Opening the aperture on tech: From scattershot policies to governance

Last December, we released part 1 of a two-part series on how Big Tech’s control of the internet played out in the 2022 midterm elections. Here’s the takeaway: the contours of our political conversation are shaped by our methods of communication, and today that means whoever owns and operates the internet plays a key role in our democratic process. A quick recap of that piece:

• Many of the key issues for campaigns were decided not by what voters care about, but by the amplification of extremist propaganda.

• Tech companies made a show of reupping their 2020 content moderation strategies, but it was a cynical effort—their incentives are fundamentally at odds with stopping the spread of disinformation.

• Tech ad spending underscores this disconnect: They are mainly concerned with protecting their own power and stopping anti-monopoly legislation.

In this piece, we’ll focus on the midterms’ implications for technology over the coming years and what it means for organizers. As we’ve seen in every major political fight over the last decade, the impact of tech and the internet on how social movements build power is pervasive. It’s not limited to elections: Tech shapes organizing and political power, whether you’re looking at police departments’ adoption of “gunshot detection” technologies like ShotSpotter or the massive increase in school budgets dedicated to EdTech. For a breakdown of the connections between tech and access to reproductive care, see our 2022 report: User Error: The Internet Post-Roe. 

Kairos has been advocating for real changes to the tech ecosystem—structural changes, not just protections from immediate harm. In 2023, we already see evidence that more voters, organizers, and elected officials want to reorganize tech. Let’s take a look at that evidence, the developments we expect this year, and what they mean for organizers.

Voters want to make the internet work for everyone

The 2022 election results provided evidence that voters value the internet, but not the way it currently operates. 

The pandemic highlighted the steep consequences of the digital divide, with many Americans in areas with low-speed or unreliable internet access struggling to attend school or work remotely. In states like Alabama, access is worse for communities of color — and in rural areas, as many as 60% of residents are living without high speed internet. That is why it is no surprise that voters in Alabama and New Mexico voted overwhelmingly to put state funds towards expanding broadband access. These state amendments unlock millions of dollars in funding from the federal American Rescue Plan and will dramatically improve economic health, access to services like telehealth, and community organizing opportunities. 

In Montana, voters sent a clear signal that they want to limit law enforcement access to digital data; Montana’s constitution now states that a search warrant is required to access any person’s digital communications and data. Software companies of all types gather data on their customers, from insurance companies to social media platforms to internet service providers, and the current (lack of) regulation means that for digital data and communications, law enforcement agencies don’t need warrants to request access to this data. Tech companies shouldn’t be decision-makers on what data to hand over to law enforcement, and the Montana amendment demonstrates that voters agree. 

We don’t have enough opportunities for voters to demonstrate what they want out of tech governance, but the signals we’re getting show that voters agree that the internet is critical to 21st century life, and we need structural changes to make sure it works for everyone. There are openings for changes to the policies that affect the internet in 2023, so let's see what’s on the horizon.

The FCC and broadband access 

The 2020 Broadband Data Act required the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to start releasing updated maps of American broadband access every six months, and in November, they released a new draft of maps that are supposed to be more detailed than ever. These maps have huge implications for communities fighting to expand broadband access. Based on the maps, this summer the Biden Administration will allocate billions of dollars in funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to underserved communities across the country. There’s just one problem: The FCC maps rely on self-reported coverage data from internet service providers (ISPs), and the ISPs have every incentive to overstate their coverage levels to block potential competitors from entering the market.

In addition to monitoring broadband access around the country, the FCC is also responsible for managing the wireless spectrum. All wireless communication (5G, radio, wifi, et al.) uses the spectrum, and in order to prevent clashing signals, parts of the spectrum are allocated for different uses. The wireless spectrum is a limited public commodity, and what the government has  done is treat it like land—keeping some public (unlicensed) and auctioning some off to private companies (licensed), who pay a fee for exclusive use.

How the FCC manages spectrum use has a big impact on regular people; spectrum availability influences, for example, how much bandwidth you can get on your home wifi, mobile data speeds, and whether local broadband providers can compete with giant ISPs like Comcast, AT&T, and Charter.

The FCC’s authority to auction off more of the spectrum is expiring in March, and it’s not clear whether it will be extended again. The telecom industry is lobbying hard to push for more exclusively private spectrum, which will further entrench the power of the big ISPs — the same companies that have been blocking municipal public broadband efforts for years. 

These funding decisions will affect American internet infrastructure for decades to come. We deserve significant public input on matters like this, and we need to have a bigger public conversation on how we want to design internet access for the next generation.

Data privacy laws are gaining traction — in states 

Elected officials are articulating an increased commitment to addressing data privacy. President Biden published an op-ed in January calling for “clear limits on how companies can collect, use, and share highly personal data” and encouraging Congress to take action while also promising that the administration would develop new privacy rules. But the U.S. notably doesn’t have comprehensive federal privacy regulations, and the prospects for federal legislation seem slim this year.

However, state legislatures are seeing an uptick in bills introduced on data regulation and data privacy. By the end of January, 15 states had introduced bills addressing protections for consumer data. UNC’s Center on Technology Policy breaks down the types of bills, which are split between overall privacy laws and ones that target specific types of data (e.g., biometric data, children’s safety).

Passing regulations to protect consumer data is an important first step in addressing the larger economic incentives of tracking, storing, and selling consumer data, which will have huge impacts on our fights for liberation.

The aggregation of consumer data feeds algorithms that affect our credit scores, insurance rates, access to social services, and dealing with the criminal-legal system. This kind of data is deployed by both the private and the public sector, and meaningfully impacts the experiences that people have with the government and their capacity to participate in community.

For organizers, the crucial point is that since this legislation is moving in states, there is a greater opportunity for us to shape the future of data regulation.

We need to build a proactive vision for tech governance

Though it likely won’t be through legislation, the federal government will make some big moves on tech regulation this year through Supreme Court rulings and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In late January, the DOJ, along with eight states, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google to get the company to separate its search engine business from its Ad Manager suite. Though the lawsuit will likely drag on for years, it marks a meaningful step forward in the federal government’s assessment of Big Tech companies as monopolies.

In late February, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on two related cases: Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v. Taamneh. Tech Policy Press has a great piece on the specifics, but in short, the cases revolve around the infamous Section 230 (part of a law passed in 1996) that essentially means websites can host user-generated content without being liable for what those users post (with certain restrictions, like copyright violations). These Supreme Court decisions may change everything about how the companies that rule the internet moderate content—and honestly, there isn’t a lot of consensus about what to do. 

There is even less chance of consensus when the perspectives of organizers and users are ignored. Elected officials and policy folks tend to focus on addressing short-term harms, but not on the issues we care about, or on designing and building a framework for tech governance. The national conversation on tech policy is anemic because it’s missing the input of the people most affected by the structure of the internet. 

If you want to help define the future of tech governance, then join Kairos as we build a community of organizers that can make tech work for all.