Tech Policy Podcast

Read Jim’s new paper on space regulation

Catch Jim’s July 13 testimony before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Tech Policy Podcast #333: The FCC in Space

Tech Policy Podcast #306: The New Space Race

Walter Olson’s profile

Follow Walter on Twitter

Courts Should Reject School Districts’ Suits to Childproof the Internet

Adam Thierer profile

Adam’s work:

Microsoft’s New AI Regulatory Framework & the Coming Battle over Computational Control

What If Everything You’ve Heard about AI Policy is Wrong?

Can We Predict the Jobs and Skills Needed for the AI Era?

Flexible, Pro-Innovation Governance Strategies for Artificial Intelligence

U.S. Chamber AI Commission Report Offers Constructive Path Forward

The Coming Onslaught of “Algorithmic Fairness” Regulations

Corbin’s review of Toby Ord’s book The Precipice:

World to End; Experts Hardest Hit

Also:

An article taking aim at the “IAEA for AI” concept!

Daphne Keller profile page

Agustina Del Campo profile page

Slide deck for the Digital India Act.

Daphne’s Lawfare article, “The Three-Body Problem: Platform Litigation and Absent Parties.”

Daphne’s new paper, Platform Transparency and the First Amendment.

Daphne’s and Corbin’s appearances at Media Law Resource Center’s Legal Frontiers in Digital Media 2023 conference. (Stay tuned for video.)

Go see Agustina at RightsCon 2023.

Many legislators and policymakers want to ban TikTok from the United States. They claim that the wildly popular social media platform endangers American national security. Although the critics are making a lot of noise, their argument for a ban is surprisingly shaky. What concrete threat does TikTok pose? What First Amendment obstacles stand in the way of a ban? TechFreedom’s Corbin Barthold and Ari Cohn discuss.

What does China’s rise as a tech power mean for American national security? Jimmy Quinn, a writer for National Review, joins the show to discuss. He and Corbin debate the merits of a TikTok ban, consider the new House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and explore other aspects of the recent uptick in Sino-American competition. For more, follow Jimmy’s work at National Review Online. Also, check out Tech Policy Podcast #337: China and Domestic Surveillance.

Correction: At 17:30, Corbin refers to “Senator Warren.” For once, he did not, in fact, mean to criticize Senator Elizabeth Warren. His intended target was Senator Mark Warner.

State governments are passing laws that seek to protect kids from social media. But maybe what we really need is to protect kids—and the Internet—from the government. Mike Masnick, founder and editor of Techdirt, joins the show to discuss California’s AB 2273, Utah’s SB 152 and HB 311, and the wider hysteria over minors and social media use. For more, see Mike’s recent article, “As The Social Media Moral Panic Continues, People Keep Highlighting How Much Value It Actually Provides.”

The Federal Trade Commission is making a lot of headlines. Much of that news revolves around the agency’s notable antitrust cases—such as its efforts to block Meta’s purchase of Within, to break up Facebook and Instagram, and to block Microsoft’s purchase of Activision. How aggressive is the FTC’s approach? What is its plan? Our guest is Bilal Sayyed, senior competition counsel at TechFreedom. He explains where the agency’s antitrust policy breaks new ground—and where it does not.

Three major Internet speech disputes are at, or barreling toward, the Supreme Court. In Gonzalez v. Google, the justices will consider the scope of Section 230. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, they will decide whether a company can be compelled to design a website against its will. And if they grant review (as expected) in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, the justices will rule on whether large social media platforms have a First Amendment right to editorial discretion. How do these cases fit together? Your humble host, Corbin Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel at TechFreedom, tries to figure it out.

Thanks to advancing technology, the police can now easily and cheaply monitor public spaces and identify, profile, and track individuals. Can the Fourth Amendment protect us from sweeping government digital surveillance? Nathan Wessler, a deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, joins the show to discuss. For more, check out the ACLU’s cert. petition in Moore v. United States, which argues that the police need a warrant to conduct 24/7 camera surveillance outside a home.