The Vergecast - Silicon Valley’s Rep. Ro Khanna talks tech regulation

Episode Date: November 27, 2018

On this week’s interview episode, Nilay is joined by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Verge policy reporter Makena Kelly to discuss Congress’ plans to regulate Big Tech in the new year. Earlier this month, Democrats were able to take back a majority in the House of Representatives, and after blockbuster events this year like Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, lawmakers are gearing up to rein in these Silicon Valley giants. Khanna, who represents the California district that houses the Apple and Google campuses, was tasked with developing a set of principles these companies should abide by when it comes to issues like privacy, net neutrality, and anti-competitive behavior. He made the rounds, consulting with think tanks, the creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, and the tech companies themselves. From those discussions, Khanna was able to put forth a framework of 10 rights US citizens should have when they’re on the internet. Khanna’s set of principles is called the “Internet Bill of Rights,” and with Democrats recapturing the House, tech leaders like Khanna have a chance to codify ideas like these into laws. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This episode of The Vergecast is brought to you by Dell. Before we begin, here's a word from Dell. Today's segment is sponsored by the Dell XPS 13 laptop with an 8th-gen Intel Core I-7 processor. Experience Dell Cinema's incredible color, sound, and streaming on the Dell XPS 13. It's the laptop for people who watch things on their laptop. Learn more at Dell.com slash XPS13, sponsored by Dell and Intel. Hey, everybody. It's the United for the Vergecast.

This week on the interview episode, we have. have Representative Roe Kana, who is the congressperson for California's 17th district. That's a district that has Apple and Google in it. He just was elected to a second term in Congress, and I asked a new Verge policy reporter, McKenna Kelly, to join me. We talked about everything from data privacy to net neutrality to anti-competitive behavior from the tech industry. Last year, Representative Kana wrote the Internet Bill of Rights. He was actually assigned to this task by Nancy Pelosi after all of the various scandals that rocked the tech industry. We talked about that a little, but really we talked about what happens now that the Democrats have won the House of Representatives, how they're going to work with Republicans, and whether, even if they miraculously pass a bill in Congress, whether President Trump is going to sign anything.

We also talked about how the United States approach to regulating tech companies has to be different than Europe's. I will say he took some shots at European tech companies, which is pretty good. And I'll just put this out there. I'm pretty sure he pitched us a Snapchat subscription program. Look, I've interviewed a lot of politicians. Usually it's really boring and they dance and weave. Representative Kana actually answered the questions, which is some of the highest praise I can give. Check it out.

It's a pretty fun conversation. So we are here with Representative Rokana from the 17th District of California. Welcome. Thank you. Thanks for having me on. So you are a fascinating congressperson to talk to you because in your district lies both Apple and Google. And you recently wrote the Internet Bill of Rights, which I want to talk about, which lays out a plan to codify things like net neutrality and privacy. But even more interestingly, you are a Democrat at a time

when the Democrats have recently retaken the House of Representatives. And so the first question I want to ask is, what should people expect from tech policy, from privacy, from net neutrality legislation? Are things going to immediately start changing? Are you just going to start passing laws and see what happens? Or is it going to be more of a slow role? How should people expect the new Congress to handle these issues? Well, they should expect action. There was no action taken in the last Congress after massive breaches of people's data, whether that was Equifax or Facebook or more recently Google. And people want to have some assurance that their privacy, their data is going to be protected. This stuff isn't rocket science. We know what we need.

We need a basic protection for people having access to their data and knowing where their data is. they should be notified if there's a breach. They should be able to move their data. And I expect that our Energy and Commerce Committee will take this up, and we should get something passed within six months, at least through that committee. Jan Schakowski already has a bill that has some of these principles in it. And I think if we can't deliver, we should consider changing the leadership of that committee, but the committee needs to deliver.

So is that priority number one, data privacy, data transparency? In terms of technology. I mean, the House caucus has, of course, the priorities of health care, which we ran on on minimum wage, infrastructure. But I think in terms of technology, having privacy and data security for people online is something that we should pass first. You know, we had the series of sort of hearings last year that were kind of spectacles. We're going to drag up CEOs. And then we're going to ask Mark Zuckerberg how Facebook makes money, which is not a secret. Do you think, think the new Congress is going to be smarter about even understanding these companies? Do you think that the regulation will be more tailored? We've got a long way to go. The ignorance was bipartisan. I don't think it was particular to one party. And some of the questions, frankly, were embarrassing. And the staff, some of the staff of these committees don't have the technical expertise to really be thinking through these issues. And it's not that you need them to be computer scientists. It's just

having a basic willingness to engage outside the halls of Congress and engage with technologists, engage with experts to have well-crafted regulations, because what you don't want is regulation without thought. Let me give you an example. Everyone is for a notification if there is a data breach. Obviously, you should be notified. But what if there's a case where a company knows that if they notify in a case of a data breach, that's going to trigger more data breaches, and they want some exception to fix the problem before notification. Well, that's a slightly nuanced issue, but you should have a regulation that deals with that. So you're not forcing notification in the case where that's actually going to make the breach worse.

My point is like that, every one of these principles is going to have a complexity and nuance that is going to require people to engage with technology experts. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to do it in this Congress. I'll be more. confident if we reach out to an expertise beyond the holds of Congress. Do you think that you'll have to compromise with Republicans when it comes to passing, either it be like data privacy legislation or net neutrality legislation? Because it seems like Republicans have been a little more focused on content moderation in the last couple hearings that we saw, especially the one in energy and commerce.

They were kind of interested in conservative bias on these platforms. Do you think there will have to be some kind of compromise? Yeah, first let me address the conservative bias part. I really don't understand it. The people who benefited the most, the person who benefited the most from these platforms was Donald Trump. I mean, if you ask Facebook or Google or Twitter, they'll tell you that Donald Trump outperformed Hillary Clinton on all of these platforms. So if anything, there was a bias towards conservative speech. Second, you know, I know they trot out these statistics that Google employees all contributed to Hillary Clinton and didn't contribute to Donald Trump. Here's what no one's asking the question. Why? are the rules different for Fox News or MSNBC? Matthew Genco at Stanford did a paper which showed that the polarization in this country in 2016 was far more a result of cable news and talk radio than social media. So the fact that you may have a point of view by people who are private executives doesn't mean that the platform's algorithms are biased.

But even if these platforms were biased, and I don't think they are, that's not a legal issue. When they start disciplining Fox News for bias, then we can talk about disciplining any other company, but they're all private companies. So that's not a real effort to get something thoughtful. Randall Stevenson, I was just at a Wall Street Journal conference and technology, and Randall Stevenson was the AT&T CEO said that he now supports net neutrality. He thinks there should be a right to people knowing their data, the right to be able to move their data, and he thinks these things are really simple. I found that encouraging. If folks like AT&T CEO and others get on board with basic net neutrality and basic privacy, then I think you could get

Republican support as well. And as he put it, it's in his interest that you don't have 50 different states having their own privacy rules and you don't have a ping pong between in administrations on net neutrality, and Congress codifies something for predictability. So I think you will get at least some Republican votes. So that's actually really interesting because you represent California. California passed a statewide net neutrality rule that really codified the old Wheeler net neutrality rules. Do you think that's going to work?

Is that just leverage to get you in Congress to do something? Or do you think that is going to hold up when it's being challenged in court? Do you think that's going to hold up? I do think it will hold up, although who knows if it goes all the way to this Supreme Court, but for a court that has emphasized states as laboratories of innovation and states' rights to be able to do things, it would be pretty hypocritical for them to say states have rights when it comes to gun laws, but not when it comes to laws regarding the Internet or privacy, and especially when the federal government hasn't spoken.

So you don't have federal preemption in this case. You don't have the federal government having taken a position. I do think that it makes sense to have federal legislation on net neutrality. And the concept of net neutrality is so simple. I mean, we make this very complicated. The political part of it is just saying that no one should be discriminated against for political speech. And that is something that I think everyone would agree on. And on the business part of it, it's just saying that you shouldn't be able to charge

startups or entrepreneurs more money to access the Internet than large companies. And that's a pro-startup, pro-innovation policy. that's important for American competitiveness. And so I do think that we will get some framework on net neutrality. I think it's kind of important, too, to bring up preemption, which is something that Republicans, especially in industry groups, have been bringing up with net neutrality legislation, with privacy, data privacy legislation, and things like that. Preemption would basically just, if passed in a federal law, would basically not allow any states to pass their own rules, rules that could later on be stricter than what is passed at the federal level.

Yeah. So here's my big question about Randall Stevenson in particular. And I'll just disclose this now. One of the investors in Vox Media and the Verge is Comcast NBC Universal. They don't love me, but I'm just letting everybody know that they're an investor in the company. But, you know, when the neutrality fight was going on, Comcast was out there saying, we need a law. What we actually want is a law. And now you have AT&T saying, you know what we need is a law.

We want a federal law that preempts the state-by-state approach. And obviously the danger is one regulatory capture. So you'll get the big companies in. They'll do their lobbying. You'll get a weaker net neutrality law. There's what you described as basic net neutrality, which is I think Chairman Powell was for. You're sort of no blocking, no locking, no locking. But we're going to allow throttling because we think that's a good business.

Do you think we need strict net neutrality, no throttling whatsoever, equal access to everybody? Or are you willing to see some fuzziness around the edges? No, I think no throttling is part of the basics. And Randall Stevenson yesterday at least said that he thought no throttling was also going to be part of the basic package. And throttling, of course, is making it slower for some people and faster for others. So I personally think Wheeler's order is about where we need legislation. And that's something that's going to help American consumers because they're going to want to not be nickeled and dined on the internet being charged. If you don't have net neutrality, you could be charged one thing for using email, another thing for using social media,

and other thing for using web services, and the Internet would become basically like cable. People would be charged based on different services, and companies, startups would be priced out. You would never have Netflix having emerged if you didn't have some basic net neutrality, or it was very, very hard for Netflix. So I think a robust defense of net neutrality

is not just the right policy for democracy, it's also the right policy for innovation and economic growth, and the Democrats shouldn't compromise on something that's going to hurt the country when I think the vast majority of people support net neutrality. So you brought up health care at the very top is high in the list of Democratic priorities. Net neutrality, the Democrats ran on it. Republicans have opposed it. Was that a winning, was it a winning issue for you on the order of health care? Do you talk about it when you were out campaigning? I did, but I'm in a very unique district in Silicon Valley. And, you know, I think Beto O'Rourke talked

about it at college campuses. But I don't want to pretend that net neutrality is something that's a winning issue across the country. It's an issue that is on our side, but people still fundamentally care about good-paying jobs, about getting a pay raise, about making sure that they're deductibles and premiums aren't going up for health care. Okay, so let me tie these two together. I think I've woven my rhetorical strands. Okay, so you have the majority in the House, Democrats around net neutrality, You got Randall Stevenson saying, okay, let's do it. You pass the bill in the House. Maybe you pick up a couple of Republicans.

Let's say a miracle happens. You pass it through the Senate, which is still controlled by the Republican Party. And you've got to send it to this guy in President Trump who once tweeted that net neutrality was, and I quote, ObamaCare for the Internet. I have no idea what this means, but I managed to link health care and net neutrality in one claim. Do you think you can pass a bill that Trump would sign on net neutrality? I do because I don't think Trump cares that much about it. Trump was also for Medicare for All. In his book, America, We Deserve in 2000, he said the Canadian healthcare system is better than ours.

I'm for Medicare for all. And then, of course, he conveniently forgot all of that when he ran for president. So I think on net neutrality, I don't think this is an issue that his base cares deeply about. I think he's probably going to be swayed by the last person who talked to him on it. it's not a place where I see him spending a lot of political capital. I could see him spending political capital on immigration, on other issues. But I do think this is something, if we could get the House and Senate, that the president could be talked into signing. So speaking of the president, yesterday, he tweeted that Comcast NBCU was an antitrust problem. He obviously sent his Justice

Department after AT&T, Tom Warner. Competition policy is one of those things that is in your Bill of Rights. How do we make these platforms more competitive? How do we reduce anti-competitive behavior? But vertical media mergers is adjacent to that, if not completely tangential. Do you think the renewed sort of antitrust focus of the Trump DOJ will bleed into tech? Do you think they'll break up Facebook? I don't know if they're going to go break up Facebook. And it would be a big challenge for Trump who cares about American innovation and America outpacing China. I mean, the one place that's working in the economy is Silicon Valley. It's a good thing that Apple, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, or American companies.

Imagine if they were Chinese companies or German companies. That said, there does need to be more antitrust scrutiny. I think when Facebook had acquired WhatsApp or Instagram, which are horizontal competitors. In retrospect, the FTC should have reviewed those. I think there'd be very few people who today would say that those mergers should have gone through without any review. You could have made the case back then that the FTC wouldn't have realized how big if a platform Instagram would become, and maybe they would have still allowed the merger. But I do think that you have to strengthen the FTC and the Department of Justice to make sure

that large-scale mergers are being reviewed, and also that they're not anti-competitive practices, that these tech companies aren't using their own platforms to privilege their own content. That said, you know, the history of Silicon Valley has been one where yesterday's dominant firms are no longer as relevant. If you had talked in the 1990s and said who was going to be dominant in search, you would have had everyone say Microsoft Bing. Today, 90% of Americans couldn't name Bing. So I don't think it was the Department of Justice to say. And I trust suit that brought them Microsoft to lose their competitive advantage. It was two brilliant folks at Stanford, Sergei Bryn and Larry Page. So who knows what the next technology company is,

will be. I'm sure there's some young entrepreneur today thinking about a social media platform that protects privacy and that doesn't bombard you with propaganda from politicians like Rokana or Donald Trump or whoever. And, you know, maybe they'll charge a subscription fee and that could take off. So I say all of this because I'm not an apologist. I definitely think that these social media companies have more responsibility. There needs to be better antitrust enforcement, but I'd be cautious of thinking that these are somehow companies that are going to remain dominant for the next 30 years. All right, we're going to take a little break and hear some advertiser content from Del Cinema

about how binge watching has changed everything. Kayla loves TV. I like to tell people that I invented binge watching TV shows. I'm in it for the long haul. And chances are you're a lot like Kayla. Over 70% of Americans are binge watchers. and they feel a deep connection to both the characters and the screens they're watching them on.

Dr. Emil Steiner is an assistant professor who studies binge watching at Rowan University. With the newer screens that are now available because of the crispness, the higher fidelity, they allow viewers to see a more realistic world. And that social realism creates greater feelings of connection with the people on those screens. According to Steiner, it's not just screen size

and clarity that creates that deeper connection. The technology today allows viewers to control not just what they watch, but where and when they watch it. And this is great news for Kayla. I used to feel truly embarrassed about the amount of binge watching that I engage in, but I feel grateful that the culture is totally supportive of this type of hobby that I have. If you're a person who can never say no to one more episode, Check out the Dell XPS13 with Dell Cinema technology.

For incredible sound, color, and streaming, it's the laptop for people who watch things on their laptop from Dell computers. Thanks to our sponsor, Dell. Learn more about Dell Cinema's amazing color and Intel Core I7 processor at Dell.com slash XPS13. That's Dell.com slash XPS13. You mentioned that if Facebook were to acquire WhatsApp or Instagram today, day, it probably wouldn't happen. What do you think has changed in the past couple years to make, to make that like something that would never happen now?

Yeah. I mean, I, first of all, I'm not sure if it would never happen, but it would certainly be scrutinized. And I think what's changed is there is a recognition that technology, while it has extraordinary benefits, also has dark sides and downsides. So everyone knew about the Arab Spring. And I still believe that Facebook has encourage Parkland kids to mobilize and have their voice heard and has allowed a platform for ordinary citizens to have a greater voice and for families to share experiences. But now today we know that there are dark sides. I mean, the brutal murders in Myanmar where Facebook was not aware that people were using Burmese language to basically encourage killings or mob lynchings overseas

has made us realize that these platforms, when they are very, very, very large, and have no competition can also facilitate things that are not good for humanity and that there needs to be a role for oversight and regulation and that we want to have competition so that they're continually improving. So it's interesting. We had Tim Wu on this show a couple months ago. His book just came out, The Curse of Bigness. You know, his entire argument is the economy should work for the American people and that the mechanism of working for the American people is actual competition. He goes so far, say, you know, we should just break them all up. Just peel off Instagram, call it a day, it'll be fine.

But how do you, without going that far, how do you increase competition for a company like Facebook in a way that has some effect on how they operate overseas? Well, it's a very tough question. I mean, I do think you need to strengthen the FTC and require more disclosure of data, require data portability, let people be able to take their social graphs off of Facebook and move it to another platform. make sure that if they're anti-competitive practices that the FTC is cracking down on those practices. And then you need to create an environment that has capital and talent for startups.

So not just startups at Silicon Valley, but startups across the country. I mean, we have seen that new business formation in this country has slowed down. New startups have slowed down. How do we create the ecosystem for more startup activity so that you can see the next Zuckerbergs are the next Sergei Brin's emerging. I think that's very, very important. You have to install digital ethics classes in every college and university to make sure we don't. You get Sergei, in school, saying don't do what I did. I definitely think we need more humanistic thinkers in these tech companies.

It's not just about legal regulation. It's about what is their ethical responsibility to society, to democracy, to the country, to job creation. I think that, they have a long way to go in responsibility, but I also don't think that you can just blame the polarization and violence and hate speech on social media. I mean, the fact of the matter is that Matthew Grenco at Stanford shows that one of the biggest causes is talk radio and cable news. There are huge issues of income inequality. There's issues of gerrymandering of how people are living in terms of their political ideology. There's a challenge of immigration and assimilation. So the country is going through a lot of transition, and I think social media is highlighting some of the divisions that exist.

They need to do a better job to being part of the solution. Something that wasn't in your Bill of Rights, but that I have heard other lawmakers talk about, is increasing, like, media literacy courses in high schools and middle schools. Do you think that's something that could help? I think it's a great idea. And I, you know, part of me thinks we're the most educated society in human history, right? the average Caucasian has 14 years of education, the average African American of 13 years. In World War II, the average Caucasian had nine years. The average African American had about four years of education. There's never been a more educated from a schooling perspective of society in human history.

And so you would think we would have the tools to be able to cast informed decisions. And yet we've elected Donald Trump. I mean, not to be that partisan, but it's just this disjuncture. But part of me thinks, look, Americans, we should have the self-confidence and ability to say we're not going to just be manipulated by what we see on a Twitter feed or a Facebook feed. We're going to be capable of being critical citizens and exercising citizenship the way our founders wanted us to. And that comes to schooling and education and making sure that people are critical thinkers. So I'm a pretty fierce advocate for net neutrality, but let me channel my Vergecast co-host, Paul Miller, who thinks I'm dumb, and make sort of the conservative slippery slope arguing about net neutrality, because you've brought up cable news a number of times. If we're going to impose net neutrality on information distributors like AT&T and Comcast and whoever and say everything has to be the same, isn't the slippery slope to content moderation sitting right there that we're going to go to information? distributors like Facebook and Google and say, okay, now you have to actually make sure you turn

the knobs such that the same viewpoints are equally distributed on your platforms. Isn't that the sort of the search neutrality? Isn't that sort of the next obvious thing to go ask Google for? Well, this is when Al Franken talked about net neutrality for Google, and I said Al Franken didn't know what he was talking about, and then he had that unfortunate scandal. But what would neutrality on Google look like? It would mean like when you typed in Rona into search, instead of getting any sense of relevance, you'd get random things which had Rowe or Kana in there all over the world. And that wouldn't be very helpful. So any search by definition is non-neutral. It's based on the values of people who are saying, well, we

want to prioritize relevance or we want to prioritize the number of people visiting something. So I think there's a huge difference between net neutrality for Internet service providers, meaning everyone should have access to the internet versus requiring neutrality for content providers or content platforms. I don't think you could tell Amazon you need to have every possible product in the world on your page or Facebook to say the Rokana page on Facebook should also have the anti-Rokana page right next to it, which is what neutrality would look like. And I think when you look at television, you do have neutrality in terms of the bidding off of getting cable and having the access to that, where you don't have neutrality,

is you can have private companies like Fox News or MSNBC have a point of view. And I think that similar analogy holds to the Internet. Do you think the distributors of cable news, Facebook is a distributor of information? And the press gets mad at them, hey, we're doing your content moderation for you. Like, we found this bad thing, and then Facebook says, and they take it down.

You could do that with Fox News and Spectrum Cable all day long, right? You can say, hey, CEO's Spectrum Cable, like, we're watching this thing you're distributing. Is that appropriate? Is that an appropriate ask of those kinds of platforms? Well, that's the question. I mean, because you look at, and not to mention the study, but it never gets mentioned and some people should read it. It's the only academic study on polarization and propaganda, Matthew Grenco and

Stanford. And he did the research. And he said, actually, young people who used Facebook were polarized, but not nearly as polarized as older voters. And they're the most polarized. And they're getting their information from cable news. and that's one of the biggest causes right now of polarization. So should we require fact-checking anytime there's something said that's wrong on Fox News

or by Rush Limbaugh or on MSNBC? And is social media something almost a counter to some of that propaganda? I do think social media should develop their own journalistic ethics of where they want to have diverse perspectives and if they want to flag things. But long term, I guess I'm a First Amendment support. and enthusiast, and I have a sort of John Stewart-Mill view that you let ideas out there and in the long-run good ideas prevail, and that American democracy is strong enough, mature enough to allow that. And people say, well, look at Europe. Well, Europe had two

grotesque world wars and a history of the rise of fascism and authoritarianism. And as bad as Trump is, it's nowhere near what Europe was. So I think America's tradition is much more open to speech and we've been much better at pluralism and not having that kind of history, as Europe said, and that's allowed for innovation. So you brought up Europe. So obviously, what you are talking about right now is regulating big tech. The country, the organization of states that is currently regulating big tech the most aggressively is the EU. They have imposed fines on Google for Android. They have passed the GDPR. Is that a model for you? Is that something you're looking at, like, oh, we should just do the GDPR again.

Let me put you on the spot. Name the three best European tech companies in the last 10 years or 20 years. I can do 20. You give me, if you, if, Nokia. Okay. People often say Spotify, maybe. Spotify's good. Half of Sony Erickson, the Erickson half.

There's three. Done. But if you cut me to 10, I'm stuck at Spotify. So, you know, do I think we? should look at the GDPR, yes, but we don't want to be Europe when it comes to tech innovation. I say this as someone who's called for regulation on tech. But there's a reason that you had Section 230 and that that in part spawn American innovation in technology. And you had Apple and Google and Facebook and Twitter and Microsoft and LinkedIn and PayPal and cryptocurrency and all of the

technological advantage that we have. What we need here is well-crafted regulation. Let me give you a specific example. Google, in Europe, they want consent in every use case. That means if I am on a platform, a newspaper platform, the Washington Post or the European equivalent, and I see an ad, I have to click and consent every time I see an ad, because every time an ad is shown to me, that's a use of my data to target me. Now, my view is that that's going to require 20, 30, 40 clicks for a consumer just reading things or visiting things on the website. In our case, we have too few consent requirements. You basically consent to the service agreement that no one reads, and then you've consented away your data for the rest of your time on these social media platforms. Well,

maybe there is a compromise, something that says you need to consent every time there's a collection of your data, but you don't have to consent every time there is a use of your data. So I think the nuance on this matters. It's why people like Tim Cook and others have said we need regulation, but well-crafted regulation, regulation that's consistent with the First Amendment, consistent with innovation, and will protect Americans. But that will look very different, in my view, than the European regulation. Do you think Tim Cook is saying that just because that's a strategy credit to Apple? Like, it costs him nothing if there's privacy regulation in the world.

Apple doesn't make these products. I'd say it, too, if I were him. But he could say something that's self-interested and also right. That's true. I'm sure he is very self-interested. And Zuckerberg's retort that it was not a bad one. He said, yeah, but we don't charge $1,000 for our products. And we're, yeah, we're monetizing people, but we're also a free service.

And there is a trade-off between the cost of providing a service. And Apple is a – Cooperino is a very expensive city where Apple is located. And it's a product that is for the middle class or upper-middle class. It's not a product that is just of mass production, certainly for the world. So these are questions. enough tradeoffs, but I think that Google, Facebook, Twitter, others can embrace stronger data protection and shouldn't monetize their users as the only thing or view their users primarily as just a monetized commodity.

I think something interesting, too, that we haven't seen from industry groups and we haven't seen from companies like Apple and Google. They're very ready to talk about sometimes preemption, talk about consent, opt-in-consent, out consent, but something that they've been kind of not really talking about is the enforcement part. Like, hey, we have the rules, but like what happens once we break them? So Tech Freedom today came out with something. It was like one of the first real comments to the NTIAs, the Department of Commerce's Privacy Initiative. They talked heavily about enforcement. I guess really what is your perspective on enforcement when it comes to these things? That's a great point because

you're absolutely right. I mean, anti-trust rule is the biggest challenge. is enforcement. The DOJ and FTC don't have the teeth to really enforce many of these provisions. And even if you had a drafted Internet Bill of Rights and you had laws, if you don't empower the FTC or FCC and increase the staffing, you're not going to be able to have significant enforcement, and that may not move the needle. And then even when you talk about self-regulation, a lot of these sites have terms of service, which are constantly being violated, and there don't have the capacity for enforcement. For example, the pipe bomber who sent bombs to President Obama and Secretary Clinton had tweeted out things and threats on Twitter, clearly violating Twitter's terms of service, but their

internal policy didn't enforce it. Now, part of me is sympathetic in that you went from, Facebook went from 100,000 people to 2 billion people in 15 years, right? I mean, from a small company to something larger than any country in the world. So the scale is enormous, and they haven't caught up with the enforcement and review that's necessary. That's the sympathetic case, but the reality is, they're a company that now has a large public trust, and they can't just hide behind the sense that they grew too fast, they grew too quickly, they didn't know what's going on, they don't know that people are using their platform to kill people in Burma. At some point, they've got to do more, and that more means hurting the bottom line, perhaps, hiring many, many more

reviewers, and if they can't manage it, then scale back. But the growth was so fast and so rapid that a technology that by and large, I view, is positive, probably grew faster than the regulatory and enforcement mechanisms and has led to some of the challenges. So I want to end with a pretty, I think a question nobody ever really asked Congress people, and then I want to ask you what people should be looking for. But here's my, just sort of esoteric question at the end. This is your second term in Congress. You know what you're doing now, right? You know where the bathroom is. is. You represent, in your district, you have two of the biggest tech companies in the world.

What are the mechanics of that job like for you? Do you think, oh, you know, Google's campus is here, Apple's campus is here, lots of these employees live right here. How do you think about actually representing those people when you go to work every day? You know, a lot of people I represent are nurses and firefighters and teachers and people who can't afford the cost of living. In fact, I'll be self-reflective. I ran and lost once at 48 percent, and then I won my second race at 60 percent, and was fortunate to get re-elected with 73 percent. But after I lost to Mike Honda was a good person, he was a Democrat, and we have a good relationship. He said, Roe, I know I had you beat one week into the campaign. I said, how did you have me beat? He said, you came out with a list of endorsements,

and there were all the tech leaders. And so I put out my list of endorsements, and there were all the teachers and nurses and firefighters, and there were a lot more of those than there were tech people in our district. And so losing actually made me more empathetic to understanding that while technology is in helping our world in so many ways, and helping our communities in so many ways, there are also people being left out. And the central work that I'm doing, both within my community and around the country, is to figure out how are we going to get more people participating in a software revolution? I believe the software revolution, like the industrial revolution is going to transform every aspect of our economy. There are no such thing as tech jobs.

Every job, this job, what we're doing right now is a tech-enabled job. And we're going to need people with tech proficiency and pathways to that, being able to live in the communities they grew up in. It's in Apple and Google and Amazon and others' companies' interests to help facilitate that so that there isn't a backlash against tech accumulation of wealth or concentration of wealth. it's why I was disappointed today that Amazon, it was a missed opportunity for them to put their headquarters in New York. You know what it reminded me of? It was that LeBron James in 2010 when he did the big decision.

And everyone knew he was going to go to the Miami Heat, but he let everyone else think that they had a shot. Then he went to the heat. Same thing with Amazon. It's like they pour every one in the country, all the rural communities, urban communities, thought they had a shot, and then he picks New York.

I mean, that's where we need to be more thoughtful. How are we going to build pathways for communities left behind to participate in this new economy? The two things I've learned from this conversation so far is I think you think Snapchat should launch a subscription service. And two, Jeff Bezos should have done an ESPN decision show to announce HQ2. Because those things are both been. Incredible. That's what I've learned in my first year at Congress. You can say all the substantive things, unless you give people the headline, it doesn't really matter.

Well, we'll see what we can do here. I'll work with that decision quote. So just last question, you've gone way over your time. Even so generously, I appreciate it. What is the first thing people should expect? Is it the House comes in session next year? And all of a sudden, you know, the relevant committees are pushing on privacy regulation right away. Is it going to take a back burner to health care? What's the first thing people should expect who are interested in tech policy? Well, the first thing for the House is probably going to be something dealing with reform or anti-corruption. And we had, I started the NoPAC caucus in Congress. Beto and I did. And Beto ran on that.

We've had people on the far left like Alexandria Ocasio-Cautes and more moderates like Connor Lamb all run on no corporate PAC money, no PAC money. I think that people are going to want a fundamental reform, a government. And technology is a part of that, right? I mean, technology is enabled campaigns in ways that don't rely on raising money and going on broadcast television. But after we get that reform package, after we get a vote on health care and minimum wage, then I think we will turn to. two, technology and the three top priorities and technology. One will be privacy and data protection. Two, will be internet for all.

There is no reason why we shouldn't have every part of this country hooked up to high-speed internet. And three, will be this transition. How do we get a country wired with tech proficiency to have the jobs of the future? And what do we need to do to prepare people for those jobs? All right. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate all the time.

Hopefully you'll come back. I appreciate your show. Hopefully you come back if we publish our sensational subscriptions. Snapchat headline. Yeah, absolutely. I don't know if I trust my own business sense. I am in politics after all. Very sure. All right. Thank you, Representative Kana. It's great to have you. Thank you so much. Thanks. All right. That was Representative Roe Kana. Thanks to him for joining us. He was very generous with his time. Thanks also to Verge policy reporter McKenna Kelly for joining me and actually knowing what she's talking about, which is always useful. We'll be back later this week with a regular Vergecast.

I tune in for that. Let me know how we're doing, who you want me to interview, what you want to hear for these interviews. I'm dying to know more. And you can tweet at me. I'm at Reckless. We'd love to hear from you. And to wrap it up, one more word from our sponsor, Dell. The Dell XPS 13 with an 8th-gen Intel Core I-7 processor is the laptop for people who never say no to one more episode. With lifelike color, brilliant sound clarity and smooth streaming, Dell Cinema technology makes whatever you love to watch even better. Call 800 by Dell to learn more or visit dell.com slash XPS13, sponsored by Dell and Intel.