Tech Policy Leaders

When the pandemic started, courts that were slower in adopting technology had to undergo a two-week revolution to move their operations to a remote setting. Under normal circumstances, that would have taken them twenty years to achieve.

Existing research shows that while remote technologies can be helpful in court proceedings, they can also harm individuals if not used carefully. Several issues have been coming up around the effects that remote court proceedings have had on our communities.

Today's guest is Douglas Keith, counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, where he works primarily on promoting fair, diverse, and impartial courts. He will walk us through the various concerns.

Douglas Keith was the George A. Katz Fellow at the Brennan Center, where he worked on issues around money in politics, voting rights, and redistricting. His work has been featured in the New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, Atlantic, Guardian, New York Daily News, and Huffington Post.

Before that, Keith worked as a Ford Foundation public interest law fellow at Advancement Project. He directed voting rights advocates in New York, served as an international election observer for the National Democratic Institute and OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, and educated poll workers for the New York City Board of Elections. Keith is a graduate of NYU School of Law and Duke University.

What should we be concerned about?

All existing research suggests a real reason exists for courts to be cautious about doing video hearings. Studies have shown that video court cases have not always worked out as well as those cases when people have appeared in person.

Higher bail amounts charged for video court cases in Chicago

In Chicago, in the early 2000s, courts began using video for most of their felony bail hearings. A study that looked at 600,000 of those hearings found that judges imposed much higher bail amounts for those required to have video hearings rather than appearing in person. On average, the video cases paid 50% more bail, and in some instances, they paid up to 90% more.

People detained in deportation proceedings

People detained in deportation proceedings stood a much higher chance of being removed if they were required to appear by video rather than appearing in person.

A quiet place to appear and access to broadband

When people get detained, questions tend to arise about the quality of the broadband and them having access to a quiet place to appear. Also, when someone has to appear in court remotely from a jail or prison setting, the background could influence, impact, or change how a judge might view them as an individual.

The digital divide

When someone not detained has to appear remotely, many different issues related to the digital divide could arise. They might not have the quality of internet that a judge might expect, and there are also massive differences in terms of the devices people are using to access the proceedings. Those issues need to be taken into account if the proceedings are to be fair.

What has changed?

Since Douglas has been advocating for the communities that have been affected by doing court proceedings remotely, there have been technological improvements that might make a difference.

Remote proceedings are here to stay

Over the last year, courts have become very enthusiastic about how remote proceedings have been working out. Court leaders across the country have said that remote proceedings are here to stay because they have been efficient, speedy, and time-saving.

The problem

Most jurisdictions have not been talking to the people going through remote court proceedings or their attorneys to learn what is and is not working.

A common concern

A common concern with remote hearings is the ability for the client to communicate with their attorney during the proceedings. That ability gets hampered because remote tools do not allow the client and attorney to make eye contact and quietly confer about any information that might be relevant to the case during the proceedings.

Eviction proceedings

Douglas spoke to many individuals from legal aid organizations, representing people earning below certain income thresholds and going through eviction proceedings.

What you can do, on a local level, when someone's rights are violated

1. Pay closer attention to what the courts in your jurisdiction are doing. Courts often allow for public comment or testimony when going through the process of proposing rule changes to allow for more remote proceedings.
2. Engage with the courts and get involved. Watch your local courts to see the types of rule changes they are proposing, in terms of remote proceedings. If you disapprove and they do not require consent to move forward remotely, write to the court to tell them about your concerns and why you think consent should be required.

Resolving the issues

Advocates from all over the country are busy working on resolving these issues. They range from academics studying the impact of remote tools during the pandemic to practitioners in various spaces, guiding attorneys.

Research

More research is needed because we do not know enough about how people are being affected by remote tools. At the Brennan Center, they advocate for more resources towards that research to prevent the courts from inadvertently doing any harm.

Some other issues that Douglas is working on that are happening where tech intersects with the judicial system

Douglas is working on allowing the public access to court proceedings. During the pandemic, many courts started live streaming. That allows court watch groups to remotely observe the court proceedings and report to the public what is and is not working in the courthouses. That raised questions about the point of allowing public access to the courts.

The watchdog effect

Public access makes the court aware that it is being watched and reminds them of their responsibility. Live streaming might result in a loss of some of that watchdog effect. So although technology has improved public access to the courts in some ways, we could also lose something along the way.

Remote tools

The use of remote tools in the courts is nuanced. They can lessen the burden that the courts place on people, but there are also times when those tools could be a cause for concern. That is why the courts need to work with their communities to find the right answers.

Resources:

The Brennan Center for Justice

Washingtech.org

FdYPoT0ddFB6jdnpMJ45

WashingTECH Policy Podcast was started largely because of the impact of tech, AI and cybersecurity on communities of color, working class and immigrants, and none of the big players in the industry have it on their radar.

Our conversation today is on this very topic and there is no one more knowledgeable on the topic than Camille Stewart.

Camille Stewart is an attorney and executive whose crosscutting perspective on complex technology, cyber, and national security, and foreign policy issues has landed her in significant roles at leading government and private sector companies like the Department of Homeland Security, Deloitte, and Google. Camille builds global cybersecurity, privacy, and election security/integrity programs in complex environments for large companies and government agencies.

Camille is the Global Head of Product Security Strategy at Google advising Google's product leads on federated security and risk. Previously, Camille was the Head of Security Policy for Google Play and Android at Google where she leads security, privacy, election integrity, and dis/mis-information. Prior to Google, Camille was a manager in Deloitte's Cyber Risk practice working on cybersecurity, election security, tech innovation, and risk issues for DHS, DOD, and other federal agencies.

Diversity in Cybersecurity is a Problem

We have long ignored the fact that addressing issues of diversity is more than just the right thing to do, as it is actually a mission imperative in cybersecurity. And as technology underpins pretty much everything that we do, how systemic racism is amplified, or cured by technology implementation, is something that we have to be thinking about.

And the policy decisions that we've made in the past, and the ones that we make moving forward, are all impacted by a society built on systemic racism, our investments are all impacted by legacy and current day systemic racism, informed decision making policies and bodies.

The Paper to Address Diversity

The Aspen Institute came to Camille seeing this moment where we needed to kind of dive in and talk about how diversity, equity and inclusion is impacting the work and convened a large group of folks across diverse backgrounds, leaders in cybersecurity, academia, industry government, to come together for a closed door, Chatham House rules, discussion on how we could move the needle on this.

How can we come together to identify what the issues are around diversity and cybersecurity and then come up with some solutions. And the thing that was really appreciated is, as Aspen and Camille worked through this, they were very clear that it needed to be action oriented. And so the discussion was really rooted in that how can we actually do work, take action, to drive diversity and inclusion in cybersecurity, for the betterment of not only the people who will and may participate in this industry, but also for the work.

Why Diversity In Cybersecurity Should Matter to Everyone

Let's think about the large scale cyber incidents we've seen recently. The attack on Colonial Pipeline then cascaded into you, not being able to get gas. The attack on JBS foods that meant you probably couldn't get your lunch meat for your kids, means that you should be concerned about cybersecurity as an individual.

And there are so many other reasons beyond that, but those very large scale incidents are very attached to the individual and how they impact your ability to access services and operate, or because you as an individual could take an action that could lead to one of those breaches.

So diversity, as a part of cybersecurity as a part of the industry is important because you can identify things based on your lived experiences and how technology shows up in your life that other people cannot.

The Future of the Cybersecurity Workforce

A lot of the diversity issues in cybersecurity are systemic. There are issues with hiring; there are issues with retention; issues of education.

So many people don't even recognize the fact that working in technology, and cybersecurity is an option for them - access to the industry, building a network, etc. And so we created some buckets that kind of address those things divided up the practitioners that were participating.

They put their brain power behind thinking about what are some solutions to the educational barriers. Certifications are a common tool in cybersecurity. But that's really tough, because most certifications require some years of experience. And you're seeing a lot of entry level jobs that require those certifications. How can it be an entry level job if you need five years of experience to get the certification that is required to get the job?

Links and Resources:

Connect with Camille on Twitter or Instagram @Camilleesq

Camille's Paper

Some of the earliest documented instances of health misinformation occurred as early as the 1930s. So it's not as recent of a phenomenon as you may think. Obviously, social media has made the speed and prevalence of health misinformation and disinformation much worse.

It started with cancer misinformation, but now we are dealing with vaccine misinformation and of course, the battle field is social media.

All of the medical and technological advances we have made as a first world country don't make a difference if we can't overcome the health disinformation that is prevalent on social media.

Today's guest is Dr. Tara Sell. Dr. Sell is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Health and Engineering and a Senior Associate at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. She conducts research to develop a greater understanding of potentially large-scale health events such as disease outbreaks, bioterrorism, natural disasters, or radiological/nuclear events.

Dr. Sell's work focuses on improving public health policy and practice in order to reduce the health impacts of disasters and terrorism. She works on qualitative and quantitative research analyses and uses this research to assist in the development of strategy and policy recommendations. Her primary research interests include biosecurity and biodefense, public health preparedness, emerging infectious disease, federal funding and budgeting, and nuclear preparedness policy and practice. She also serves as an Associate Editor of the peer-reviewed journal Health Security (formerly Biosecurity and Bioterrorism).

How to Discern the Truth

Determining how true information that you share on social media is can be confusing. Disinformation is designed to look like accurate information and is more easily shareable that you realize.

As a society, we have to do 2 things:

1. We need to hold policy makers accountable to the truth and to come up with solutions to address the disinformation.
2. We have to have a national strategy that controls the spread and sources of misinformation and a system to promote good information, increase public resiliency to misinformation and bring all of the stakeholders together.

Identifying Misinformation Needs to be a Top Priority

Misinformation is intentionally designed to play on your emotions, and be so compelling that you will also want to share it.

We need to have a unified effort to show people the tactics that are being used to make us an unwitting accomplice in the spread of misinformation.

There are online fact checking tools that simply aren't used enough. Additionally, when misinformation is prevalent, there isn't a cohesive strategy to help us share the truth as a countermeasure to the misinformation.

Better digital literacy will go a long way in helping combat misinformation.

Government Skepticism

One thing that is hindering the adoption of the safe and effective vaccines, is the general distrust of the government. It's not good for the government to be playing the role as the arbiter of truth in these situations.

The government needs to be more transparent and bring together different agencies and address misinformation from a public health perspective, but it also needs to bleed into the national security side of government.

We need a national strategy to confront health misinformation across the spectrum, so that it can more easily be identified and stamped out.

Being Caught In the Middle With Friends and Family

Many people are dreading the potential confrontations that may happen at the Thanksgiving table over the medical misinformation on the different sides of the political arguments.

If you find yourself in this situation, Tara advises:

1. Engage respectfully. No one will be convinced of the truth if they are dismissed or ridiculed.
2. Connect over shared values. Everyone wants their children and their families to be safe.
3. Talk about the tactics used to spread misinformation and your experience with it.
4. Discuss alternative explanations for the conspiracy theories and use information sources that people will accept.
5. Provide trusted sources for information that are not the CDC or WHO since they have become targets. Use Johns Hopkins or other reputable medical sources. Enlist the help of trusted family members.

The High Cost of Misinformation

Tara's organization did an analysis of what the actual misinformation is costing us, as medical misinformation has been declared a public health emergency.

If 5% of non-vaccination is caused by medical misinformation, that leads to a cost of $50M in harm each day of a non-Delta surge environment. It would be even bigger during the Delta surge or if that non-vaccination number due to misinformation is higher.

If it's 30% then that number increases to a cost of $300M dollars per day.

Who Is It Costing?

The cost of misinformation is spread out across sectors, but where ever there are people bearing more of the burden for misinformation, the associated costs are also concentrated there.

What Can You Do?

We have to face the fact that health related misinformation is going to be with us for a while. We aren't just going to be done with it when the pandemic is over. New targets will emerge.

We have to make investments in solutions for health misinformation. We have to work on our own resilience. Encourage friends and family to be more resilient to misinformation as well.

Resources:

Connect with Tara on Twitter @skirkell

Chamber of Progress Website

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

Bio

@elizabethbanker

Elizabeth Banker is Vice President of Legal Advocacy for Chamber of Progress. Elizabeth brings twenty-five years of in-house, law firm, and trade association experience on intermediary liability, Section 230, and online safety. Most recently, Elizabeth was Deputy General Counsel at Internet Association where she directed policy on consumer privacy and content moderation. While at IA, Elizabeth conducted a review of 500 Section 230 decisions and testified twice before the Senate on efforts to reform Section 230.

Elizabeth has first-hand experience responding to the challenges that face online services as a veteran of both Twitter and Yahoo!. She was Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Law Enforcement, Security and Safety at Yahoo! Inc. for more than a decade. More recently she was Senior Director and Associate General Counsel for Global Law Enforcement and Safety at Twitter. Elizabeth spent five years as a shareholder at ZwillGen, a boutique law firm focused on privacy and security in Washington, D.C. Elizabeth began her career in government with the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection during the Clinton Administration.

Resources:

Progress Chamber Website

:

With Federal privacy regulation leaving much to be desired, it has fallen to individual states to make up the gap and establish their own privacy rules. This approach is problematic for many reasons, which is why Justin Brookman is on the show today.

Correction: The name of the individual Joe referenced in the intro is Alex Stamos, from the Stanford Internet Observatory, not John Stamos as was stated in the episode

Consumer Privacy Has a Home a Consumer Reports

Justin Brookman is with Consumer Reports where he's the head of tech policy. He wrote an excellent paper several months ago on state privacy regulation (you can read it here). Justin is the Director, Consumer Privacy and Technology Policy, for Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports. In this new privacy role at CR, he will help the organization continue its groundbreaking work to shape the digital marketplace in a way that empowers consumers and puts their data privacy and security needs first. This work includes using CR research to identify critical gaps in consumer privacy, data security, and technology law and policy, as well as building strategies to expand the use and influence of the new Digital Standard being developed by CR and partner organizations to evaluate the privacy and security of products and services.

The Politics of Privacy

If you keep up with the news of the day, you know that right now, everybody has had it with big tech companies, like Facebook. Consumers, politicians, the media and other businesses have been sounding off about the pitfalls of having big tech intrude into our lives.

It's brought about a lot of policy proposals, but no comprehensive legislation that is likely to pass at the Federal level. This gaping hole has been filled in by the privacy legislation that is popping up at the state level.

Legislation State By State

As is often the case, California is one of the first states to come forward with privacy legislation of its own. The California Consumer Privacy Act has already been amended to make the legislation stronger than the original bill.

Virginia also came forward with a bill, and Colorado quickly followed suit. We're also currently seeing legislative battles in New York and Washington State over privacy, and the proposals are really all over the place.

The Federal Role of Privacy

The Federal government has basically taken a hands off approach to the privacy legislation popping up around the country. Because all of the privacy laws ultimately center around the first amendment, the Federal government is reluctant to play a heavy handed role in the laws that are cropping up throughout the country.

There have been some challenges to legislation around the first amendment and some have been rejected, as the judiciary is reluctant to regulate companies.

Consumers vs. Businesses vs. Government

Consumers don't want Facebook or their ISPs to track their every move and collect data on them. At the same time, the government doesn't want private data collected to be in the hands of these companies and outside of the reach of government agencies.

Many states are willing to take a more aggressive approach to privacy in light of the massive data breaches that consumers have experienced in recent years.

Where are we now

While it's clear that aggressive action needs to be taken to prevent data breaches, it's going to take regulatory agencies some time to catch up because Federal legislation moves so slowly.

Much of the existing legislation is unwieldy for the consumer. Whether it relies on a physical opt out by consumers or it goes state by state, it's just not that easy for consumers to actually protect themselves with the current regulations.

State legislatures do not have the staff or the expertise to create the kind of legislation that is needed for consumers to truly be protected.

We need to find a balance between what can effectively protect consumers, but also allow businesses to function in a way that doesn't put consumers at risk.

Resources:

Connect with Justin on Twitter @justinbrookman

CDT Comments to US Dept. of ED Urging the Protection of Students of Color and Students with Disabilities, And Their Data

@venzkec

Cody Venzke is a Policy Counsel for CDT's Equity in Civic Technology Project, where he works to ensure that education agencies and other civic institutions use technology responsibly and equitably while protecting the privacy and civil rights of individuals. He is a contributor to the California Lawyers Association's treatise on the California Consumer Privacy Act, including on the right to opt out and compliance with recordkeeping and training requirements.

Prior to joining CDT, Cody served as an Attorney Advisor at the Federal Communications Commission and clerked for the Honorable Julio M. Fuentes on the Third Circuit and the Honorable Jan E. DuBois in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Cody also worked on the litigation team of an international law firm, where he served clients in emerging technologies such as clean energy, medicine, and media. In his pro bono work, Cody has represented tenants in eviction actions, assisted applicants under the U visa program, and supported litigation to ensure criminal defendants receive adequate representation under the Fifth Amendment. Prior to starting his law career, Cody taught math at a large public high school in Houston, Texas through Teach For America.

Cody graduated from St. Olaf College and Stanford Law School, and grew up in rural Iowa.

Margaret graduated cum laude from the University of Minnesota Law School in 2003 and began her legal career with the Housing Preservation Project. She began her career as a community organizer, fighting for the rights of manufactured home community members with All Parks Alliance for Change. After law school, Margaret joined HJC under its former name Housing Preservation Project, where she worked on a range of issues including preservation of federally subsidized housing and manufactured home community preservation. She then returned to APAC as the Legal and Public Policy Director where she helped resident associations fight for their rights in parks, represented resident associations in court, and helped push legislation to support manufactured homeowners, including a law that prevented deceptive lending practices and creation of the relocation trust fund for homeowners displaced through park closures. Next, she spent four years at the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs as the Operations Director for the Minnesota Center for Neighborhood Organizing, working to ensure that people affected by decisions had the tools and skills to organize and advocate on issues ranging from education to transportation to police community relations to housing. Most recently she spent six years as the Community Development Director at Minnesota Housing where she worked to create connections between community needs across the state of Minnesota and the programs and policies of Minnesota Housing. Margaret was also a policy fellow with the North Star Policy Institute. She brings a wealth of knowledge about local, state, and federal housing policy and programs as well as a robust background in the intersection of community organizing and the law.

Discussion Materials

Opening the Door: Tenant Screening and Selection

Justin Hendrix is CEO and Editor of Tech Policy Press, a new nonprofit media venture concerned with the intersection of technology and democracy. Previously, he was Executive Director of NYC Media Lab. He spent over a decade at The Economist in roles including Vice President, Business Development & Innovation. He is an associate research scientist and adjunct professor at NYU Tandon School of Engineering.

Bio

David J. Johns is known for his passion, public policy acumen and fierce advocacy for youth. He is an enthusiast about equity—leveraging his time, talent and treasures to address the needs of individuals and communities often neglected and ignored. A recognized thought leader and social justice champion, David's career has focused on improving life outcomes and opportunities for Black people.

On September 1, 2017, David Johns began his next life chapter as the executive director of the National Black Justice Coalition (NBJC)—a civil rights organization dedicated to the empowerment of Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people, including people living with HIV/AIDS. NBJC's mission is to end racism, homophobia, and LGBTQ bias and stigma.

In 2013, Johns was appointed as the first executive director of the White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for African Americans (Initiative) by President Barack H. Obama and served until the last day of the Obama Administration in January, 2017. The Initiative worked across federal agencies and with partners and communities nationwide to produce a more effective continuum of education and workforce development programs for African American students of all ages. Under his leadership, the Initiative studied the experiences of students—leveraged a partnership with Johnson Publishing Company (EBONY Magazine) to produce a series of African American Educational Summits (AfAmEdSummits) at college campuses throughout the country, where the only experts who sat in front of the White House seal were students as young as elementary school. The recommendations that students made at AfAmEdSummits have been used to improve policies, programs and practices, including curriculum, designed to ensure that students thrive—both in school and in life.

Prior to his White House appointment, Johns was a senior education policy advisor to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) under the leadership of U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Before working for the Senate HELP Committee, Johns served under the leadership of the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Johns also was a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Fellow in the office of Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY). Johns has worked on issues affecting low-income and minority students, neglected youth, early childhood education, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). His research as an Andrew W. Mellon Fellow served as a catalyst to identify, disrupt and supplant negative perceptions of black males—both within academia and society. Johns is committed to volunteer services and maintains an active commitment to improve literacy among adolescent minority males.

Johns has been featured as an influential politico and advocate by several publications and outlets, including TheRoot.com, NBC, EBONY and The Washington Post. Johns is a prominent strategist who offers commentary for several media outlets including BET, CNN, EducationPost and TV One.

David is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in sociology and education policy at Columbia University. Johns obtained a master's degree in sociology and education policy at Teachers College, Columbia University, where he graduated summa cum laude while simultaneously teaching elementary school in New York City. He graduated with honors from Columbia University in 2004 with a triple major in English, creative writing and African American studies. Johns was named to the Root100 in both 2013 and 2014, selected as a member of the Ebony Power 100 in 2015, and received an early career award from Columbia University, Teachers College in 2016. He has also served as an adjunct professor at American University.

Resources

National Black Justice Coalition

Johns, D., 2020. Don't Make the Internet Unwelcome to Diverse Communities, Especially Black and Latinx LGBTQ People. [Blog] Morning Consult, Available at: [Accessed 11 November 2020].

Related Episodes

'Social media policy: It's the moderation, stupid!' with Chris Lewis Ep. 232(Opens in a new browser tab)

Intro

JOE: Hey everybody. So here we are on the other side of the election. They're still counting the votes. But this thing looks over. Even in the face of several lawsuits, President Trump has brought to challenge the election results, Biden's win is only becoming more decisive. The president-elect is on track to win by over 5 million popular votes, bringing his total to more than 80 million, more than any presidential candidate in history, and he still has another 75 likely electoral votes outstanding in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia. So ... we're pretty much done here.

Hit me up. (866) 482-3898. Leave your thoughts! Maybe we'll use them in a future episode. (866) 482-3898. What tech policy issues should the Biden administration and Congress focus on? Let us know. (866) 482-3898. Save it to your contacts. So, you know, I don't have to say the number over and over again.

Like a ShamWow commercial.

So that brings us to -- what will the next 4+ years look like in terms of tech policy? Obviously, China will be a major issue, and particularly Huawei. It will be interesting to see whether the Biden administration continues its ban of U.S. companies doing any business with Huawei whatsoever. Key allies haven't supported the Trump administration's ban, citing their reliance on Huawei technology. Outside of technology, what are the chances of war with China over the coming years, as China has continued to object to the U.S. presence in the South China Sea? What happens there directly affects the tech markets--war would certainly have a major impact on the supply chain. So that is definitely something to watch out for.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which states that platforms aren't legally responsible for the content their users post, has been an issue, as you know, with the Trump administration attempting to get the FCC--an independent agency, no less -- to use Section 230 to rein in what some conservatives see as an "anti-conservative bias" on platforms like Twitter. I'd be very surprised to see the Biden administration continue down that path. It's just a huge waste of administrative, legislative and judicial resources for a policy that, I believe, would ultimately lose on First Amendment grounds once it hit the Supreme Court. Republicans and some Democrats could certainly purse reforming Section 230. But we'll have to see if Josh Hawley is as passionate about illegal sexual content, and sex trafficking, as he says he is, and pursues Section 230 as vigorously as he has up until now.

And another issue, I think, that we haven't heard a lot about but probably should since we saw growth among Latino and Black working-class voters voting for Trumpism, is the Future of Work. What does the future of work look like for Americans in a tech sector that hasn't done anything meaningful, other than releasing diversity reports, to improve diversity and inclusion -- nothing observable, I should say, because we can't see everything that's going on--all we see are the numbers which are pretty sad--they don't look anything like the U.S. population. And you have companies like IBM already lobbying the Biden administration to fill the government skills gap by working with these same companies. The same companies hiring from the same 5 schools. We have over 5,000 colleges in the United States, many of which offer amazing programs -- since they're accredited, right? -- they have amazing programs but don't have the endowments--they don't have the marketing budgets--for various, historical reasons we don't need to get into. We hear a lot about recruiting from HBCUs. That's great! But we have many many state and local colleges with incredible diversity -- Minority Serving Institutions -- with Black, Latino, Middle Eastern, Asian, and Native American students -- that don't get much advocacy at all. Why is that?

So those are just 3 areas I'm certainly going to be watching. There are many, many others, we'll get to them on future episodes …

Let's get into Section 230 -- David Johns, Executive Director of the National Black Justice Coalition, and someone I greatly, and many, greatly respect and admire this man for his sheer intellect and incredible interpersonal skills. He is an enthusiast about equity—leveraging his time, talent, and treasures to address the needs of individuals and communities often neglected and ignored. A recognized thought leader and social justice champion, David's career has focused on improving life outcomes and opportunities for Black people. David Johns.