Faculty Bibliography

Earlier this month, a broad bipartisan majority in the House passed legislation that would force TikTok’s Chinese parent company to either sell the app or have it banned in the United States. A platform once known primarily for goofy dances and launching Lil Nas X to fame now stands at the center of a geopolitical struggle. But what is perhaps even more surprising is how the pending legislation has scrambled domestic political alliances. On the Republican side, all but fifteen members voted in favor of the bill, despite Trump’s vocal opposition, while on the Democratic side, members favored the bill by a 3-1 margin, with prominent progressive voices staking out opposing sides. To help us make sense of the situation, and decide what to make of the proposed ban, the LPE Blog invited six tech and regulatory experts to share their initial reactions.

Over the course of U.S. history, and especially in turbulent times, the federal government and civil society have sought to promote civic information. They have sought to make it easier for citizens to get accurate, local, and timely information, and for suppliers of that information to reach citizens. Exposure to civic information and engagement with it is what makes self-rule possible, which is why the First Amendment is the cornerstone of democratic liberties. As a policy matter, the United States has treated civic information as a critical infrastructure—one that should be resilient and decentralized. The infrastructure built at the nation’s founding started with the postal service. After the authoritarian surge in Europe around the Second World War, the focus turned to modifying a highly concentrated commercial system of information production to shore up democracy. Amid the turmoil of the 1960s, the commitment to civic information infrastructure powered the creation of a decentralized public media system. Today, the challenges to democratic practice and governance are as severe as they have ever been. Many Americans live in separate realities, lack access to local news, distrust expertise and institutions, feel antagonistic to tens of millions of their fellow citizens, and struggle to access or accept credible information. They are manipulated by a digital advertising machine that pushes them toward disinformation and discord. The problem is so bad that the U.S. Surgeon General has issued an Advisory on health misinformation. Disordered information flows are a global phenomenon and some of the responses will require coordinated effort to change the incentives and characteristics of social media and digital advertising. But there are also distinctly U.S. responses that are available, drawing on the country’s decentralized public media tradition. This paper outlines what a “full stack” approach to new public media might look like. The “full stack” involves all the layers in communicating information, from production through distribution. In considering what a reinvigorated infrastructure for civic information might look like, the paper asks anew what have always been questions for media policy: How can community anchor institutions like libraries and universities participate? How can we ensure robust and resilient physical infrastructure everywhere? What technical and regulatory protocols will free citizens from exploitative commercial control? How can we support accurate, high-quality content that the market does not produce? The United States needs to invest in a new digital public sphere—a new civic infrastructure—if it hopes to sustain democratic practice and informed participation.

This manifesto examines the integration of the US university into processes of urban capitalism and argues its administrative and ideological functions are critical to maintaining urban hegemony. Using the relationship between the University of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia as an exemplar, I base my analysis upon three bodies of empirical evidence: the interlocking directorates of university regents; publicly available urban planning reports; and newspaper coverage of development in Philadelphia. I show that the university is essential to a social process that has as its aim the erasure – both physical and symbolic – of Black and Brown bodies from urban space. In addition to its role in the bureaucracies of urban power, the university is central within strategic narratives that mythologize the white savior and legitimize crude forms of capital accumulation. Finally, I explore the university as a site for counterhegemonic urban practice, calling on academics to integrate the notion of the Right to the University with the politics of the Right to the City.