Biden Mostly Ignored The Internet In His State Of The Union, But He Still Has Some Terrible Ideas About It In His Agenda

Every year, the President lays out the administration’s major agenda in the State of the Union address. For those of us who cover tech policy, there’s always some fear that something dumb will be said. In the last couple of years, Biden pushed nonsense moral panics about the evils of the internet. So, in some ways, this year’s State of the Union was a little better because it barely mentioned tech at all, and only did so in the most confusing of ways. This was basically all he said:

Pass bipartisan privacy legislation to protect our children online.

Harness — harness the promise of AI to protect us from peril. Ban AI voice impersonations and more.

The first line is… weird? Because none of the “protect our children” online bills currently being discussed could accurately be described as “privacy legislation.” Indeed, most of those “kid safety” bills would become superfluous if Congress could get its act together and pass actual comprehensive privacy legislation that limited data brokers. But somehow Congress is incapable of doing that one simple thing.

As for the AI bit, that part is also kind of nonsensical. “Harness the promise of AI to protect us from peril?” Huh? And banning AI voice impersonation is an issue way more complicated than that line makes out. There are situations where AI impersonation should be perfectly fine, and others where it’s problematic.

Honestly, it felt like those lines were just last minute add-ins to the speech when someone realized there was no mention of the “boogey man” of “big tech” and something had to be said. If that means that it’s not truly one of Biden’s priorities, I guess that’s an improvement given the nonsense from previous years.

However, along with the actual speech, Biden also released the White House’s official agenda on policy issues, and it has a lot more on tech policy, almost all of it problematic.

It starts out with him again mixing comprehensive privacy legislation with child safety. And, yes, it’s true that comprehensive privacy legislation would help child safety. It would actually help everyone’s safety and isn’t specific to children. This is good, because if it is specific to children, then it’s actually more damaging to kids. It would effectively mandate the collection of more private data to identify kids.

• Protecting Americans’ Privacy and Safety Online, Especially Our Kids.  Consistent with his commitment to tackle the mental health crisis, President Biden has acted to address the compelling and growing evidence that social media and other tech platforms harm mental health and wellbeing of all Americans especially our kids.  In each of his State of the Union Addresses, President Biden has called for strong federal protections for Americans’ privacy, including clear limits on how companies collect, use and share highly personal data – your internet history, your personal communications, your location, and your health, genetic and biometric data.  Disclosure is not enough – President Biden believes much of that data should not be collected in the first place and that young people, who are especially vulnerable online, need even stronger protections.  Last month, President Biden took the most significant federal action any President has ever taken to protect Americans’ data security.  His Executive Order begins a process that will stop the large-scale transfer of this data—which includes intimate insights into Americans’ health, location, and finances—to countries like China and Russia.  But Congress must act.  Strong bipartisan legislation is necessary to regulate the types of data that is collected, protect kids online, and ensure the privacy of all Americans, including legislation that limits targeted advertising and bans it altogether for children. 

Also, it’s simply incorrect that there is “growing evidence that social media and other tech platforms harm mental health and wellbeing.” We’ve pointed out repeatedly that the evidence is incredibly mixed, and there remains no serious research showing a causal link. Some research even suggests that the impact is the other way: that those with mental health challenges end up spending more time on social media because they don’t have access to other sources of help.

Hilariously, the agenda paragraph above links to the Surgeon General’s report on the phrase “growing evidence,” but as we explained, that report does not actually show any “growing evidence” of mental health harms from social media. Instead, it admits that social media is actually very useful for many people, but says we should act as if it does harm, just in case.

So the Biden administration is lying when it says that the evidence supports these harms. It does not, and it’s disappointing that the White House is so quick to misrepresent the data here.

From there, the agenda leads into an extremely misguided and mistargeted attack on Section 230:

• Holding Companies Accountable for the Harms They Cause.  President Biden believes that all companies – including technology companies – should be held accountable for the harms they cause, including the content they spread and the algorithms they use.  For this reason, President Biden has long called on Congress for fundamental reform to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which absolves tech companies from legal responsibility for content posted on their sites.  The President has also called on Congress to stop tech platforms from being used for criminal conduct, including sales of dangerous drugs like fentanyl.  The Biden Administration has also used all its authorities to crack down on algorithmic discrimination and algorithmic collusion and to bring more competition back to the tech sector.  The President’s vision for our economy is one in which everyone – small and midsized businesses, mom-and-pop shops, entrepreneurs – can compete on a level playing field with the biggest companies, including and perhaps especially in the tech sector. That’s why he has also worked with Congress to pass bipartisan legislation to boost funding for federal antitrust enforcers.

Again, all of this is worded in a weird way. If you read the second half, it seems to be talking about competition policy. But, as our own research has shown, having Section 230 leads to greater competition, because without it, only the largest companies could afford the liability risks associated with hosting third-party content.

Also, the bit in the middle about calling on Congress “to stop tech platforms from being used for criminal conduct, including sales of dangerous drugs like fentanyl” is particularly bizarre. Criminal conduct is, by definition, the purview of law enforcement, not private tech companies. This is like saying President Biden is calling on Congress “to stop Walmart from being used for criminal conduct like shoplifting” or “to stop Ford from being used for criminal conduct like providing getaway cars.”

Criminal activity is a law enforcement activity. You should never pin the responsibility on private platforms who are not law enforcement. And, again, Section 230 ALREADY exempts federal criminal law. So if the administration thinks that these companies are violating criminal law, the DOJ can go in and take action. The real question some reporter should ask the White House is “if you think that the companies are hiding behind 230 to avoid liability from criminal activities, why hasn’t the DOJ stepped in and taken action, since Section 230 places no limits on the DOJ?”

But somehow, no one asks that?

All President Biden is doing with these bullet points is misleading the American public. It’s a shame.