Digital Platform Commission Act Proposes New 4.5 Billion Dollar Internet Code Council, Enforcers, and Court
Hear that KRS-One? That's the "sound of da' police"
WASHINGTON D.C.- Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) introduced The Digital Platform Commission Act, gaining little traction in the 117th Congress. This session however, the comprehensive policy has been reintroduced as S. 1671, with little variation in the language, but a much increased appetite for censorship expressed by the 118th Congress.
In an effort to mitigate a whole host of cited issues such as; misinformation, the collapse of trusted journalism, hate speech, the rise of political extremism, and the consolidation of power under privately-owned tech companies, Sen. Bennett is proposing a multi-pronged public-private partnership approach.
Interestingly enough, the private portion of the partnership seemingly leaves many opportunities for big tech to help solidify their own consolidated power.
In the most simplistic of terms, this can more accurately be referred to as the convergence of Academia, Big Tech and Big Government. This convergence appears to be aimed squarely at the parallel economy, entirely dependent upon those who will ultimately be appointed.
The approach can effectively be broken down into four categories:
The Researchers
The creation of a new bureau to create behavioral and enforceable codes entitled "The Code Council."
The Commission itself, which actually functions as The Court, and
The Code Enforcement Team.
In this article, we break the bill down into these four new "bureaus" being proposed—in an effort to police, and adjudicate the internet.
The Researchers
"Research Office.—In order to carry out the purposes of this Act, the Commission shall establish an office with not fewer than 20 dedicated employees to conduct internal research, and collaborate with outside academics and experts, as appropriate, to further the purposes of the Commission…"
This office "may competitively award grants to academic institutions and experts to conduct research…" Research such as; "a pilot program that allows vetted, nonprofit, financially disinterested academic institutions and experts to access data and other information collected from a digital platform by the Commission for the purposes of research and analysis consistent with the public interest…"
The Code Council
"Establishment.—The Commission shall establish a Code Council that shall develop proposed voluntary or enforceable behavioral codes, technical standards, or other policies for digital platforms through the code process under subsection (e), including with respect to transparency and accountability for algorithmic processes."
This 18 member Code Council will be broken into three groups of six;
Six members shall represent digital platforms, three of which will represent "systemically important platforms," such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon.
Six members will represent NGOs, Academia, and nonprofits like the NAACP, ACLU, Harvard etc.
Six members shall be technical experts in engineering, machine learning, data sciences, etc.
These individuals will essentially be tasked with creating the new internet laws and may, "from time to time, initiate a process to develop a voluntary or enforceable behavioral code, technical standard, or other policy for digital platforms or a class of digital platforms." This process can be initiated by a public petition, or if the council votes, and decides to.
"The Court"
Sections 5, 6, 16, 17, & 18
"(a) Plenary Jurisdiction.—The Commission shall have jurisdiction over any digital platform, the services of which—
(1) originate or are received within the United States; and
(2) affect interstate or foreign commerce."
The Commission will also have its own official Seal, with judicial power and authority, as cited in Sec. 6(h)(2)-
"SEAL.—The Commission shall have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed."
This new quasi-judicial branch's appointees are prohibited from having direct conflicts of interest, and receiving payment for employment elsewhere, while serving. However, this rule isn't necessarily set in stone. Rules related to conflicts of interest can be waived from time to time, if the commission determines it's appropriate.
In addition, the Commission itself is not prohibited from receiving "gifts," pursuant to section 6 (3)(a). Gifts that would be shielded from public disclosure, according to the proposed policy, as currently written.
The Code Enforcers
(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in furtherance of its functions the Commission is authorized to accept, hold, administer, and use unconditional gifts, donations, and bequests of real, personal, and other property (including voluntary and uncompensated services).
In fact, there are "NO LIMITATIONS ON VOLUNTARY SERVICES."
These volunteer services could include coders and software engineers from Google, Facebook, Amazon etc., who would be tasked with reviewing online content and transactions. Nothing in the bill would prohibit these volunteers from being on the payroll of a digital platform, or a "systemically important platform," defined in Sec. 10. Furthermore, these volunteers would not be considered federal employees, and therefore the rules of entrapment e.g. would not be applicable.
The Commission may also delegate authority to any of its employees or volunteers. At which time; the reports, decisions and evidence of that individual, would be given the full force of effect and jurisdiction, as the commission itself.
This section essentially creates code enforcers, with autonomy and prosecutorial powers. The only differentiation the bill makes is between those conducting investigations, and those handling prosecution cases. The bill expressly prohibits an individual from acting in both roles, specifically outlining technical experts for the investigation side, and legal experts for the prosecution side.
An aggrieved individual may file an application with the commission for review, however, the commission can deny that application without specifying a reason.
All decisions are final and applicable to appeal, as long as remedy has been exhausted through the commission. For all intent and purposes this bill is establishing, among other things, the internet court.
What's currently unknown is internet jurisprudence, or what this new jurisdiction will be founded upon? How does one argue status,standing, or jurisdiction within the internet? Must you first have a digital ID?
For example, Administrative jurisdiction is based in maritime, or contract law. Whereas constitutional jurisdiction is the law of the land. Is it possible that space might be the new jurisdiction of internet laws, and if so, how does one go about establishing standing in space? If passed, we might find out the answer, but not earlier than five years from now.
Section 19 Reports to Congress (another panel)
The president, not earlier than five years after enactment, shall create an independent panel to comprehensively study the policies, operations and regulations of the commission.
This panel of ten people will then "submit an in-depth report to the congressional committees of jurisdiction, including the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives…"
All of this is expected to cost the American taxpayers 4.5 billion dollars through fiscal year 2032. Appropriations begin at 100 million dollars, beginning with this fiscal year.
(1) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2023;
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2024;
(3) $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2025;
(4) $450,000,000 for fiscal year 2026; and
(5) $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2032.
To put this amount into perspective, the national budget for the entire WIC program is earmarked at a grand total of 104,000,000 for this fiscal year.
Within the entire Rural Development budget appropriations, no agency can receive an increase or decrease of 5 percent. Yet, this commission would see a 100 percent increase, after its first year, regardless of efficacy.
In fact, the American taxpayers will not even have the opportunity to review the commission, its policies, operations or regulations earlier than five years after its creation. That's five years with full authority to police and adjudicate the internet, without oversight or accountability.
At this point in time, it's unclear what type of penalties will exist, as these decisions have largely been left to the commission to decide upon creation.
What is clear from the language of this substantial policy package, is that Sen. Bennett is essentially proposing a new federal law enforcement agency for the internet. Including, new "bureaus" with code research and development authority, and a new jurisdiction of law for which to prosecute violations of the codes to come.
For all of these reasons, including the exorbitant cost to taxpayers without accountability for at least five years, America Mission rates this as a bad bill.
If you agree with our rating, or not, have additional thoughts, comments, or amendment proposals, make sure to join our AMGrind TwitterX Space every morning at 5am, hosted by Patrick Rafferty and our policy discussion this coming Thursday, August 3rd, at 2pm EST.
AM Digital Platform Act (S1671) Review - the Restrict Act is back +++
Make sure to follow @AmericaMission, subscribe to our SubStack, and
ring the tip jar for America Mission's policy analyst Breeauna Sagdal
(Breeauna9 on Twitter), if you have appreciated this bill analysis.
Breeauna Sagdal is a former policy analyst who turned a love of the legislative process into a career in policy journalism.
Passionate about local control, Sagdal has cultivated a readership based upon trusted reporting of state and local policies. With a firm belief that the "inside baseball," helps to empower informed voters, Sagdal launched The Dakota Leader in January of 2022 to cover each bill of South Dakota's 97th Legislative Session. Since then, The Dakota Leader has laid the foundation for transparency in government with original source reporting, while giving a voice to those who have been silenced by today's media apparatus.
The Dakota Leader can be found at the DakotaLeader.com.
.