INTRODUCING: The Too Long;Do Read

A new feature of The Klonickles: The TL;DR round-up gives a quick analysis of consumer, industry, academic, and legal news every Friday. It will be free in March, paid-only starting in April.

TL;DR on the TikTok Ban

Last week, the House passed a bill in a 352-55 vote—the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act—that could ban TikTok in the United States. It is unlikely to pass in the Senate due to the narrow majority held by Democrats, an open amendment process likely to significantly change the bill’s contents, and external political pressures from a variety of political stakeholders.

TL;DR:

• “Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” is a funny way of pronouncing “Xenophobic and Likely Unconstitutional Act.” But what do I know, I only study this stuff for a living. Here’s a bunch of smart people, not me, saying the same thing:

Jameel Jaffer of the Knight First Amendment Institute:

Prof. Anupam Chander at Georgetown University Law Center:

Prof. David Kaye at UC Irvine Law School in Foreign Affairs:

But if you’re looking for a deeper legal analysis look no further than this amazing 30 year-old Note in the Columbia Law Review¹ discussing this exact issue, but in the context of foreign ownership restrictions in media in Section 310(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, which applies to radio stations, broadcast television, and many telephone companies (those employing wireless communication links), but not to cable companies. Again, this is THIRTY YEARS OLD and EVEN THEN the author is describing the policy as anachronistic and in violation of the First Amendment:

• There’s lots of good stuff in there, but this is TL;DR so here’s the takeaway of the 40 page law review note for the First Amendment lawyers out there:

  • Foreign ownership is very likely a content based restriction.

  • Such restriction should be viewed under a Red Lion analysis, which would subject it to an intermediary standard of scrutiny in a First Amendment analysis.

  • Such a statute would fail to survive a Red Lion analysis because the internet does not have the same spectrum concerns as broadcast (please note this analysis was written before Reno v. ACLU).

TL;DR from Industry: Duco's Trust & Safety Market Research Report

Duco just released its Trust & Safety Market Research Report, which provides a business case for investment in trust and safety—the main takeaway is what most in this industry already know: from a business perspective, trust and safety is a smart, profitable, and unavoidable allocation of company resources. 

TL;DR:

• Duco estimates AI will largely replace human labor in trust and safety by 2028.

  • AI is cheaper than outsourced human content moderation, especially as labor in this market pushes for unionizing.

• Trust and safety isn’t going to be a question of company self-regulation anymore. More stringent regulations will require companies to invest in trust and safety in order to be in compliance. (*Waves in the general direction of the Digital Services Act*) 

• Increasing global internet usage and reliance on connectivity will cause ad and user-generated revenue to continue to grow, fueling a need for trust and safety solutions to new markets.

TL;DR from Academia: Robyn Caplan: A Working History of the Verified Internet 

Prof. Robyn Caplan at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy published Part One of her series on A Working History of the Verified Badge: An Exploration of the Role the Badge Has Played in Several Critical Periods of Platform History. While it’s clear how users benefit from this stratification of status, Caplan says, it’s harder to understand how platforms have used these badges to establish their own authority. 

Part One—titled “Studying a Moving Target”— outlined how Caplan’s research expectations turned on a dime when Musk announced Twitter’s pay-per-badge feature in November 2022. Through a series of interviews, Caplan discovered that the blue check verification held widely different meanings for users. 

TL;DR: As legislation moves forward around user age verification technology the history of platform user verification systems will become more and more relevant.

TL;DR from Europe: How the Digital Markets Act Just Changed Tech Products You Use Everyday

Six companies – Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, and ByteDance – had to submit changes to twenty-two of their services by March 6 as a result of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). This article in Le Monde gives a great summary of the most significant changes. 

TL;DR:

• Google can no longer preferentially rank its own products (for example, Google Flights, Google Maps).

• You don’t need a Facebook account to use Meta’s Messenger anymore.

• iPhone users can download apps through channels other than the App Store, and in-app payments can now be processed through non-Apple channels as well. 

• Microsoft must allow users to uninstall some apps on their default operating system.

• Browser choice unlocked: Apple (Safari) and Google (Chrome) must allow users to choose their own default web browser. 

• Companies within the scope of the DMA are no longer allowed to ‘cross-use’ data from their various platforms without explicit user permission.

  • This is why users have begun to receive messages from companies asking for consent to cross-use data amongst their platforms, which is core to many of their business models. 

• Meta must make its direct messaging platforms, WhatsApp and Messenger, interoperable with competing messaging apps (for example, Signal, or Telegram) on request.

NEXT WEEK TL;DR PREVIEW:

• Meta’s cancellation of Crowdtangle

• DOJ Apple Suit

• Yoel Roth and Samantha Lai’s analysis of content moderation in decentralized platforms

Thank you to Margo Williams for help reading, summarizing, and analyzing these links and articles.

1. Vol. 95, No. 5 (Jun., 1995), pp. 1188-1231. Thanks to Berin Szóka for the link.