It’s easy to take for granted how much social media pervades our lives. Depending on the survey, upwards of 75-80 percent of Americans are using it daily—not to mention billions of people around the world. And over the past decade, we’ve seen a major backlash over the various failings of Big Tech. Much of the ire of policymakers has been focused on content moderation choices—what content gets left up or taken down. But arguably there hasn’t been much focus on the underlying design of social media platforms.

What are the default settings? How are the interfaces set up? How do the recommendation algorithms work? And what about transparency? What should the companies disclose to the public and to researchers? Are they hiding the ball?

In recent years, policymakers have started to take these issues head on. In the U.S. more than 75 bills have been introduced at the state and federal level since 2023—these bills target the design and operation of algorithms, and more than a dozen have been passed into law. Last year, New York and California passed laws attempting to keep children away from “addictive feeds.” Other states in 2025 have introduced similar bills. And there’s a lawsuit from 42 attorney generals against Meta over its design choices. While Congress hasn’t done much, if anything, to regulate social media, states are clearly filling that void—or at least trying to.

So what would make social media better, or better for you? Recently, a group of academic researchers organized by the Knight Georgetown Institute put out a paper called Better Feeds: Algorithms that Put People First They outline a series of recommendations that they argue would lead to better outcomes. Evan is joined by Alissa Cooper, co-author of the paper and Executive Director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute. She previously spent over a decade at Cisco Systems, including in engineering roles. Her work at KGI has focused on how platforms can design algorithms that prioritize long-term user value rather than short-term engagement metrics.

When it comes to AI policy, and AI governance, Washington is arguably sending mixed signals. Overregulation is a concern—but so is underregulation. Stakeholders across the political spectrum and business world have a lot of conflicting thoughts. More export controls on AI chips, or less. More energy production, but what about the climate? Less liability, or more liability. Safety testing, or not? “Prevent catastrophic risks”, or “don’t focus on unlikely doom scenarios.” While Washington looks unlikely to pass comprehensive AI legislation, states have tried, and failed. In a prior episode, we talked about SB 1047, CA’s ill-fated effort. Colorado recently saw its Democratic governor take the unusual step of delaying implementation of a new AI bill in his signing letter, due to  concerns it would stifle innovation the state wants to attract.

But are we even asking the right questions? What problem are we trying to solve? Should we be less focused on whether or not AI will make a bioweapon, or more focused on how to make life easier and better for people in a world that looks very different from the one we inhabit today? Is safety versus innovation a distraction, a false binary? Is there a third option, a different way of thinking about how to govern AI? And if today’s governments aren’t fit to regulate AI, is private governance the way forward?

Evan is joined by Andrew Freedman, is the co-founder and Chief Strategy Officer of Fathom, a nonprofit building solutions society needs to thrive in an AI-driven world. Prior to Fathom, Andrew served as Colorado’s first Director of Marijuana Coordination, often referred to as the state’s "Cannabis Czar.” You can read Fathom’s proposal for AI governance here, and former FAI fellow Dean Ball’s writing on the topic here.

In this week’s episode of The Dynamist, guest host Jon Askonas is joined by Katherine Boyle, (General Partner at a16z), and Neil Chilson, (AI Policy at the Abundance Institute), to tackle a critical yet often overlooked question: How is technology reshaping the American family? As tech giants like TikTok and Instagram come under scrutiny for their effects on children’s mental health, and remote work continues to redefine domestic life, the conversation around technology’s role in family dynamics has never been more urgent.

Katherine shares insights from her recent keynote at the American Enterprise Institute, highlighting how the core objective of technological innovation, which she calls "American Dynamism," should be empowering the family rather than centralizing state control. Neil provides a fresh perspective on how decentralized systems and emergent technologies can enhance—not hinder—family autonomy and resilience. Amid rising debates about homeschooling, screen time, and the shift toward a remote-first lifestyle, the guests discuss whether tech-driven changes ultimately strengthen or undermine families as society's fundamental institution.

Together, they explore the possibility of a new era in which technology revitalizes family autonomy, reshapes education, and reignites productive home economies.

During the Biden Administration, few figures in Washington sparked so much debate and caused so much spilled ink as Lina Khan. The Wall Street Journal published over 80 editorials criticizing her approach, while politically opposed tech titans like LinkedIn's Reid Hoffman and Tesla's Elon Musk called for her firing. Meanwhile, an unlikely coalition of progressive Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and populist Republicans like JD Vance rallied behind her vision of more aggressive antitrust enforcement.

For many, her ambitious cases against Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta weren't merely legal challenges. They represented a fundamental break from the antitrust philosophy that had dominated for decades across administrations. These cases now transfer to Trump's FTC, creating a test of regulatory continuity at a time when Big Tech CEOs are looking to curry favor with the White House.

In this conversation, Khan reflects on her legacy, discusses what critics may have misunderstood about her approach, and explores how the movement she catalyzed might evolve.

BlueSky was once a research initiative within Jack Dorsey’s Twitter aimed at decentralizing the architecture or the platform social media writ large. Today, BlueSky is an independent platform with remarkable momentum. Following Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter and subsequent policy shifts, BlueSky has experienced unprecedented growth, expanding from 3 million to 30 million users since February 2024.

That “X-odus” of frustrated progressives to BlueSky has perhaps inadvertently shaped public perception of it as "Lib Twitter"—a characterization reinforced by its prominent progressive voices and more restrictive community moderation tools. However, this political framing obscures BlueSky's fundamental innovation: the AT Protocol, which reimagines social media as a decentralized ecosystem rather than a platform controlled by a master algorithm ruled by a CEO.

Unlike conventional social networks, BlueSky's architectural philosophy challenges the centralized control model by introducing a "marketplace of algorithms" where users select or create their own content curation systems. Imagine a feed that skews left, one that skews right, or one that avoids politics altogether.

This "algorithmic choice" approach could represent the biggest challenge yet to the centralized engagement machines that have dominated—and arguably degraded—our digital discourse. But can Bluesky outgrow its political bubbles and fulfill its techno-utopian promise? Or will it remain just another partisan bunker in our increasingly fragmented online world?

Evan and Luke are joined by Jay Graber, CEO of Bluesky. 

AI has emerged as a critical geopolitical battleground where Washington and Beijing are racing not just for economic advantage, but military dominance. Despite these high stakes, there's surprising little consensus on how—or whether—to respond to frontier AI development.

The polarized landscape features techno-optimists battling AI safety advocates, with the former

dismissing the latter as "doomers" who exaggerate existential risks. Meanwhile, AI business leaders face criticism for potentially overstating their companies' capabilities to attract investors and secure favorable regulations that protect their market positions.

Democrats and civil rights advocates warn that focusing solely on catastrophic risks versus economic prosperity distracts from immediate harms like misinformation, algorithmic discrimination, and synthetic media abuse. U.S. regulatory efforts have struggled, with California's SB 1047 failing last year and Trump repealing Biden's AI Executive Order on inauguration day. Even the future of the U.S. government's AI Safety Institute remains uncertain under the new administration.

With a new administration in Washington, important questions linger: How should government approach AI's national security implications? Can corporate profit motives align with safer outcomes? And if the U.S. and China are locked in an AI arms race, is de-escalation possible, or are we heading toward a digital version of Mutually Assured Destruction?

Joining me to explore these questions are Dan Hendrycks, AI researcher and Director of the Center for AI Safety and co-author of "Superintelligence Strategy," a framework for navigating advanced AI from a national security and geopolitical perspective, and FAI's own Sam Hammond, Senior Economist and AI policy expert.

It’s an understatement that U.S.-China relations have been tense in recent years. Policymakers and industry leaders have elevated concerns around China’s trade practices, including currency manipulation, intellectual property theft, and allegations that China is directing or enabling fentanyl to flood into the U.S.

Trade and public health are increasingly linked, as COVID revealed the vulnerability of medical supply chains when U.S. overreliance on China led to delays and shortages of masks and personal protective equipment. Another issue that’s getting more attention from lawmakers and parents is the prevalence of Chinese-made, counterfeit electronic cigarettes or “vapes” throughout the U.S. Politicians from Senator Ashley Moody (R-FL) to President Trump himself have raised the alarm. 

At the same time, American manufacturers have bemoaned the slow and stringent regulatory process they have faced at the FDA, which they say has enabled China to flood the market with cheap, sketchy alternatives. With a new FDA administrator set to take the helm, key questions remain. How did we end up in this situation, and what are the lessons not just for public health, but for other areas where the U.S. is looking to tighten up its trade policy. Is it possible for the U.S. to maintain the ideal of a relatively free market without adversaries exploiting that freedom?

Evan is joined by Joel Thayer, President of the Digital Progress Institute. You can read his op-ed on illicit vapes, the Bloomberg report we discuss in the episode, as well as Aiden Buzzetti’s op-ed in CommonPlace. 

Since President Trump returned to office, tariffs have once again dominated economic policy discussions. Recent headlines have highlighted escalating trade tensions with China, renewed disputes with Canada and Mexico, and the ongoing controversy surrounding Trump’s proposal to repeal the CHIPS Act—a $52 billion semiconductor initiative that enjoys wide support in Congress as essential for U.S. technological independence.

But while tariffs capture public attention, beneath these headlines is a much broader debate over America's industrial strategy—how the nation can rebuild its manufacturing base, ensure economic prosperity, and strengthen national security in an increasingly competitive global environment. Critics argue that the shortcomings of recent attempts at industrial policy, such as the CHIPS Act, prove why government can’t outperform free markets.

Our guests today have a different view. 

Marc Fasteau and Ian Fletcher of the Coalition for a Prosperous America authored a new book, Industrial Policy for the United States: Winning the Competition for Good Jobs and High-Value Industries. They argue that a bold, comprehensive industrial strategy is not only achievable but essential—calling for targeted tariffs, strategic currency management, and coordinated investments to rejuvenate American industry and secure the nation's future. But will their approach overcome the challenges of bureaucracy, political division, and international backlash? And can industrial policy truly deliver on its promise of economic renewal?

Everyone wants government to work better, and part of that is updating outdated systems and embracing modern technology. The problem? Our federal government faces a critical tech talent crisis. Only 6.3% of federal software engineers are under the age of 30, which is lower than the percentage of total federal workers under 30. That means that federal tech talent skews older than lawyers, economists, etc. Not to mention, Silicon Valley pays 2-3x more than the feds, which makes it hard to attract computer science majors into government. The shortage threatens America's ability to navigate an era of technological disruption across AI, quantum computing, defense tech, and semiconductors.

While recent initiatives like Elon Musk's temporary team of young engineers and the $500 billion Stargate program highlight the urgency, they don't solve the fundamental problem: creating a sustainable pipeline of technical talent willing to take a pay cut for public service. This talent gap could hamper innovation despite the current AI boom that's receiving 60% of venture funding. How can the private sector and federal government work to bridge this gap?

Evan is joined by Arun Gupta, who pivoted from 18 years as a Partner at Columbia Capital investing in cybersecurity and AI startups to leading NobleReach Foundation, which works to bring some of the best assets of the private sector into public service. They explore how to bridge the gap between Silicon Valley and government service to ensure America can effectively regulate, adopt, and leverage emerging technologies for the national interest.

Fusion energy, potentially a fuel source that could last a thousand years, is transitioning from science fiction to business reality. Helion Energy recently signed the first fusion power purchase agreement with Microsoft, promising 50 megawatts by 2028. But the story isn't just about the physics breakthroughs that make fusion possible. The U.S. and China are tussling for global leadership in fusion, as is the case in so many fields. And as China is outspending the US on fusion research by about $1.5 billion annually, concerns mount that they could make a serious challenge to America's lead in fusion. After all, while the US pioneered advances in clean energy technologies like solar panels and EVs, America ultimately lost manufacturing leadership to China.

With fusion, the stakes could be much higher, given that fusion has the potential to be the world's "last energy source," with significant economic and national security implications. Evan is joined by Sachin Desai, General Counsel at Helion Energy and former Nuclear Regulatory Commission staffer, and Thomas Hochman, Director of Infrastructure Policy at FAI. They discuss the technical, regulatory, and geopolitical dimensions of what could be this decade's most consequential technology race.