One Year Later: Reflecting on the Millennial Public Policy Fellowship

As their fellowship comes to an end, the Millennial Public Policy Fellows are using their final DM posts to reflect on their 11-month journey through D.C.’s think tank and public policy landscape.

Last November, I wrote about how my perceptions of the opportunities and inequities of the global internet were shaped by my experiences living across the world and engaging with varying instances of internet connectivity and access, information censorship, network disruptions and more. During my 11 month fellowship at New America’s Open Technology Institute, I have further developed my understanding of the range of opportunities and risks the internet—and technology, more broadly—offers. In addition, this fellowship has allowed me to take a deep dive into how technology policy regarding these issues plays out in the United States, both on a federal and local level.

Throughout my fellowship I have worked on a number of broad, interesting, and rapidly changing policy issues including content moderation, transparency reporting, surveillance, disinformation, and digital security. During the first few months, for example, I worked on advocacy around two bills, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act of 2017 (SESTA) and the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA), which sought to amend both Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and the federal criminal code so that online intermediaries could be held liable for user-generated content on their platforms. Though fighting human trafficking is critical, OTI opposed these bills because of the risk that they would push traffickers to less visible platforms, and because overbroad provisions pose threats to freedom of expression online. Despite the efforts of OTI and other advocates in the space, a hybrid version of the bills were passed into law. However, this experience allowed me to learn a significant amount about the lawmaking process in the United States, as well as about the growing landscape of threats to intermediary protections and online freedom of speech in the country. These learnings provided me with a framework to understand and assess other movements around the world involving intermediary liability, i.e. liability for “intermediaries” such as online platforms for the activities, such as postings, of their users. For example, in April, a group of Members of Parliament (MP’s) in the United Kingdom, the “All-Party Parliamentary Group on Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade,” called for a ban on “prostitution websites” and have proposed adopting legislation similar to the hybrid bill implemented in the United States. Intermediary liability issues have also grabbed headlines in countries such as India and Tanzania where online content creators ranging from administrators of WhatsApp group chats and bloggers are being required to pre-register with government offices and companies are being pushed to adopt greater accountability and responsibility for content being shared on their platforms.

Similarly, the work I have done around content moderation has allowed me to engage both domestically and internationally with issues such as countering terrorist and other violent content online, hate speech, fake news, and nonconsensual pornography (also known as revenge porn). Most major internet platforms that face content-related issues are headquartered in the United States, but the majority of their users live in other parts of the world. This has raised a number of concerns and tensions regarding the cultural relevance and accuracy of content moderation practices (as demonstrated most recently in Myanmar) as well as the reliability of automated algorithmic moderation tools. In addition, many of these platforms adopt and operate in line with standards based upon the First Amendment, which protects freedom of speech and expression in the United States. Technically, the First Amendment only covers conduct by the government, not private actors, and it does not apply or extend to non-Americans beyond the boundaries of the United States. However, because the internet is borderless and major American platforms that operate globally often operate in line with First Amendment considerations, many content-related cases are assessed and managed based on First Amendment principles. This has resulted in a number of global discussions regarding online freedom of speech and expression, as well as the balkanization of the internet. These conversations are challenging, but necessary, given the increased policing and criminalizing of speech that is taking place around the world.

When I first joined this fellowship I hoped to build a career in international technology policy. Given that the United States currently has one of the most robust and developed technology policy spaces in the world, my work at New America has provided and continues to provide me with an excellent foundation for this work. This includes a grounded understanding of the issues, as well as a set of frameworks and comparative case studies for analyzing how major issues in this field are playing out around the world. In addition, this experience has exposed me to the range of different actors involved in domestic and global thought leadership and policy making and has given me a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities for success in this space.