Document

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=953989 archived at

Dated February 4, 2015 Ref IMAGES-007-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024265.txt Release House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025) 1 pages

Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.

View the original on the official release

Document text

Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=953989 archived at https://perma.cc/FHE3-XUED. e Tom Wheeler, “This is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality,” Wired (February 4, 2015) https://www.wired.com/2015/02/fcc-chairman-wheeler-net-neutrality/ archived at https://perma.cc/C8DE-2PJB. Zero-rating e Jeremy Malcolm, Corynne Mcsherry, and Kit Walsh, “Zero rating: What It Is and Why You Should Care,” Electronic Frontier Foundation (February 18, 2016) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/zero-rating-what-it-is-why-you-should-care archived at https://perma.cc/Y6TW-2QAG. e Arturo J Carrillo, Having Your Cake and Eating it Too? Zero-Rating, Net Neutrality and International Law (March 6, 2016). 19 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 364 (2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2746447 archived at https://oerma.cc/9Z28-X6A4. o Read part IV (pages 418-428). Internet Architecture e Mike Masnick, “Can We Kill This Ridiculous Shill-Spread Myth That CDNs Violate Net Neutrality? They Don't,” TechDirt (August 13, 2014) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140812/04314528184/can-we-kill-this-ridiculous-shill- spread-myth-that-cdns-violate-net-neutrality-they-dont.shtml archived at https://perma.cc/YK3D-3BQG. Day 6: Weaponized Social The time when the solution to bad speech could be advanced as simply more speech might seem quaint. The famously libertarian Electronic Frontier Foundation recently released a white paper in which it acknowledged a line between a clash of ideas and flat-out harassment, with the latter causing less rather than more robust debate. Separately, concerns about outright false news that spreads virally have inspired calls for action by intermediaries like Facebook -- a self-described technology, rather than media, company. Applying lessons from the conflicts of the past two decades online, how might we agree upon a vision for social networking even if we disagree on many substantive issues to be debated there, and what are the roles, if any, of regulators and private platforms in establishing boundaries on behavior online through code or legal sanction? Is it more difficult to agree on a vision is our media is no longer about the battlefield or the real world but /s the battlefield and the real world? HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_024265

Have a question about what this document contains?

Ask the documents