Since its founding, America has valued free speech and equal access to business opportunity. U.S. policies, along with sources of capital, have encouraged innovation and a culture that enables the next startup. One not-so-secret ingredient is disruption. The U.S. has thrived with a vibrant mix of successful companies and startups that eventually disrupt incumbents, like AT&T and IBM, and replace everyday items that were once cutting-edge, like dial-up telephones and fax machines.

In a recent op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) expressed his disappointment at the pace of U.S. innovation, saying the “modern smartphone, the search engine and the digital social network were invented more than a decade ago.”

The senator mentions these American innovations as if they were the only major recent advances, ignoring innovations that have sprung from these noteworthy technical developments.

Consumers increasingly search for information not on desktop computers, but with mobile devices and voice-activated assistants like Siri or Alexa to navigate both the questions and answers. They are connecting on a wider range of social networks than a decade ago, and those platforms offer competing privacy options. Chat features adapted from social networks are now making the workplace more efficient and collaborative.

More affordable smartphones, connected to high-speed internet, have made it possible for more people around the world to access information, make their voices heard, connect to friends and grow businesses. The expanded features on smartphones have replaced other separate devices consumers used to buy to take pictures, get directions or listen to music.

Everything Gets Smarter

What’s more, innovations developed for smartphones have expanded into sensors and devices that are enabling smart cities and precision agriculture, improving everything from how we use parking meters to how farmers monitor crops. Parents of children with diabetes can monitor blood sugar levels on their phones, get alerted to dangers and even remotely deliver insulin through ports connected to these wireless devices.

And smartphones and digital services are hardly the latest American innovation. Ever-smaller electronic components and chips that cost less and are more efficient are fueling next-generation technology like artificial intelligence and techniques such as deep learning. This technology will power developments on the horizon like self-driving cars, robots and drones. Senator Hawley’s initial premise — that there haven’t been amazing innovations since the smartphone and search engine — completely ignores the tech sector’s recent advances in AI and machine learning, quantum computing and microprocessors.

Senator Hawley would have you believe that the battery on U.S. innovation is half empty, but as someone who has advocated for competition in the tech industry for more than 30 years, I would assert that the battery is fully charged. More than ever, technology is fueling innovation that benefits consumers and the economy.

Internet services account for the fastest-growing export in the U.S. services sector. According to the latest numbers from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the digital economy accounted for 5.9 million jobs of the overall 150.3 million jobs, and worker compensation was nearly double that of other sectors at $114,275. Tech investment in research and development is higher than any other industry, with the top 10 tech companies spending $163 billion on R&D last year. Policymakers should not disregard this evidence when considering how the digital revolution has transformed our society.

At the core of America’s innovative mindset has been our open-minded, free-speech culture that respects the honesty inherent in the scientific method. Respect for facts, demonstrable truth and clear-thinking analysis is central to innovative thinking. Evidence-based enforcement of the law is also crucial not to stifle innovation. That’s why it is disappointing when politicians offer extreme remedies ahead of evidence.

Misinformation about the tech sector’s dynamics, and failure to acknowledge the importance of having a robust U.S. tech industry, only endangers our economic security. While I look forward to this election, politicians seem to be running on a platform of how to break up America’s most successful companies, rather than offering a proactive plan to increase jobs and encourage businesses to grow and start here.

No Free Passes

This doesn’t mean any company should get a free pass. My association has a 45-year history of supporting government action against companies that have violated competition laws. But dismantling companies because they are successful and resigning our strategic position in technological innovation to competitors overseas is not a plan for the economy.

In fact, tech companies themselves are publicly recognizing that we need new policies in certain areas. Companies are also providing more tools for internet users to manage data and offering more options for privacy.

Senator Hawley suggests the government should block features like scrolling to limit time on electronic devices, when those can often already be controlled by device settings — or by parents.

The senator also too easily dismisses the threat China poses as a competitor. Countries like China would like nothing better than to displace U.S. tech companies, and to dismantle these companies for political purposes would hand China that opportunity.

This is worrisome for reasons beyond economics. China and other internet-restricting countries have different ideas about everything from freedom of speech and online privacy to capitalism and democracy. To export these values around the world requires companies that support democratic principles to lead. To this end, we need honest conversations based on facts, rather than incorrect assumptions about competition dynamics in the tech sector.

Ed Black is president and CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association in Washington, D.C.

Computer companies were quick to attack Sen. Josh Hawley's bill that would make social media networks promise not to censor political speech, and create a government apparatus for certifying that. Those companies, or at least a major trade association representing many of them, said it was the stuff of dystopian fiction and worse, even suggesting the Senator was creating a home for white nationalist propaganda.

Hawley, a freshman senator from Missouri, has been an unrelenting critic of social media, calling it an "unproductive peril," echoing the sort of rhetoric leveled by legislators at, successively, publishers of ghoulish comics, violent westerns and detective TV shows, and violent video games, though the issue has wider implications given the power of the 'net over every facet of life and work.

Hawley's latest volley came Wednesday (June 19) in the form of the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act.

“Fans of the fictitious ‘1984’ novel would no doubt appreciate the ludicrousness of a so-called anti-censorship bill that would require companies to get government approval to censor nefarious content -- or face legal liability, said Ed Black, president of the Computer & Communications Industry Association, whose members include Facebook, Google and many other edge providers."This is an unbelievable disregard for the essence of the First Amendment and attempt to overlay a lens of partisan politics over the communications of millions of Americans," he said.

While Democrats have their own issues with social media and Big Tech, they generally view the "conservative bias" allegation as a distraction from other issues like, say, use of social media for Russian election meddling or sex trafficking or hate speech.

“If Congress is serious about tech companies doing more to remove hate speech and illegal content online, putting new restrictions on the legal protection that allows them to do that would be ill-advised," he said. "CCIA has spent decades fighting internet censorship regimes around the world, alongside U.S. diplomats. It would be disappointing to see the country that has been a leader against restrictive regimes create its own government-regulated regime to oversee the political correctness of internet content.” 

“At a time when white nationalists are stealthily seeding calls in the mainstream press for ‘viewpoint neutrality’, it’s troubling that the Senator would contemplate legislation forcing online services to carry these views. American businesses shouldn’t be forced to be neutral toward racism and extremism," said Black.

What speech is harmful and should be removable is the central  issue of the debate over what role social media should have in policing its content given the power and reach of those platforms.

A just-released Pew Research poll found that respondents did not trust Big Tech to be able to decide what was offensive content and were split on whether they could identify it themselves.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a law that would route internet traffic through Russian servers, according to the Associated Press, which is either insurance against having a "hostile power" cut off Russia's access to the wider web, or a way to control information to its citizens.

The bill was reportedly first introduced in response to the U.S. response to 2016 Russian election meddling.

U.S. computer companies are definitely seeing it as the latter.

"The Russian government enacted legislation that will extend Russia's authoritarian control of the Internet by taking steps to create a local Internet infrastructure, shutting out citizens from the rest of the online world," the Computer & Communications Industry Association said Thursday (May 2).

CCIA has expressed concerns about what it sees as a growing trend by foreign governments to balkanize the Web, a point it made to the U.S. Trade Representative last fall.

"[I]n recent years countries have begun to adopt laws and regulations that hinder the further growth and cross-border delivery of Internet services. Under the guise of promoting domestic innovation, national security, and privacy protections, countries are increasingly adopting discriminatory policies that disadvantage U.S. technology companies," it told USTR.

It cited, among other things, the 2015 law that "requires all operators that process the personal data of Russian citizens to maintain databases located in Russia and the 2017 amendments to its Information Law that requires VPN operators from preventing users in Russia from accessing Web sites blocked in Russia.

"For years we've seen alarming censorship measures in Russia," said CCIA president Ed Black. "The legislation approved today is yet another step by the Russian government to restrict access online and artificially create borders on the Internet. We strongly encourage the international community and U.S. Administration to respond."

CCIA members comprise a Who's Who of edge providers, tech companies and others including Amazon, Facebook, Google, Intel, Samsung, Mozilla, Dish and Univision.

Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has released her full technology  policy agenda, which includes fighting for Title II -- and applying it to interconnection -- in court if need be and tapping into a $25 billion Infrastructure Bank to provide money to localities to foster access to high-speed Internet at "affordable prices."

Among her other planks are defending net neutrality abroad, creating a Chief Innovation Adviser position, closing the "digital divide," pushing 5G wireless deployment, reallocating and repurposing government spectrum, and promoting a multistakeholder model of Internet governance.

"Hillary believes that the government has an obligation to protect the open internet," the campaign said. [She] strongly supports the FCC decision under the Obama Administration to adopt strong network-neutrality rules that deemed Internet service providers to be common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. These rules now ban broadband discrimination, prohibit pay-for-play favoritism and establish oversight of “interconnection” relationships between providers. Hillary would defend these rules in court and continue to enforce them. She also maintains her opposition to policies that unnecessarily restrict the free flow of data online – such as the high-profile fight over the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)."

In the platform, the Clinton campaign points out that the candidate made network neutrality a foreign policy imperative as Secretary of State..

The Computer & Communications Industry Association, representing many companies that also pushed for net-neutrality rules and broadband buildouts, applauded the candidate's tech platform.

“The ability to grow the economy in the future will depend on a good foundation for the digital economy," said CCIA president Ed Black. "This is the platform of a candidate who can be trusted to grow the economy. [W]hat distinguishes Clinton is her articulation of a platform to provide better trained workers, Internet access, and policies both here and with our trading partners to deliver economic growth.” 

CCIA had suggested a tech policy platform in a letter to the presidential candidates.

Linda Moore, president of TechNet, comprising senior technology execs, praised Clinton for outlining her agenda and echoed CCIA's shout-out.

“Hillary Clinton is the first of the presidential candidates to lay out a technology and innovation agenda," Moore said. "In doing so, Hillary proves that she gets it — that our nation's ability to grow our economy and drive job creation is dependent on our ability to stay ahead of the curve in innovation."

TechNet was also a signatory to that tech policy platform letter.

Yet another front has opened in the tug-of-war among computer companies, Congress and the Obama Administration over cybersecurity versus privacy.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) were feeling the love from tech companies and others Thursday (May 19) for introducing the Stopping Mass Hack Act, which is targeted not at shady offshore Web denizens but U.S. law enforcement.

The senators introduced the bill to block recently approved changes to government surveillance rules that would allow the government, with a single warrant, to "hack an unlimited number of computers" if those computers had been "affected by criminals," even without letting the computer owners know the government was accessing their computers. Sens. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) are original co-sponsors of the bill.

The senators say those changes should have been debated by Congress. They go into effect Dec. 1 unless Congress steps in.

The Justice Department requested the change to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which the Supreme Court approved. The main changes, according to the Senators, are the single warrant for multiple -- potentially millions -- of searches, and allowing remote searches when law enforcement doesn't know the location of a device.

“The government hacking proposal that will automatically go into effect unless Congress passes the Stopping Mass Hacking Act represents a serious expansion of law enforcement powers," said Kevin Bankston, director of New America’s Open Technology Institute, "yet Congress has never had a chance to consider the complex issues raised by such a significant change to the law. Unless Congress acts now, these new government hacking rules will grant the Justice Department dangerous and unprecedented authority to hack millions of Americans, many of whom may only be guilty of being the victim of a malicious cyber attack themselves.”

Ross Schulman, Open Technology Institute senior counsel, added, “We thank Senators Wyden and Paul for introducing this important bill." New America funders include Google, Netflix, Comcast and Dish.

“We welcome Senators Wyden and Paul’s efforts to prevent this highly controversial rule change from taking effect," said Computer and Communications Industry Association president Ed Black. "They recognize that the far-reaching implications of the government’s proposed changes merit the full attention of their colleagues in Congress. There are constitutional, international, and technological questions that ought to be addressed transparently before such a broad rule change.

CCIA's members, in addition to Google, Netflix and Dish, include Amazon, Yahoo, eBay, Microsoft, and Sprint.