommunications infrastructure, it is critical that state policies enable service providers to invest in new technology rather than sink resources into maintaining legacy copper networks.”
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org. Find an expert at PPI and follow us on Twitter.
Standards for connectivity have evolved to reflect the transition to the online world, where fast internet connection is a prerequisite for integral services such as education, health care, and access to the global economy. As such, it has become more important than ever that Americans have access to reliable, updated broadband options, and that both federal and state policy support the availability of these services.
In California, these priorities have been recognized by Governor Newsom, who signed legislation directing $6 billion to expand broadband coverage for all Californians in 2021. “Delivering broadband to all is essential to California’s success,” says Newsom. “Access to high-speed internet can mean the difference between launching a successful career and being without work.”
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has made a federal commitment to expanded service, with $65 billion being allocated for broadband deployment as part of the infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act in 2021. Of this funding, at least $1.86 billion is being directed to California through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, directed specifically towards underserved and high-cost areas.
The influx of government support and rising consumer demand have enabled internet service providers to invest heavily in highspeed, high-capacity wireless and fiber cable connections. However, in the face of California’s ambitious goals for widespread coverage, the transition needed to enable the modernization of network infrastructure may be hampered by longstanding regulatory requirements.
By designating certain service providers as “carriers of last resort,” some states impose requirements to provide basic telephone service to all customers within a designated service area. The intention is to ensure all consumers have access to voice services, especially in rural and underserved locations. Today, companies are required to continue to
maintain the copper wires that carry voice traffic, rather than working to replace legacy networks with updated technologies that provide modern internet services. Though the FCC addressed this at a federal level through a 2019 order, California is one of at least 38 states that continue to impose such requirements on carriers.
Now, with rapidly improving standards for connectivity in an ISP market that has proved more competitive over time, the monetary and opportunity costs associated with the state requirement to maintain deteriorating copper networks are mounting. This policy brief quantifies these costs and highlights the importance of updating policy for network infrastructure to ensure that California can efficiently allocate available resources to expand broadband connection across the state.
FACT: First intercontinental submarine cable message: August 1858.
THE NUMBERS: Cable data capacity –
2Africa, 2023: 180,000,000,000,000.0 bytes per second
TAT-8, 1988: 280,000,000.0 bytes per second
Atlantic Telegraph, 1858: 0.1 bytes per second
WHAT THEY MEAN:
It’s been 165 years since the first shout across the oceans: The submarine cable joining the United States and the U.K. in 1858, via terminals at Newfoundland and Valentia Bay in Ireland, was as thick as a finger and weighed a ton per mile. The inventors coated a core of seven copper wires with waterproof gutta-percha (the dried sap of a Malaysian tree, used then to make golf-balls and piano keys), then wrapped it in hemp and sealed the hemp with tar, and finally covered the whole assemble with iron wire cladding. Two newly designed steam warships, U.S.S. Niagara and HMS Agamemnon, unspooled the wire and met in the middle to splice the wire together. The cable’s first message, a suitably austere 657-character note from the mighty Queen Victoria to the less admiringly-remembered President James Buchanan, arrived on August 16th after a sixteen-hour transmission:
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON: The Queen desires to congratulate the President upon the successful completion of this great international work, in which The Queen has taken the deepest interest. The Queen is convinced that the President will join her in fervently hoping that the electric cable, which now connects great Britain with the United States, will prove an additional link between the nations, whose friendship is founded upon their common interest and reciprocal esteem. The Queen has much pleasure in thus communicating with the President, and renewing to him her wishes for the prosperity of the United States.
The cable broke down in September and wasn’t replaced until after the Civil War. By 1880, though, second-generation copper wires centered on London connected not only the UK, continental Europe and North America, but China, Australia, India, Egypt, South Africa, Singapore, Russia, Japan, and South America. The first trans-Pacific cable, from San Francisco to Honolulu, went live in 1902. The first fiber-optic cable, TAT-8, lit up in 1988; by 2002, the modern ultra-pure glass network had replaced copper entirely.
Seventeen decades after the Queen’s first tweet-like message, 60 specially-designed cable-laying ships are busily unspooling new and more powerful cables at a pace of about three per month. Cable specialists Telegeography report 552 active fiber-optic cables as of mid-2023, together making up about 1.4 million kilometers of wire, and 35 new ones this year. These are about the same size as the 1858 cable – about a finger’s width, and weighing more or less the same, but replacing (a) the chubby copper wires with up to 96 hair’s-width fibers of ultra-pure glass, (b) the electric Morse pulses with modulated laser light, (c) the gutta-percha, hemp, and tar with a silica cladding, and (d) the iron sheath with plastics. A selection of cables lighting up this year:
* 2Africa, circumnavigating Africa from the Mediterranean around the Cape and back up to the Red Sea across 45,000 kilometers, with 48 terminals in 33 countries including Italy, Ghana, Nigeria, Congo, South Africa, the Comoros, Somalia, Pakistan, UAE, etc., is said to be the longest cable in the world. It has a capacity of 180 terabytes of data per second, about a million times the capacity of now-antique TAT-8, and 2 quadrillion times that of the 1858 Atlantic cable.
* FISH (“Fiber Internet Serving Homes in Alaska”), with a more modest length of 276 kilometers, connecting the Alaska mainland with islands.
* Amitie, linking France with Lynn, Massachusetts, across 6,792 kilometers, with a branch to the UK.
* Topaz, a Google cable connecting Vancouver and Japan, length not yet reported to Telegeography.
* Natitua Sud, a 2,680-km wire connecting Tahiti with southern islands in French Polynesia (and building on the earlier Natitua connection to the Marquesas).
Moving from physical infrastructure to daily life, submarine cables are often said to carry about 99 percent of all internet traffic. Telegeography tried to verify this factoid a few years ago and found the last FCC pronunciation on the matter dating to 2013. But they thought it wasn’t a unreasonable guess (though satellite deployment probably brings the share down a bit each year). Whatever the right figure, submarine cables remain the big arteries of the global information economy, carrying most of the $10 trillion in daily currency transactions; most of the U.S.’ $700 billion in annual digitally enabled services exports; and most of the world’s on-line exchanges. The latter includes this email, which has more bytes than Queen Victoria’s message, but by traveling via glass and laser as opposed to copper and electrical pulse took (assuming an average email speed) required not 16 hours but about 1/10th of a second to reach you this afternoon.
… and a painting version of HMS Agamemnon, one of the two original cable ships, and as a first-generation steamship a maritime innovator in its own right.
On MOSAIC’s monthly podcast, PPI’s Ed Gresser joins FCC alumna/telecom policy expert Meagan Bolton and Alaska broadband advocate Christine O’Connor to learn about what’s coming next, closing the digital divide as modern civil rights, broadband deployment in Native American communities and more.
And the U.K.’s Royal Trust reprints the August 1858 message and its arrival on tickertape. (And a little cheekily defines Buchanan as a “subject”. Obvious response from the left side of the Atlantic: ‘we’re not amused’.)
ABOUT ED
Ed Gresser is Vice President and Director for Trade and Global Markets at PPI.
Ed returns to PPI after working for the think tank from 2001-2011. He most recently served as the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Trade Policy and Economics at the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). In this position, he led USTR’s economic research unit from 2015-2021, and chaired the 21-agency Trade Policy Staff Committee.
Ed began his career on Capitol Hill before serving USTR as Policy Advisor to USTR Charlene Barshefsky from 1998 to 2001. He then led PPI’s Trade and Global Markets Project from 2001 to 2011. After PPI, he co-founded and directed the independent think tank Progressive Economy until rejoining USTR in 2015. In 2013, the Washington International Trade Association presented him with its Lighthouse Award, awarded annually to an individual or group for significant contributions to trade policy.
Ed is the author of Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Global Economy (2007). He has published in a variety of journals and newspapers, and his research has been cited by leading academics and international organizations including the WTO, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund. He is a graduate of Stanford University and holds a Master’s Degree in International Affairs from Columbia Universities and a certificate from the Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) has long been a leader in the fight for equitable access to high-speed internet service, and thanks to President Biden’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), the United States is making historic investments to close the digital divide. For the first time, families across the country will have expanded availability and affordability that will transform the way communities access education, jobs, and health care needs.
Building upon this work, PPI’s Mosaic Project hosted its sixth cohort of experts as part of its Women Changing Policy workshop series to elevate women to the forefront of policy making. Nearly 20 women who are experts in broadband, telecommunications, and digital equity gathered in Washington, D.C., to meet with lawmakers and the media to learn how to engage in meaningful policy conversations.
The latest cohort heard from top journalists and reporters from The Hill, Meet the Press, and NBC News, and also met with key committee staff in the House and Senate to talk about internet access and affordability. They also met with the FCC to discuss telecommunication policies happening at the federal level.
The Women Changing Policy workshop is a two and a half day interactive training opportunity for women experts to hone the skills needed to communicate their work and ideas to policymakers and the media. The workshop is a chance for experts to expand their networks, while getting hands-on experience learning the ins and outs of Washington politics.
The sixth Women Changing Policy Cohort included:
Jenna Alsayegh, Senior Director of Strategic Initiatives & Partnerships at USTelecom
Meagan Bolton, Of Counsel in Ice Miller’s Public Affairs Group
Valarry Bullard, Director of the New Jersey Office of Broadband Connectivity
Naomi Jordan Cook, Co-Founder and CMO of the Virtual Global Consultant Group
Devika Daga, Director of Market Intelligence at Technology Transformation Services in the U.S. General Services Administration
Alexandria Dirl, Project Manager at #BlackTechFutures Research Institute
Sara Nichols, Regional Planner at Land-of-Sky Regional Council
Christine O’Connor, Executive Director for the Alaska Telecom Association
Dr. Christine Parker, GIS and Data Visualization Specialist at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance
Pamela Price, Deputy Director of The Balm In Gilead, Inc.
Holly Rachel, Co-founder of Rachel + Winfree Consulting
Dr. Bibi Reisdorf, Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina
Brandy Reitter, Executive Director of the Colorado Broadband Office
Debra Socia, President and CEO of The Enterprise Center
Stacey Wedlake, Research Scientist with the Technology & Social Change Group at the University of Washington Information School
The Mosaic Project is a diverse network of women with expertise in the fields of economics, technology, and more. Mosaic programming aims to bring new voices to the policy arena by connecting cohort members with opportunities to engage with top industry leaders, lawmakers, and the media.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
There are many lessons to be learned from last year’s midterms, but Democrats should not take the results as some broad endorsement of the economic status quo. Midterm voters identified inflation as the most important issue driving their votes. And while the latest Labor Department data shows the producer price index decreasing by 0.1% in February, prices remain 4.6% higher than a year ago, which means lawmakers still have work to do to bring inflation under control.
And as they search for ideas, they may want to examine the dog that didn’t bark – in particular, the one sector of the economy that has been an interesting counternarrative to the otherwise troubling inflation story.
Home internet service is one of the few major living costs that isn’t skyrocketing. In fact, the most popular broadband speed tier one year ago actually costs 15% less today, on average.
This success story – and the bipartisan policies behind it – offers important lessons.
Part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230 has become a widely debated and frequently misunderstood staple in the conversation about the regulation of tech companies. With calls for reform coming from both sides of the political aisle, on its face it seems as though there is a certain level of consensus around this issue when it comes to the moderation of online content. However, diving just below the surface reveals that could not be more untrue. With Democrats and Republicans coming at the issue from entirely opposite sides and the impacts of Section 230 being commonly misrepresented, it’s critical that any efforts at reform take a measured approach which considers the true positive impact this law has had on the dramatic expansion of the internet.
What does Section 230 say?
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of — any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.
What does this mean for the internet today?
Section 230 applies to “interactive computer services,” which refer to any online platform or service which hosts third-party content. This means social media sites, but also product reviews on e-commerce sites, independent seller listings which utilize websites like Etsy or eBay, or any other case of an online service hosting the content of third-party individuals. The internet as we know it today is largely built around the model of this third-party content, with many online platforms and services relying on their users to provide information, services and products, and many small businesses relying on the infrastructure of other websites to reach audiences they couldn’t on their own.
To break it down from the beginning, Section 230 says that the website is not the publisher of third-party content, shifting responsibility away from the platform and onto the individual, who is liable for their own speech. If you were to post something defamatory on anything from a social media account to a WordPress blog, it would be you that is responsible for your comment, rather than the company you used to post it.
Section 230 is also the mechanism that allows online platforms to moderate content on their sites, allowing them to remove any content that they find objectionable, without being treated as the publisher. This may be because the website serves an intended purpose, such is the case with Reddit communities where posts unrelated to the forum are taken down, or because the platform does not want to host speech that they find dangerous or harmful to their users, such as misinformation or hate speech.
Who wants to change Section 230?
Efforts to change Section 230 have come from several different directions. Proposals from congressional Democrats have included efforts to make platforms liable for health misinformation, or in cases where online activity has led to real world violence. The Biden Administration has also called for its repeal. While potentially well-intentioned, platform liability for this type of content will make it functionally impossible for websites to host third-party content, while shifting responsibility away from the root of the problem — those who are spreading misinformation and violent rhetoric. If a company is responsible for the speech of all their users, they will need to review and approve every piece of content posted to ensure they do not get sued. In the current model, the amount that is posted online everyday makes it so that despite moderation efforts and algorithmic flagging, companies don’t know exactly what is posted on their sites immediately and at all times. This would require a sort of cable model for the internet, where only pre-approved content is shown online, putting a stop to the flow of information we enjoy today and taking away the ability for individuals to have a voice in the public discourse.
On the other side of the aisle, Congressional Republicans have taken their own stab at Section 230, with the motivating factor being the alleged “censorship” of conservative voices online. Similar sentiments have been echoed by those ranging from the Trump Administration to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. In the states, Republican governors in both Texas and Florida have signed laws banning content moderation that is targeted at certain viewpoints. Critics of these proposals cite the likelihood that it will force online users to be inundated with harmful but legal content, such as misinformation, conspiracies, hate speech and Nazi propaganda, harassment, etc.
The combination of these two efforts is paradoxical. In a world where no moderation is allowed, and companies are responsible for the speech of all their users — as would be the case if Section 230 was repealed entirely — websites are forced to host the same speech, which will open them up to countless lawsuits.
Why is this important?
Section 230 has made it so that third-party content online has essentially propelled the creation of a new economy, with entrepreneurs able to sell products, post video or written content, and promote their work to an established audience at little or no cost. Consumers are used to information and entertainment at their fingertips, much of which is also provided to them at little or no cost. In an important sense, the powerful job production associated with the tech boom, would not have been possible without Section 230.
While there is always room for improvement, online platforms need to moderate content in order to maintain their purpose. And while this is often spoken about in the context of larger tech entities, it will have the same devastating impact on Google and Amazon as it would to any small, independent interactive website. It’s not in the best interest of Instagram for their users to be bombarded with violent posts, but it’s also important that the independent food blogger posting recipes is able to remove harmful content from the comment section. Exposing these entities to liability for the actions of any one individual would be a fundamental change to the internet as we know it, significantly cutting down our access to information and making it more difficult for individuals to have a voice online. If Congress or the courts decide to alter this system through which the internet has been able to grow, they must be aware of the consequences to independent businesses, individuals, and the future of online speech.
Government action in regard to technology should serve to enhance the vibrant tech economy, supporting American innovation while addressing concerns that are top of mind for people who rely on it every day. The tech sector is a leader in job creation, and has held strong in the face of challenges such as the pandemic and periods of rising inflation, during which the sector was able to keep prices low. In his second State of the Union address, President Biden has the opportunity to reflect on the successes of this industry, while also calling for reform in areas where government intervention is needed to keep Americans safe, such as the protection of their data.
In the past year, the administration has pursued two major pieces of technology policy — one, the CHIPS and Sciences Act of 2022, was a resounding success, while the other, which was the partial subject of a recent op-ed from the President, a data privacy law, remains on the docket for 2023. In his speech, President Biden should commend Congress on the landmark passage of the CHIPS Act. The law pledges $52 billion dollars to invigorate and onshore the crucial semiconductor industry, injecting vital funds into chip fabs and the infrastructure, workforce, and research and development. Reshoring chip fabrication and upskilling the workforce is crucial for the future of innovation.
The President should re-state his commitment to passing strong digital privacy protections for all Americans. In his first State of the Union, Biden indicated his commitment to improving children’s privacy and safety online. Now, the president is calling for “serious federal protections for American’s privacy. That means clear limits on how companies can collect, use and share highly personal data.” The strongest candidate to get privacy done is the American Data Privacy and Protection Act, a bi-partisan privacy bill that would set the standard for privacy protections for all Americans.
This is a moment for President Biden to recognize the value in American technological leadership and look forward to the ways in which our policy regime can uplift the sector on a global stage. With the debates on approaches to internet regulation heating up across the globe, the U.S. must balance the benefits of innovation with regulatory guidelines and protections for everyday Americans in a way that the rest of the world may look to as a model. By securing privacy protections for individuals in this new Congress, we have an opportunity to do just that.
This post is part of a series from PPI’s policy experts ahead of President Biden’s State of the Union address. Read more here.
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the case of Gonzalez v. Google LLC, written in support of the respondent.
In the amicus brief, PPI argues the digital economy, fortified by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is critical to the American economy, and that the digital economy — which has proven resilient during and after the pandemic — is a key driver of job growth, while holding down inflation. The amicus brief also cautions against altering Section 230 liability protections for the algorithmic recommendations provided by search engines and social networking applications, citing their importance to user experience and online entrepreneurship. Subjecting these companies to liability in this way would harm the digital ecosystem.
“The economic impact of the digital economy, which is supported by Section 230, is enormous,” said Dr. Michael Mandel, Vice President and Chief Economist at the Progressive Policy Institute.
“Anyone who would reform Section 230 must approach that task with the utmost care. Massive advances in Americans’ standard of living and enormous economic gains can be laid at the feet of our digital economy and the protections it has enjoyed. That these protections sometimes enable ugliness amidst all those soaring gains may be reason to reform the digital economy with prudence and a view to the whole — not destroy it,” writes the Progressive Policy Institute in the amicus brief.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
Malena Dailey, PPI’s Technology Policy Analyst, released the following statement in reaction to recent reports that the Open App Markets Act has been attached to the Senate’s proposed omnibus funding bill:
“As the House and Senate deliberate this year’s omnibus bill, PPI urges Congress to exclude the Open App Markets Act from the legislation. The Open App Markets Act attempts to encourage competition for app developers, but does so at the expense of consumers, compromising both the security of the devices we use everyday and the ability for customers to choose the type of software that best fits their needs.
“From mobile phones to more general smart devices, unique app stores have become a standard for consumer tech products. While some operating systems allow for downloads from third-party app stores or the internet, others prioritize security in their products by only allowing users to go through a designated, secure payment system for pre-approved apps. By mandating every operating system to follow the same business model, Congress takes this choice away from consumers, potentially exposing users to unnecessary security risks. We urge Congress to put consumer choice first and exclude the bill in the Senate omnibus package.”
Read Malena Dailey’s February 2022 analysis on the harms of the Open App Markets Act here.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
Platform work offers more flexibility and better earning opportunities for millions of working Americans providing unpaid care
Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a new report showing that on the average day, 36% of working-age Americans provide unpaid care for children, parents and other loved ones. This unpaid labor is worth $980 billion per year, according to this new report, titled “Platform Work and the Care Economy” and authored by PPI Vice President and Chief Economist Dr. Michael Mandel.
The report examines how the stress of this immense burden can be eased by the availability of flexible platform work, including companies such as Lyft, Uber, Doordash, and Instacart.
“Platform work provides an alternative that offers better scheduling and earning opportunities for unpaid caregivers,” writes Dr. Michael Mandel in the report. “Rather than requiring a choice between full-time work and no paid work at all, there is a flexible alternative.”
The report also explores the possibility that platform work may help narrow the longstanding gender gap in unpaid caregiving.
Dr. Michael Mandel is Vice President and Chief Economist at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington DC and senior fellow at the Mack Institute for Innovation Management at the Wharton School (UPenn). He was chief economist at BusinessWeek prior to its purchase by Bloomberg.With experience spanning policy, academics, and business, Dr. Mandel has helped lead the public conversation about the economic and business impact of technology for the past two decades. His work has been featured by the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Financial Times, among others.
The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) is a catalyst for policy innovation and political reform based in Washington, D.C. Its mission is to create radically pragmatic ideas for moving America beyond ideological and partisan deadlock. Learn more about PPI by visiting progressivepolicy.org.
