The Vergecast - Political advertising on social media, privacy and encryption legislation, broadband access in rural communities, and other tech policy in 2020

Episode Date: March 3, 2020

Verge policy reporter Makena Kelly chats with Verge editor-in-chief Nilay Patel about important points in US tech policy recently as we go into the 2020 presidential election. Nilay and Makena get into the policy topics that The Verge will be covering heavily this year — including political advertising on social media, amendments to Section 230, encryption and privacy legislation, and broadband access in rural areas. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for the show comes from Retool. Too many companies run critical operations on duct taped spreadsheets, Slack workflows, and whatever else they could cobble together. Not because they want to, but because building internal tools means weeks of waiting on someone else's backlog. That's where Retool comes in. Build custom internal tools just by describing what you need. Prompts something like,

Build Me a Revenue Dashboard on our Salesforce data. And Retool actually builds it on your company's data, in your cloud with enterprise security built in. Go to retool.com slash Verchcast. We all need to retool how we build software. What's up, y'all. I'm Skyler Diggins, seven-time WMBA All-Star, Olympic gold medalist, and mom. And I'm Cassidy Hubbard, host and reporter for nearly 20 years, covering the biggest names and stories in sports and mom. And this is Am Mom, a community for athletes, game changers, and moms of all kinds.

dropping May 14th. Tap in with us. Hey, everybody, it's tonight from the Vergecast on this week's interview episode. Verge policy reporter McKenna Kelly joins me to talk about everything that's happening in tech policy as we go into the 2020 election. This episode's coming out in Super Tuesday. It's a big day in the Democratic primary.

What better day to launch the Verge's election coverage for the year, which we did on the website. McKenna and I go through all of the big policy areas that we're covering. From political advertising on social networks, my Bloomberg is kind of breaking the whole system and revealing the fault lines. We talk about what is going on with Section 230, and then really what I think is one of the main things.

McKenna's favorite, my favorite, broadband access in rural areas, which is a huge issue that is going undercover. All stuff we're going to cover a lot this year. Check it out. It's McKenna Kelly on the Vergecast. McKenna Kelly, Policy Report with the Verge. Welcome. Hey, good to be back. How are you doing? I'm doing good. It's just kind of like a lot all of the time. It is a lot all of the time. So this episode is going to come out on Tuesday, which is super Tuesday. We're launching a lot of our election and policy coverage that same day. And I want to talk to you about the big issues that are already in the election, both in sort

of the Democratic primary, and then obviously what we're going to see in the general election and what we're going to track. And so right now it seems like you are spending a lot of time asking big platforms what memes are allowed because Bloomberg is spending an enormous amount of money and he's like pushing the boundaries of political advertising on the platforms. How's that going? Right. So it split the platforms and how they enforce it firstly.

But I think it's good to start off on how this happened. So Bloomberg is a billionaire. Mike Bloomberg. Mike Bloomberg. He likes to go by Mike and not Michael this time. Okay. But Mike Bloomberg is a billionaire. He has billions of dollars, about 60 billion net worth.

And he is injecting basically all of that money into social platforms and cable television ads. Mike Bloomberg started as a middle class kid who had a white. work his way through college. Mike Bloomberg knows the value of quality health care. If we get it done, Mike would get it done. It's a pretty simple strategy when you have a lot of money. Yeah. So Bloomberg bought millions of ads. He buys millions of dollars of ads on Facebook and Google every day. But it's only so much money that you can throw into ads, right? So he's trying to find new ways to get his name out there. So the New York Times reported that the Michael Bloomberg campaign was working with Fuck Jerry, the Fire Festival people. It was basically sponsoring posts on popular meme pages.

So once I was discovered, it basically started this whole new conversation about political advertising because social media has been filled with branded content for so long. Yeah, so I just want to unpack everything you said. Right, yeah. It's a lot. It's a lot. So first, there is the difference between buying an ad on Facebook and then getting some popular meme account to post something on your behalf. Right. And sponsored content, that's where we branded content, is just a big business on platforms.

Right. Every weight loss shake on Instagram is a branded content post. Yeah, so influencers post hashtag ad. It's a big business for media companies. So BuzzFeed runs tasty. It's a big food, like, vertical. They post a lot of food videos everywhere. Heinz can be like, the best ketchup recipes. And they're like, buy it.

And it's not an ad that you bought from Facebook. It's an ad that you bought from a media company that then organically travels. So Bloomberg is doing both. Right. Simultaneously. I just don't think most people understand that, like, branded content ecosystem is huge. Right. And there are entire companies, like, they've actually been branded.

They're Jerry Media now. They're family friendly. Oh, wow. But I still think of them as fuck Jerry. But, like, there are companies that are big, like Jerry Media that do nothing but branded influencer marketing of this kind. That's just the baseline. So then Bloomberg is, like, hacking democracy with his money with both ways, right?

Right. So Facebook didn't have any rules about this because Facebook was operating like any other social platform. The money from branded content does not go to Facebook. You're talking about all these companies that take the money and it goes to influencers. So Facebook didn't really have to have new rules for political content because this wasn't really done before. Or at least that we know of. Mike Bloomberg's campaign was pretty excited about this and was very happy to talk about it. Yeah, they invented something.

Right. They're like, look at us. So them being so vocal about this, forced Facebook to kind of reckon with it. The influencer marketing. Right. And it's not like influencers have not had political stances before. Right. I mean, one of the influencers who I think of when it comes to like voice, they've endorsed

candidates before. I mean, Joe Rogan just endorsed Bernie Sanders. Casey Nystatt put out his video in support of Hillary Clinton. And that a couple years ago got a lot of lashback. So it's not like influencers have been apolitical. Right. It's the idea that political advertising has come to the influencer marketing economy. Exactly. So Facebook decided, hey, yeah, we're going to allow this as long as influencers use their branded content tool, just like they would for weight loss shakes or things like that and make sure that users know that it's an ad. So hashtag ad, hashtag sponsored by Mike Bloomberg. So they're letting it happen, which is really interesting and new.

But they don't have to make sure it's true. That's like this is the heart of the debate. Right. I mean, so that's the same thing with Facebook's political ads rules in the first place. Facebook doesn't care what a politician says. is true or not. That's just the way it's been since they had these rules. Yeah. And so there's a controversy on the you're just buying regular Facebook ad side are fact-checking political advertising. And I think Elizabeth Warren has like made a lot of hay about this. Like you should have to. Facebook says no, we shouldn't have to. Like people can figure it out for themselves. And now that same policy is extended to influencer marketing. Right. Which seems a little bit more problematic to me, but I think Facebook's position is like, it's all just advertising. Exactly, right. These influencer posts could be fact-checked, but only if, and this is

where the enforcement gets really fuzzy, is if Facebook determines that the ad is in the influencer's voice and not the voice of the candidate. So the policy is very, it's unenforceable. Yeah. Like I like to say with a lot of policies, it is tremendously difficult to enforce a lot of these. Yeah. So it's like, are they meaningful at all? I mean, it raises these questions. And so then you might as well not have a policy. Right. Which is like, I think Facebook often comes up with policies that are so unenforceable that they fundamentally don't have policy.

Facebook, every social media platform, I mean. Well, so, but Twitter is taking like a different approach, right? Right. So, I mean, we have to like kind of go back and look at this video that Mike Bloomberg posted on Twitter. I'm the only one here that I think this ever started a business. Is that fair? Okay. It's after the Nevada debate, right?

Right. Yes. So it was directly after in Bloomberg. I like to say that he is starting to create content in the same way that the Trump campaign has. So his video, if you're familiar with Carpe Danktum, but he is the Trump meamer who... You're so in it, McKenna. You're like, if you're familiar with the famous meamer, Carpe D'Dongtum, but he's making contact very similar to how Trump has in the past.

And I think that's really important to note. But the video itself is cut in a way that some people can. could say is deceptive, but it is a meme video, and it is a joke, and it's satire. Right. So this is a video where Bloomberg says, if any of you started a business before, and there's like literally, he's added the sound of crickets. Right. I like to imagine that Bloomberg himself opened iMovie and, like, downloaded, like,

Crickets. That's a thing. Our videos are so easy to make, and we talk about deep fakes all the time, but those videos, I mean, the Nancy Pelosi video that we talked about last year. Yeah, where they slowed her down. She slowed down, and it sounds like she's slurring. We had a little, took a little longer on the floor. The custody of the border, of the border.

That wasn't AI. You know what I mean? Like, that was I-Movie or that was Premiere Pro or like something. Same thing with the Joe Biden video from a couple weeks ago where people were mad that it was cut in a way to make him sound racist. Like he was making white nationalist remarks, but he was actually playing the role of a racist. And then it was like cut out. So the platforms have created their own policies to kind of tackle deepfix. leaves all this room for this very easily accessible media that people create to kind of just

skate away. So Twitter has a policy that comes out in March. And basically, they're giving themselves a lot of room like any platform does to determine if something should be taken down or if it's a deep fake or what constitutes the type of media. But Twitter told me that this Bloomberg video would receive a new label. So the label would basically just have something on the post saying that this is manipulated media, which it is. It is manipulated. Yeah. And Facebook, I reached out to Facebook.

They have a deepfakes policy, too. But they also leave themselves a lot of room for satire and parody videos. Facebook said it wouldn't take it down, and it wouldn't label it as misinformation either. So they're kind of split on the video part of this. Yeah. So that Twitter label to me, like, everything is edited. Everything is manipulated media. Like, no candidate is putting out ads that are just like 24-hour live streams of them shaking hands or giving speeches.

What's the line there? So the line here with Facebook and with Twitter, it seems like it's not just they'll label manipulated media, but when it comes to taking things down, it has to be very deceptive or threaten serious harm to candidates or other people. So I don't know if we want to branch out of politics right now. I'm thinking of the only thing that's like really dangerous, but like misinformation around the crime. coronavirus, for example, and things like that. So if there's a manipulated media post there saying coronavirus is cool, catch it. They would probably take that down, you know. So, I mean, that's kind of where it stands.

It's like there is some stuff that can really disrupt the political conversation that we're having. The Bloomberg thing kind of stopped some of, you know, our colleagues to really discuss whether or not this should be taken down or whether it's manipulated media and should receive a label. But it really comes down to whether or not it can cause groups of people, communities harm. I'm just thinking about reality shows. Like, reality shows are famous for editing a narrative into a show that maybe wasn't there. Right.

And it feels like that Bloomberg ad in particular, like a Top Chef clip highlight supercut of a season is the same exact thing. Right. Right. Does that fall under the rules? Like, how are you, is it just political ads that fall under these rules? All of that kind of stuff that exists. Is it when we make funny jokes about Samsung events, does that fall into? Like, that gets wider and wider and wider over time.

And it feels like those kinds of videos in particular where it's like a joke in a video have been with us for so long. I don't know if people are that confused. Right. I mean, with politics now and even with the 2016 election, lawmakers have been pushing for rules from Facebook and Twitter on this stuff. And I don't know if it's just because it's mostly coming from Democratic. because of Trump and their disdain for Trump and how he uses social media. But it is interesting because meme videos in these kind of jokes and recut kind of clips and stuff is such an integral part of the Internet and the entertainment ecosystem now.

Look back Stephen Colbert. Like go back to television. They do this all the time on television too. The Daily Show, like the John Stewart Daily Show in particular, it was famous for this, right? Exactly. So, I mean, it's hard. But after 2016, I think there's this heightened sense. amongst lawmakers and amongst politicians, that a lot of this can get out of hand.

So if you have the Nancy Pelosi video or something like that, maybe your average person wouldn't be deceived, but you could have bots that are blasting this video all across social media and all this. And it just causes problems, maybe some problems that we haven't even really realized, or problems yet. So Twitter did take down some bots that seemed to be affiliated with the Bloomberg campaign. Right. So Twitter, the Los Angeles Times reported a couple days ago, that through this outvote app that the Bloomberg campaign uses, there was a lot of, they called it spam.

They were basically acting as spam accounts, spamming positive remarks from Barbara Streisand about Mike Bloomberg. I mean, that's like the most Bloomberg. I'm a billionaire, what am I spending it on? Fake Barbara Streisand quotes. Yeah, just to target the boomers. They'll love it. So, no, it's really interesting. So they removed about 70 of them.

And it's really interesting, too, because when it comes to the Bloomberg stuff, on Facebook, Facebook doesn't consider that these influencer posts or things coming from the Bloomberg campaign as coordinated inauthentic behavior. And it seems like, when we talk about that, we think about Russians, Iranian foreign interference campaigns when we think about inauthentic behavior. But it seems like Twitter is like, no, this is inauthentic behavior too. So they took down those 70 accounts. And I'm sure there are a lot of these that are still out there.

Yeah, it just seems like a missed business operator. Like, I'm like, I should start a network of Twitter accounts and let people buy it. Right, I should just... I'm American for Godson. I should make a network of a counselor just like, McKenna's the best. Yeah, like, what am I doing? That'll be 50 bucks? Yeah.

Let's just do it. McKenna's the best. Well, it just seems like an obvious sort of like business operative. Like, there's an entire ecosystem of influencers and bots and like social reach companies that will do this stuff for you. Right. And if you're Bloomberg and you're just like firehosing money into the ecosystem, It seems obvious that that will happen.

Right. I mean, people hate it when influencers, by followers or, like, by posts. But, I mean, it's not something that's, like, new. Right. People are like, yeah, this is just part of the Internet. But now once we get politics involved with it, it, like, explodes into this mess of, like, anger and outrage over a system that's existed for years now. Yeah. And so it seems like we keep talking about Twitter and Facebook.

They're finding different lines. They're making different rules. They're taking different approaches. is that's because there's no overall law or regulation they have as a guide. They're just making it up as they go. Right. I mean, imagine asking lawmakers right now to regulate memes. It's hilarious.

I mean, I'm imagining it. I would like to see it happen. Right. Just to see what that conversation would be like. Just to see them explain memes to each other on the floor of the United States Congress. Yeah, that doesn't seem appropriate. No, at least not in the next 10 years. Yeah, until like we become the members of Congress.

Right. Exactly. That's my goal, is to run on a meme-only platform. It's going to be great. So there's no overall regulation. So they're doing stuff on their own. Right. Does one of them seem to be getting it more right than the other, Twitter and Facebook?

Twitter? Okay, this is really interesting. So Facebook comes out, it makes, like, it's deep-fix policy, comes out with it earlier this year, and they get, like, a ton of criticism for it. Twitter announces its own, and it's, like, more of a good guy stance on, like, the deep-fakes policy. It's really interesting. It seems like Twitter, now, I don't know.

I don't know what my opinion is, but it seems like Twitter is positioning itself as like the good guy platform for the election right now. They banned political ads entirely last year. It seems like they're really thinking about how to moderate the platform for political ads and campaigns and posts and stuff into the future. Facebook is still in its like very much like hands off approach. Yeah. Which still you can trace back to Mark Zuckerberg's speeches over the past couple of years about free speech. And last thing we want to regulate on our platform is speech. Yeah, I guess like both companies have said the political advertising is an inconsequential amount of money for their bigger businesses, which is in many ways, like, depressing.

Right. Right. Like Bloomberg can spend all of his money and it's like a drop in the bucket compared to all the advertising on Facebook. Although we should ask them again because I wonder if the Bloomberg money has like changed the balance for them. But they've mostly said this isn't a lot of money. Twitter is like, it's not a lot of money. It's too much heartache. We're just going to turn it off.

We don't need the money. Basically, it's like, we don't need the money, but we don't want to be involved in that way. We're going to let it happen. Here are some rules. But there's no, because there's no overall guideline, it's like we're watching this experiment play out. Right. And it's very unclear to me which one is better. And it also sits right next to the candidates themselves, members of Congress right now, calling for moderation regulation for the platforms, calling for changes to 230 or whatever.

Do you see that interaction happening or is it just chaos? Well, yeah, no, this week. It was really interesting. David Cicillini, who was on the Vergecast, he talked about, it hasn't been introduced yet, but he's talking about a bill that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in a way that platforms wouldn't receive those really important protections unless they ensured that their platforms weren't running false political ads. So you're seeing these things engage in a really interesting way that we haven't seen before, but was definitely going to cup. Yeah. Well, at 2.30 is, I mean, that's the next sort of big thing to talk about.

There's the campaign and sort of like meme doctrine. I don't know what you would call it. The meme wars that are occurring. I can't wait to write that. That's my next piece. The meme doctrine. It's real. I mean, it is a thing that is happening around.

The platforms are figuring out how to deal with political memes in a way that they did not in 2016, didn't want. to and now they have to. So they're figuring that out now. Next to it is this other big policy issue that we've just been tracking forever, which is 2.30 and what protections the big platforms get for what their users publish on those platforms. It seems like everybody wants to, like, it's the gun. They're going to point the gun of taking 230 away from you unless you do what they

want. And so one of them is take political ads away. But there's a long list of other ones, right? I mean, Josh Hawley, the Republicans' major tech are. Our boy. This was last year, and we don't really hear about it much anymore, weirdly enough, but about conservative bias on social media platforms. It was really hot last year.

And at like the height of its hotness, Josh Hawley put out a bill that was like, if you were a bias against conservatives, then you lose 230 protections. And we've seen kind of bills jump on this kind of balancing act of 230 versus what I want you to do. Yeah. Because 230 is like the greatest. You know what I mean? It's one of the most foundational parts of the internet. And it's like, if you just take that away or you threaten to take it away, it's a very major threat when you're trying to get something out of a platform. If YouTube has to be liable for everything, every person on YouTube publishes, like their business goes away. Yeah, YouTube's deleted. Yeah. I mean, but so is Instagram, so has Reddit, our comments, like go, like, I'm not going to be responsible for it you put in verge comments. I'm just telling you. It's not going to happen. So we would just get rid of it. So it's this foundational thing. We've talked about it so much. But there are.

are a lot of people trying to make a lot of trades against it. So Holly's one was, he was going to have like a committee of like six people who would weigh if you were neutral. Right. It was five people. It was like. But it was they had to come to a consensus. You couldn't have a hung jury. Yeah. It was like a unanimous vote of like Republicans and Democrats that he would just like select up a hat. Which would never have. This is crazy town. And then they would decide if Twitter was neutral enough to get its 230 protection. Fine. There is the Sicilini bill that you're talking about. Which seems like it's going to come back. which is you have to have a political ads policy that I like, or I'm taking your 230 away.

Beto O'Rourke, when he was still running for president, he's from El Paso, Texas. And after the El Paso shooting, he put out a presidential campaign proposal, basically saying that there can't be hate speech on platforms. Otherwise, you lose your 230 protections. So we've seen it there. In the most dramatic, like, way, we've heard Joe Biden say, take away 230, totally. I hate it. That's a very Biden move. Right.

I mean, does he know what 230 is? Who knows? I mean, if I could get these candidates to show if I would ask them very directly. He knows that he's not supposed to like it 100%. He just wants to get rid of it. That's Biden. He's just like emotions. They're doing that because they can't propose these regulations directly, it seems.

You can't write a law that demands Facebook have a political advertising policy because you would just run, you're the government. You would just run right into the First Amendment. Right. So the dance here is the trade for do what I want or I'll take 230. Because they can mess with 230. Right. I mean, they created 230.

It is a lot harder to carve out the First Amendment. Right. So that seems like the underlying 230 action is instead of doing something that might run afoul the First Amendment, we'll just hold this gun to your head and say, we'll take away 230 unless you do what I want. That is basically a speech regulation. Is that clear? Are people making that trade explicitly? Are they just kind of saying it should happen?

I don't think anyone ever wants to talk about. You don't want to be the lawmaker who's like, yeah, I'm thinking about doing something with the first amendment. Amendment. Like, that's not a good way to get reelected, you know? So I don't think a lot of people, a lot of lawmakers have brought that up explicitly. But the idea of like using 230 to wager what you want is definitely, it's in the Senate. It's in the House. It's with Republicans. It's with Democrats. People are thinking about it. And I think if we see any changes to 230, it's going to be with one of these hot button issues, whether it's ads or bias or hate speech. Maybe all of them in one. Who knows? Yeah. And so the one that comes to mind is Bill Barr, who's the Attorney General, Lindsay Graham. They've got a bill that they're working on that actually trades 230 protections for encryption. Right. Which seems like the other big thing in the government, this administration in particular wants is backdoors into encryption for Apple, Google, Facebook, whoever. And the sort of Barr Graham bill, it feels like Bill Barr wrote it and Lindsey Graham put his name on it. That's just my feeling about it. I cannot confirm, but I mean, no, it's interesting. So the argument over encryption and whether or not we should demand that Apple allow law enforcement to

look into your messages if you're suspected of a crime has happened for so long. Yeah. Like, so many years. But I think Bill Barr and a lot of the Republicans have noted this 230 discussion and seeing a well, well, there's a lot of people wanting to regulate tech companies over 230. So maybe this is a way in for us. So, I mean, I would think that the two arguments, encryption has been happening for so long, and 2.30 is like the perfect out for them to really try to hammer this through into law, finally. So they would say, if you don't give us a backdoor into your encrypted messaging apps, we will take away your 230 protection.

You're going to be sued into oblivion. Tell the people what the bill is called. Oh, I love this. The Earn It Act. You got to earn it. I mean, it's basically the summary of all of these bills. It's like if you want to have what you need, you've got to earn it from me specifically in what I want. In my bill, about two-three.

But broadly, has encryption come up in the campaign. We've talked about it a lot on the show. Obviously, Apple is very strident about not breaking encryption. Facebook says it's going to reorient all of its messaging apps to be encrypted. There's a lot of back and forth about material that's abusive to minors on the platforms that maybe the cops can't see because it's all encrypted. There's a lot of just general conversation about it, costs and benefits. Is it part of the campaign yet?

Not that I've seen. So there's a lot of issues that are like a big deal that haven't really made it into the broad political campaign discussion right now. And encryption hasn't really been one this year. Does that seem like it because it's just not a winner to say I support encryption? Right. I mean, I can't imagine my like 60 year old mother being like, I'm not voting for Bernie Sanders because of his encryption stance. You know what I mean? It's like not as hot as like health care.

Yeah, not fair. So, I mean, like, encryption definitely, I mean, the antitrust plan for Elizabeth Warren came at a really good time, too. But encryption has been around in the fight to get into people's locked phones by the government. It has been a fight for a very long time. And it really hasn't had a moment. And I think if we ever had, like, an encryption moment, the campaigns would be forced to react to it. And the government, various governments who Bob administration tried, the Trump administration tried to create those moments with terrorists. So there would be a shooting and then we got to unlock the shooter's phone.

Apple won't you help us? Apple basically said no. And then some company shows up and has a way to unlock it and the debate goes away. I think that's definitely shifted now to child abuse. That is the basis of the Earnet Act actually is based on abuse towards children. But that hasn't reached the campaign in any meaningful way either. Not yet, no. It's just funny because when I think of politicians, I always think of just like think of the children messaging.

and it seems like it's aligning, but it hasn't quite happened yet. Support for the show comes from Framer. Framer is an enterprise-grade, no-code website builder, used by teams at companies like Perplexity and Muro to move faster. With real-time collaboration and a robust CMS, with everything you need for great SEO, not to mention advanced analytics that include integrated A-B testing, your designers and marketers are empowered to build and maximize your dot-com from day one.

So whether you want to launch a new site, test a few landing pages, or migrate your full.com, Framer has programs for startups, scaleups, and large enterprises to make going from idea to live site as easy and fast as possible. Learn how you can get more out of your dot com from a Framer specialist or get started building for free today at framer.com slash verge for 30% off of Framer Pro annual plan. That's Framer.com slash verge for 30% off. Framer.com slash verge. Rules and restrictions may apply. Support for the show comes from LinkedIn. If you're a small business owner, you know that every hire counts, but time and resources

are limited. Finding, connecting with, and screening the right candidates takes up valuable time you could be giving to your customers. That's where LinkedIn Hiring Pro comes in. It's built to be your hiring partner, helping you find the right candidates faster. That way you can hire with confidence without turning it into another full-time job. Hiring Pro streamlines the entire process from drafting your job to shortlisting candidates and conducting AI-powered interviews for initial screenings.

Its updated conversational interface lets you describe what you need in plain language. Nearly 60% of hirers find a candidate to interview within a week. With Hiring Pro, you spend less time searching and more time connecting with the right talent. And instead of getting buried in resumes, you get a focus shortlist that actually moves your hiring forward. Join the 2.7 million small businesses using LinkedIn to hire. Get started by posting your job for free at LinkedIn.com slash track. Terms and conditions apply. This leads, I think, sort of the next one, which is like you've been tracking the progress towards a privacy bill.

Right. That doesn't seem to have come up in this election at all. Not really. No. Andrew Yang had a big plan. He wanted a data protection agency. He had some stuff, but now our boys out. Yeah.

Less tech discussion for all of us on the debate stage, unfortunately. But no, it hasn't really made its way into the big political discussion. The same way that privacy wasn't really talked about in Congress until Cambridge Analytica. Yeah. So once again, we're waiting for another moment. What's the status of the privacy bill in Congress? Because you have been tracking this very closely. Right.

There's a lot of bills. We're waiting for the Senate Commerce Bill. For the Senate Commerce, Republicans and Democrats to come together and put out one big bill that is the end-all be-all and it's what it's going to be. But they're still fighting over some details about whether or not California can have its own bill, whether or not they should preempt that or if we should be able to sue. Individual consumers, you mean? Yeah, individual consumers should be able to sue when their privacy rights are violated by Facebook or Google or whatever. So they're still kind of hung up on some of these details. Wait, walk me through that.

Why shouldn't I be able to sue Google if it, like, does something bad with my data? Right. So Democrats agree. They're like, well, most Democrats agree. I hate to say all of them. But most Democrats agree that you should be able to sue if your rights with your data are violated, whatever those rights are in the privacy bill that we get. Because right now we don't really have very many rights. Right.

Republicans, I mean, this happened with TCPA, so the law that allowed you to sue robocallers and like scammers and stuff, phone scammers, Republicans just don't like the idea of frivolous lawsuits. And they're afraid that if you allow consumers to sue Facebook or Google for these things, it would lead to like a firestorm of litigious people with no real claims that would like siphon these big companies with tons of money out of all of their money. It's like on the one hand, they're like, we'll take 2.30 away from you and create an existential threat to your business. But on the other hand, we don't want frivolous lawsuits to do that.

Right. Exactly. No, it's weird. We're not going to see a federal privacy bill in the next two to three years. I was optimistic and now I am fully pessimistic. Oh, no. About this. So it's not going to be the next two to three years. It's probably going to be under a different administration. But we are seeing a lot of action from the states. New York is crafting its own privacy. bill, California, the CCPA, Washington. There's a lot of momentum from the states to get some rules. Yeah. And that creates like a fragmented marketplace for every company.

So it feels like they're going to be annoyed with that enough to lobby their way into a federal bill. Right. I mean, Mark Zuckerberg is already writing op-eds. Like, we need a federal law. And his law is like, all the stuff I'm doing would be great. Yep. Don't change anything I'm doing.

Don't hurt me. It just seems crazy that privacy, data privacy, again, right, there's health care, there's national security, there's the big topics. But it seems unlikely that none of the candidates would put forward a privacy plan because everyone kind of understands it now after Cambridge Analytica. There are lots of Amazon echoes in the world. It seems like very obvious to say, here's what we think Amazon should be allowed to do with their microphones in your house. And it just hasn't. No one's made that connection yet. No, not yet.

Right next to that is. After Trump got elected and Ejipai takes over the FCC, and he immediately cancels the FCC's privacy rule for telecoms. So telecoms are way less regulated than they were before. There's no neutrality. The states can't, or they're not supposed to. There's a court fight over that. They can't impose their neutrality rules. There's no privacy rules for telecom.

It just seems like the split between how much we care about tech companies and telecom companies is getting ever wider. Right. I mean, this is really interesting. And I bring this up with a lot of the people that I talk to. but we're not going to see much momentum on federal privacy regulation until we have the same movement that folks like free press created with net neutrality. Like you're not seeing people in the streets or websites shutting down because of privacy. But there is, it just seem like it's more, I can't quantify it. It does seem like people are more aware of the privacy risks than ever before.

It does seem like the split between GDPR and Europe and here is made that more concrete. But you're saying that hasn't really turned into any. No, it hasn't turned into like grassroots momentum or anything like that. And maybe it will in the future. But as of right now, it's not really a measurable effort, you know. Yeah. The other piece of it, though, is how little we think about telecoms in these conversations. Like, we've talked a lot about 230 in speech and what Google can put in its algorithms.

We do not talk about what AT&T can do with its network at all, really, and they, like, own CNN. Does that come up anywhere in this conversation? or is that purely like where is the internet going to be and who's going to have access to it? Right. No, I think that's basically it. When you talk about telecoms with candidates, their biggest telecom plans have to do with getting people access because that's still a very big issue. So last month I went to Iowa and I drove over 800 miles all across the street from Des Moines, like a metro area like Des Moines. I talked to folks who had spotty access and I went all the way up north only a couple miles.

from the Minnesota border and people who have absolutely no access. So it's those people that a lot of candidates really want to start reaching. So all the candidates, all of the major ones, have big plans on how to expand rural broadband access. And that's something that Trump promised and we still haven't gotten. So it's been something that's been in campaigns for a number of years, but something that we haven't seen a lot of momentum on from the executive branch, except from the FCC. They like to create piles of money and allocate that.

in the USDA, too. But why the USDA? And this was in your story, but explain people why the USDA. So the USDA, there's a handful of grant programs that small providers or even like big telecom providers can get access to to lay the fiber, to create the towers, to expand access in rural areas. Because when I was there, you could travel down a dirt road for a mile. And you could only, if you laid fiber down for that, you would only connect maybe like

one home. Wow. It is so unprofitable. So you need that grant money, and it needs to come from a variety of different sources. So the USDA and the FCC has their own grant programs to get that money out. And that can be like millions of dollars, a couple hundred thousand dollars, just get the fiber laid or whatever solution is best for the community. Right. So the USDA, the United States Department of Agriculture, is like, we also want you to have fiber because you're farmers?

Well, yeah, I mean, it's basically any small provider who really needs the money can, they have to fill out, oh, my God, it's such a horrible process. Yeah. But in a lot of people hire consultants to like file these grants applications because they're so difficult to file. But, yeah, so they just say, hello, we need help. And these are all the reasons why we need help. And how many farmers we're going to connect and how many small businesses are going to connect and how many families and school children. And the USDA looks at that and decides whether or not they'll grant them the money. Wow.

Yeah. Same thing with the FCC. They've been doing that too. But the USDA Reconnect program has been around since 2018, I think. So definitely not as long. Yeah. So there's a push to get access. Right now, what are the plans look like?

What are the differences between the plans you're saying? Right. So you have some folks like Amy Klobuchar who are like a trillion-dollar infrastructure package. It's going to happen. And we're going to have a lot of money in there for broadband deployment, which makes grants more accessible and things like that. There's also, we are very familiar with this here at the verge, but there are laws that ban communities from coming together and creating their own networks when AT&T or Verizon or whoever, A, won't lay down the infrastructure needed or B, it's like too expensive because there's no competition in the area. There are laws in the books in many states that ban communities from doing that. So Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the more progressive-leaning candidates want to author some kind of legislation once they're in office that would basically preempt all of those municipal laws.

Yeah. And these are like they work in cities too. I think Comcast famously lobbying against like Philadelphia's citywide Wi-Fi system that they wanted to build. Disclosure of Comcast through its NBC. Universal Arm is an investor of box media. I assure you they do not care for me. It's just fact. But they've done it in smaller areas, too, where you have a bunch of people in a small town.

They're like, we're going to build our own Wi-Fi network. The town is going to pay for it. And there's like a state law usually that says you were not allowed to do that. Your small town is allowed to do that. So the idea here from Warren and Sanders is they would allow small communities to build their networks. Right. I mean, to create more competition or just have them have access in the first place. How is that received?

It feels like the municipal broadband conversation just went away for a long time. Right. So I think when you have more progressive candidates coming in, you hear a lot more about publicly owned utilities. So this publicly owned utility conversation is like coming back, I wouldn't say in like full force, but definitely in a recognizable and important way. How does that square with my favorite, which is the 5G rhetoric, which is we don't need to do any of this? We're just going to put 5G networks somewhere. Is this going to get magically connected? It's really interesting because nobody knows what 5G is or why it's a race or any of this.

Yes. So it's really great to rely on that. as your supplement for broadband. But sort of the Trump FCC has, I mean, Ajit Pai, he consistently says he cares about rural broadband. He's consistently, he just put out a white space proposal, another thing that has historically not worked for a decade. But whatever, now here's a new proposal. He's committed to it in a sense that he talks about it a lot. Has that moved the ball forward at all?

Right. So, I mean, with 5G, I'm not entirely sure. He has the World Digital Opportunity Fund that just came out. Some Democratic commissioners have some beef with it, but it is $20 billion that gets in the hands of providers to connect people over the next 10 years, which is very valuable. With 5G, I don't know, I always think back, there was a hearing in Congress a couple weeks ago with Gigi Sown. Yeah. And I always think about that quote because it's like you're relying on a technology that hasn't proven itself yet for such a valuable part of our economy now. and something for broadband access

that could lift a lot of people in rural communities out of poverty and give them more opportunity. And too, I just think it's really hard to want to invest billions of dollars into a tech that just hasn't proved itself yet. Yeah, especially when AT&T and Verizon and now T-Mobile, the Sprint merger, they're committed to doing it.

So you could let that play out while you go build the proven network. And that just doesn't seem to be the case it's being made. I mean, it's the divide right now on the digital divide, unfortunately. So you're saying the progressives want to say community networks, what are the more moderates on the democratic side? I mean, most of it, with Klobuchar, it's mostly money. If you get more money, money is the whole thing keeping people from being connected. So the sums of money are vastly different from like $20 billion.

Bernie's plan is like $150 billion. So I don't know how. any of this. It also comes back to, we've been trying to get an infrastructure package for so long. Yeah, it's infrastructure week. Yeah, it's infrastructure week every week and it never actually happens. So it's hard to decide or figure out or even imagine how much of that money would actually make its way through Congress at any given time. Is there a split on sort of Republicans and Democrats in Congress? Because it, I mean, the more rural states are generally rhetoric, right? They have more Republican representation. presumably those people would like better networks in their states.

Is there any movement on that side of the aisle? Right. It seems like it's a pretty bipartisan issue. If you look at the committees that handle this for the most part, Republicans and Democrats agree that they need to do something. How they're going to do that, I think, is where they disagree. Like even when it comes to, this is kind of wonky and excuse me. I'm ready for it.

But the broadband maps, right? So right now, telecoms create their own maps. Basically, they send all the data back into the, to the FCC and they craft the maps where people don't have access based on data from the companies. And everyone is basically in agreement, Republicans and Democrats, that these maps are messed up and we need to figure them out like now, like yesterday. But there's a couple of pieces of bipartisan legislation that are moving.

But Congress is slow. Right now we're just finished impeachment and all this stuff. I mean, I could definitely see more momentum in the future. But when it comes to a big infrastructure package with all this money. I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. So this seems like kind of the big theme. We've talked about a lot of different issues. There's an election going on.

It's an opportune time for these issues to come to the fore. And there just seems to be a gap between we're going to take away 2.30 and screaming out Facebook political ads. And, hey, huge chunks of America don't have broadband. And we don't even know where they are because the maps are bad. Like that is an easy problem for people to understand. It's an easy problem where people agree that the solution is just figure out a way to connect them. We should know where the maps are. And yet that's not being talked to at all.

Why do you think that split exists? Right now in between the campaigns and these issues? Yeah, it just doesn't seem like it's what's the most core tech policy issue? It's like literally the digital divide. Right. Like at the end of the day, it doesn't matter to Facebook studio if you can't access Facebook at all. Right. And it doesn't seem like that comes up as much as it should.

Do you think there's a reason for that? Is it just not politically sexy enough? Or what is it? It might not be politically sexy enough, but I'm also thinking that when I was in Iowa and I was covering the caucus, people were shocked to have a tech reporter ask them questions. And maybe not just because we don't have enough tech people covering this stuff and asking those questions. It's really hard to tell, though. There also isn't a lot of party agreement on how to track these things. Like if the Republicans were running for president right now for the most part, we'd have the populist wing of the,

the party, the Josh Holleys versus the libertarian wings of the parties, they can't come to an agreement on what tech policy looks like for them. And I think it's the same thing with the Democrats. You have progressives like Warren and Bernie and AOC who talks for Bernie all the time. And they're like, yeah, break them up. But the more moderate wing in the party doesn't want to do that. Yeah. So, I mean, maybe it's just because when it comes to tech policy, it's such an emerging issue

that there just isn't enough agreement in the party. to make it that much of a central issue. Yeah, there's not even a clear enough split between the parties. Because a lot of the Josh Holly proposals, he squint. It look a lot like some of the more progressive proposals. Like, I will take control of Facebook myself. I, Josh Hawley, I will do it. Here's what I intend to do.

And that doesn't seem like Bill Barr is like, I'm going to buy Nokia. It doesn't seem like your classic small government conservative proposal. But he's like, that's how he'll fix the 5G encryption problem. So I agree with you, like there's enough of the spread of ideas that they haven't coalesced into party identities yet. Right. But at the same time, it just seems like, well, we're going to cover it. We're going to keep sending you to places. It seems like it's at the top of mind for how, like literally how democracy will function.

Because what we're fundamentally talking about is how information is distributed. Right. And who has access to it and who sees true things and fake things. Right. And that I don't think that we're taking that seriously enough, quite honestly. No, I totally agree. And it's, I mean, it is kind of, it feels how much should we learn from 2016? Not enough.

Not enough. I think that's the answer, yeah. No, not enough. The thing that I've been thinking about a lot recently is that in 2016, we came out of it, terrified of foreign interference. And now in 2020, the emerging issue is interference from the candidates themselves with Bloomberg and fake, deep fake videos and things like that. And that's something that gets really close. closely tied to regulating speech in a way that we're very uncomfortable with, but in a way that is it's a very important conversation that we need to have if these platforms are going to be

as important as they have been in democracy going forward. Yeah. Well, the good news is you're on the podcast today because we're launching a whole thing to do election coverage. You're going to be people are going to see your name a lot because you're covering it very closely. What's the next big thing that you think is your focus? So the things that I'm really interested in are, it may seem pretty minor, but I did a piece on just this random guy out in Washington who's running for Congress as a socialist on TikTok.

So I'm very interested in how these emerging platforms are being used and really interested in how candidates, whether it's presidential candidates, congressional candidates, are using the internet to organize. Because for a lot of these smaller campaigns, they're quickly becoming national. campaigns. Huh. Because if you're on TikTok and you're on everybody's for you page or if you have a Discord server with people who support you all across the country, all of a sudden, your small little district in rural Washington or wherever becomes a national campaign. Yeah.

And that's something I think we're going to see so much more of and I think it's going to be really important to dig into. Is that a fundraising thing or is that just a culture thing? It's fundraising. It's phone banking. It's text banking. It's creating big national movements for small, little candidates, and I'm very excited to look more into that.

That seems really fun. All right, McKenna, thank you so much for taking a time. No problem. We'll have you back on soon. Definitely. Cool. All right, my thanks to McKenna Kelly for joining us on this interview episode. Like I said, we launched a big election coverage section of the verge day.

You can go check it out on the site. We're going to be updating those guides to policy issues all year as the election goes on. Obviously, Casey and Zoe are doing the interface or newsletter about social networks and democracy. There's just a lot of tech policy coverage to come. Check it out on the site. We'll be back on Friday of the chat show. Got to talk about that Mac Pro review, Tuesday with an interview, and on on we go.

Please tweet at me. I'm Matt Reckless. I love hearing your feedback on the show and who you want me to talk to. We'll see you later.