Democrats in the House of Representatives want to create a commission to study how terrorist groups use social media and other online platforms to amplify and spread their messages.
The House Homeland Security Committee unanimously voted to approve the National Commission on Online Platforms and Homeland Security Act on Oct. 22. Civil liberties groups had raised free speech concerns about earlier draft versions of the legislation.
Social media outlets need a push, Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson of Mississippi said during the bill markup. “It is evident that this [is] one of those areas where the private sector needs the government to be a convener.”
Some digital rights groups said the latest version of the bill improves on earlier drafts by limiting the scope of the commission.
An earlier draft had the bipartisan commission focusing on the ways social media and other online platforms have been used “in furtherance of domestic or international terrorism and other illegal activity that poses a homeland or national security threat, … or to carry out a foreign influence campaign that poses a homeland or national security threat to the United States,” noted the Center for Democracy and Technology.
The approved version of the bill drops the commission’s mandate to investigate other illegal activity “in favor a more tailored mandate that somewhat limits the scope of the commission’s work,” Liz Woolery, deputy director of the CDT’s Free Expression Project, wrote in a blog post.
Yet the commission has a fairly broad mandate by covering both domestic and international terrorism and foreign influence campaigns, she noted. While online terrorism and foreign influence campaigns should be of interest to Congress, they are separate topics, she said.
“At major online platforms, their challenges are largely tackled by different teams, their effect on internet users’ and their online experiences wholly distinct, and their influence on the democratic process very different,” Woolery added. “Ultimately, the commission may be out of its depth trying to tackle such disparate issues.”
The commission, made up of nongovernment experts, would create recommendations for online services to better combat terrorism and foreign influence. Commissioners would consider the free speech and privacy implications of those recommendations.
The bill asks the commission to look at how effectively online services have been able to respond to terrorism and foreign influence on their platforms. The commission would also consider the ways that algorithms and other automated decision-making systems impact privacy and civil liberties and how they affect terrorism and foreign influence campaigns.
Finally, the commission would consider whether online services have transparent and consistent policies to enforce terms of service or codes of conduct and whether they consistently enforce the rules.
Some cybersecurity professionals praised the bill. The U.S. public needs to be aware of the ways social media accounts have been compromised and used for criminal activity, said Chelsea Brown, founder and CEO of Digital Mom Talk, a site focused on family cybersecurity issues.
“As difficult as it may be for the American public to see, such studies do need to be done,” she said. “Americans should be concerned with how terrorists are participating in these criminal activities that don’t just infringe on American interests but also put American citizens at risk.”
Meanwhile, Attila Tomaschek, an online security expert with security advice and reviews site ProPrivacy.com, said the commission has potential, but lawmakers need to keep free speech at the forefront.
“Any effort to curb the spread of online extremism would be a good idea for Congress to work on and conduct thorough research into,” he said. “However, any such effort needs to work equally diligently to preserve internet users’ First Amendment rights and rights to personal privacy. Striking such a balance is indeed easier said than done.”
The commission must make sure it issues recommendations “without trampling on fundamental human rights,” he added.
