Today we’ll hear from the authors of a new law review article that argues that private tech vendors have become a third governing power in American immigration—sitting between the federal government and the states, encoding policy into code, and building infrastructure that increasingly poses a threat to democracy and the rule of law. Guests include:

1. Chinmayi Sharma, an associate professor at Fordham Law School who is also affiliated with the Strauss Center at University of Texas, the Atlantic Council Cyber Statecraft Initiative, the Center for Democracy and Technology, the Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology, and the Center for AI and Digital Policy.
2. Sam Adler, a third year law student at Fordham Law School.

Asad Ramzanali is the Director of AI and Technology Policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator for Political Economy and Regulation, and author of the recent report, "After the AI Crash."

"Instead of waiting for the crisis and hastily developing insufficient policies, lawmakers should prepare for this anticipated crisis now," he says.

Today’s guest is Kate Klonick, a law professor at St. John's University and a senior editor at Lawfare. In a piece on Lawfare last week, Klonick says that the State Department issuing a formal cable endorsing a specific social media platform for use in its messaging—and doing so in the same document that it encourages collaboration with military psychological operations—would have been nearly unthinkable until recent months. But it’s just the latest in a series of developments that suggest Elon Musk’s X is regarded as the preferred tool of the state. Let’s jump right in.

Today’s guest sees these developments as positive and in line with the types of thinking he believes will help improve the internet. Olivier Sylvain is a professor at Fordham Law School and the author of a new book titled Reclaiming the Internet: How Big Tech Took Control—and How We Can Take It Back, published by Columbia Global Reports.

Justin Hendrix interviewed him at Book Culture, a bookstore on 112th Street in New York City.

Today’s guests are studying this phenomenon from a variety of perspectives, building out a line of inquiry they call "Hype Studies." It's the subject of an occasional series of contributions to Tech Policy Press. Guests include:

1. Jascha Bareis, a postdoctoral political scientist at the University of Fribourg;
2. Andreu Belsunces Gonçalves, a sociologist of design and technology pursuing a PhD at the Tecnopolítica unit of the Open University of Catalonia;
3. Marché Arends, a South African independent investigative journalist.

Justin Hendrix spoke to two of the employees who signed the petition about why they signed it, the environment inside the company, and how they think about the risk they face for speaking out.

The problem is not just the volume. It's the architecture. These are no longer opportunistic scams—they are industrialized, AI-assisted operations, and the synthetic media tools that power them are becoming cheaper and more convincing by the month.

A new report on deepfake financial fraud from Data & Society maps this threat. Justin Hendrix spoke to its authors, including:

1. Alice Marwick, director of research at Data & Society, and
2. Anya Schiffrin, co-director of the tech policy and innovation concentration at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs.

Now, as she’s preparing to step down from her role at EFF, she's telling her story, and trying to recruit a new generation to the fight. Her new book, Privacy's Defender, out March 10 from MIT Press, weaves her personal journey with the legal battles she's fought on behalf of whistleblowers, researchers, innovators, and everyday people.

To discuss the implications of the dispute between Anthropic and the Pentagon, including the determination that the company represents a supply chain risk, Justin Hendrix spoke to two experts:

1. Kat Duffy, senior fellow for digital and cyberspace policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, and
2. Amos Toh, senior counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Fundación Maldita.es is a Spanish nonprofit that has been working on information integrity and fact-checking since 2017. Its most recent investigation focuses on TikTok, and what they found raises pointed questions about the platform's creator monetization program. Researchers at Maldita documented a network of hundreds of accounts — spanning eighteen countries — that were producing AI-generated videos of protests that never happened, and doing so not out of any discernible political motive, but to accumulate followers, qualify for TikTok's revenue-sharing program, and, in some cases, sell the accounts outright.

In this episode, Justin Hendrix is joined by Maldita associate director for public policy Carlos Hernández-Echevarría and public policy officer Marina Sacristán.

José Marichal is a political scientist at California Lutheran University who has been writing and teaching about technology and politics for more than two decades. Marichal's new book, You Must Become an Algorithmic Problem: Renegotiating the Socio-Technical Contract, considers the age of recommendation systems and large language models. Drawing on political philosophy, he argues that individuals have entered into an implicit bargain with technology companies, trading unpredictability and novelty for the convenience of algorithmically curated experience. The consequences of that bargain, he contends, reach beyond personal preference and into the foundations of liberal democratic citizenship.

Ahead of the conference, Tech Policy Press senior editor Ramsha Jahangir spoke with members of the DSA Observatory, which is organizing the conference, to take stock. What have these first years of enforcement clarified? Where does opacity remain? And what does it mean to conduct DSA research in today’s political climate? Guests include:

1. John Albert, associate researcher, DSA Observatory.
2. Paddy Leerssen, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam and part of the DSA Observatory.
3. Magdelena Jozwiak, associate researcher at the DSA Observatory.

To discuss these events and the prospects for reform, Justin Hendrix spoke to Irna Landrum, a senior campaigner at Kairos Fellowship and author of a recent piece on Tech Policy Press, "How ICE Uses AI to Automate Authoritarianism," and Alejandra Montoya-Boyer, vice president for the Center for Civil Rights and Technology at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which has called for reforms at the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies.

The authors show how massive tech companies like Tencent and Alibaba have become essential partners to the Chinese state, blending corporate and government power. At the same time, citizens exercise bottom-up influence, shaping how both platforms and the state respond to their needs. The result is what the authors call "popular corporatism"—a form of digital authoritarianism that operates quite differently than you might expect.

In recent years, states have passed dozens of bills aimed at expanding protections for kids as they navigate risks on social media platforms, AI chatbots and other pools, with more likely on the way. Lawmakers in Washington, meanwhile, are considering a flurry of proposals that could set a national standard on the issue. But many of these efforts are facing legal limbo as industry and some digital rights groups allege they violate constitutional rights and trample on privacy.

Tech Policy Press senior editor Cristiano Lima-Strong spoke to three experts tracking the issue to assess the current policy landscape in the United States and how it may shift in 2026, particularly as state legislators continue to take up the cause:

• Amina Fazlullah is head of tech policy advocacy at Common Sense Media, a group that advocates for child online safety measures. She previously served as a tech policy fellow for Mozilla and as director of policy at the Benton Foundation.
• Joel Thayer is president of the Digital Progress Institute, a think tank that advocates for age verification policies. He previously clerked for Federal Trade Commission official Maureen Ohlhausen and served as policy counsel for the tech trade group The App Association.
• Kate Ruane is the director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for digital rights. She previously served as lead public policy specialist for the Wikimedia Foundation and as senior legislative counsel for the ACLU.

Joining Tech Policy Press contributing editor Dean Jackson to discuss the evolution of trust and safety—not coincidentally, the title of their forthcoming article In the Emory Law Journal—are professors of law Danielle Keats Citron and Ari Ezra Waldman. Also joining the conversation is Jeff Allen, the chief research officer at the Integrity Institute, a nonprofit whose membership is composed of trust and safety industry professionals.

At the same time, leaders are talking loudly about digital sovereignty — including at last week’s summit in Berlin. But with the Omnibus appearing to weaken protections and tilt power toward large tech firms, what kind of sovereignty is actually being built?

Tech Policy Press associate editor Ramsha Jahangir spoke to two experts to understand what the EU is trying to achieve:

• Leevi Saari, EU Policy Fellow at AI Now Institute
• Julia Smakman, Senior Researcher at the Ada Lovelace Institute

• Ryan Cummings, chief of staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and coauthor of a recent New York Times opinion on the possibility of an AI bubble;
• Sarah West, co-director of the AI Now Institute and coauthor of a Wall Street Journal opinion, "You May Already Be Bailing Out the AI Business"; and
• Brian Merchant, author of the newsletter Blood in the Machine, a journalist in residence at the AI Now Institute, and author of a recent piece in Wired on signals that suggest a bubble.

In a gazebo near the Mozilla Festival mainstage, Justin Hendrix hosted a podcast discussion with three people working on questions related to data access and advocating for independent technology research:

• Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute;
• Brandi Geurkink, executive director of the Coalition for Independent Tech Research and a former campaigner and fellow at Mozilla; and
• LK Seiling, a researcher at the Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin and coordinator of the DSA40 Data Access Collaboratory.

Thanks to the Mozilla Foundation and to Francisco, the audio engineer on site at the festival.

In his new book, Law and Technology: A Methodical Approach, published by Oxford University Press, Calo argues that if the purpose of technology is to expand human capabilities and affordances in the name of innovation, the purpose of law is to establish the expectations, incentives, and boundaries that guide that expansion toward human flourishing. The book "calls for a proactive legal scholarship that inventories societal values and configures technology accordingly."

• Laura Edelson, an assistant professor of computer science at Northeastern University and co-director of Cybersecurity for Democracy, and
• Arturo Béjar, the former director of ‘Protect and Care’ at Facebook who has since become a whistleblower and safety advocate.

Edelson and Béjar are two of the authors of “Teen Accounts, Broken Promises: How Instagram is Failing to Protect Minors.” The report is based on a comprehensive review of teen accounts and safety tools, and includes a range of recommendations to the company and to regulators.

Kilic traces the problem back to the 1990s, when the US government adopted a hands-off, industry-led approach to regulating the web, paving the way for surveillance capitalism and the dominance of Big Tech. Knodel explains how large companies have co-opted the language of openness and interoperability to defend monopolistic control. The two argue that trade policy, weak enforcement of regulations like the GDPR, and the rise of AI have deepened global dependencies on a few powerful firms, while the current AI moment risks repeating the same mistakes.

They say to push back we must call for coordinated, democratic alternatives: stronger antitrust action, public digital infrastructure, and grassroots efforts to rebuild truly open, interoperable, and civic-minded technology systems.

One such out-of-court dispute settlement body is called Appeals Centre Europe. It was established last year as an independent entity with a grant from the Oversight Board Trust, which administers Oversight Board, the content moderation 'supreme court' created and funded by Meta. Appeals Centre Europe has released a new transparency report, and the numbers are striking: of the 1,500 disputes the Centre has ruled on, over three-quarters of the platforms’ original decisions were overturned, either because they were incorrect, or because the platform didn’t provide the content for review at all.

Tech Policy Press associate editor Ramsha Jahangir spoke to two experts to unpack what the early wave of disputes tells us about how the system is working, and how platforms are applying their own rules:

• Thomas Hughes is the CEO of Appeals Center Europe
• Paddy Leerssen is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam and part of the DSA Observatory, which monitors the implementation of the DSA.

To learn more about what these efforts look like and to consider the broader question of AI’s use in government, Justin Hendrix spoke to Dwyer and Ben Green, an assistant professor in the University of Michigan School of Information and in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, who has written about DOGE and the use of AI in government for Tech Policy Press.

In a recent report for Tech Policy Press,  associate editor Cristiano Lima-Strong detailed how groups are pouring tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars into the lobbying fight, which has gained steam amid mounting scrutiny of the products. 

Tech Policy Press CEO and Editor Justin Hendrix spoke to Cristiano about the findings, and what the state's legislative battle could mean for AI regulation in the United States. 

This reporting was supported by a grant from the Tarbell Center for AI Journalism.

​The tech industry intersects with climate concerns in a number of ways, not least of which is through its own growing demand for natural resources and energy, particularly to power data centers. What should a “tech agenda” for Climate Week include? What are the most important issues that need attention, and how should challenges and opportunities be framed?

​Last week, Tech Policy Press hosted a live recording of The Tech Policy Press Podcast to get at these questions and more. Justin Hendrix was joined by three expert guests:

• ​Alix Dunn, founder and CEO of The Maybe
• ​Tamara Kneese, director of Data & Society's Climate, Technology, and Justice Program
• ​Holly Alpine, co-Founder of the Enabled Emissions Campaign

It is clear that, in some cases, the tech platforms are struggling to enforce their own content moderation rules, raising questions about their policies and investments in trust and safety, even as AI generated material plays a more significant role in the information ecosystem.

To learn more about these phenomena, Justin Hendrix spoke to Wired senior correspondent Lauren Goode, who is covering this story.

To learn more about these debates—and the efforts to shape the industry’s future—Justin Hendrix spoke with two activists: one working at the national level, and another organizing locally in their own community.

•  Vivek Bharathan is a member of the No Desert Data Center Coalition in Tucson, Arizona.
• Steven Renderos is executive director of MediaJustice, an advocacy organization that just released a report titled The People Say No: Resisting Data Centers in the South.

But last week, the state kicked off a special session where lawmakers held frenzied negotiations over whether to expand or dilute its protections. The chapter unfolded amid fierce lobbying by industry groups and consumer advocates. Ultimately, the state legislature punted on amending the law but agreed to delay its implementation from February to June of next year. The move likely tees up another round of contentious talks over one of the nation’s most sprawling AI statues.

This week, Tech Policy Press associate editor Cristiano Lima-Strong spoke to two local reporters who have been closely tracking the saga for the Colorado Sun: political reporter and editor Jesse Paul and politics and policy reporter Taylor Dolven.

Justin Hendrix had the chance to speak to two of the volume’s editors and two of its authors:

• Steven Livingston,  a professor and founding director of the Institute for Data Democracy and Politics at the George Washington University;
• Michael Miller,  managing director of the Moynihan Center at the City College of New York;
• Kate Starbird,  a professor at the University of Washington and a co-founder of the Center for an Informed Public; and
• Josephine Lukito,  assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin and senior faculty research associate at the Center for Media Engagement.

They discuss how they found themselves on the path through journalism and into a focus on tech and tech policy, the distinctions between truth and facts and whether there has ever been such a thing as a singular truth, how communities of color have historically seen and filled the gaps in mainstream media coverage, the rise of news influencers, and how journalists can regain the trust of the public.

Reviewing the book in The Guardian, Salil Tripathi writes that “Bhatia’s remarkable book is an absorbing account of India’s transformation from the world’s largest democracy to something more like the world’s most populous country that regularly holds elections.” 

Bhatia considers the role of technology, including taking a close look at Aadhaar—India’s national biometric identification program—in order to consider the role it plays in the modern state and what the motivations behind it reveal.

In a Reuters special report, Horwitz tells the story of a man with a cognitive impairment who died while attempting to travel to meet a chatbot character he believed was real. And in a related article, Horwitz reports on an internal Meta policy document that appears to endorse its chatbots engaging with children “in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” as well as other concerning behaviors.

Earlier today, Justin Hendrix caught up with Horwitz about the reports and what they tell us about Silicon Valley’s no holds barred pursuit of AI, even at the expense of the safety of vulnerable people and children.

This episode and conversation about advocating for change is dedicated to the memory and life of our former colleague and tech accountability researcher and advocate Brandi Collins-Dexter.

To answer these questions, Justin Hendrix reached out to a close observer of China's tech policy.  Graham Webster is a lecturer and research scholar at Stanford University in the Program on Geopolitics, Technology, and Governance, and he is the Editor-in-Chief of the DigiChina Project, a "collaborative effort to analyze and understand Chinese technology policy developments through direct engagement with primary sources, providing analysis, context, translation, and expert opinion." Webster attended the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai.

• Maitreya Shah is the tech policy director at the American Association of People with Disabilities.
• Blake Reid is a professor at the University of Colorado.
• Cynthia Bennett is a senior research scientist at Google.

• Alice Hunsberger is the head of Trust & Safety at Musubi, a firm that sells AI content moderation solutions.
• Jerrel Peterson is the director of content policy at Spotify.

Hunsberger and Peterson discussed how they broke into the field, their observations about the current state of the industry, how to better the working relationship between civil society and industry, and their advice for the next generation of practitioners.

To learn more, Tech Policy Press associate editor Ramsha Jahangir spoke to Luca Bertuzzi, senior AI correspondent at MLex, to unpack the final Code of Practice on GPAI, why it matters, and how it fits into the broader rollout of the AI Act.

To take stock of where things stand on state AI policymaking, Tech Policy Press associate editor Cristiano Lima-Strong spoke to two experts:

• Scott Babwah Brennen, director of NYU’s Center on Technology Policy, and
• Hayley Tsukayama, associate director of legislative activism at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

Building on such projects, in 2015, she coauthored a book with Finn Brunton called Obfuscation: A User’s Guide for Privacy and Protest. The book detailed ideas on mitigating and defeating digital surveillance. With concerns about surveillance surging in a time of rising authoritarianism and the advent of powerful artificial intelligence technologies, Justin Hendrix reached out to Professor Nissenbaum to find out what she’s thinking in this moment, and how her ideas can be applied to present day phenomena.

For this episode, Justin Hendrix spoke to four of the authors who made contributions to the series, including:

• Jacob Metcalf,  program director of the AI On the Ground Initiative at Data & Society;
• Tamara Kneese, program director of the Climate, Technology and Justice program at Data & Society;
• Reem Suleiman,  outgoing US advocacy lead at the Mozilla Foundation and  member of the city of Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission; and
• Kevin De Liban, founder of TechTonic Justice.

The third episode in the series features her conversation with Dr. Timnit Gebru, the founder and executive director of the Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research Institute. Last year, Dr. Gebru wrote an New York Times opinion that asked, “Who Is Tech Really For?” In the piece, she also asked, “what would an internet that served my elders look like?” 

This year, DAIR has continued to ask these questions by hosting an event and a blog called Possible Futures that imagines “what the world can look like when we design and deploy technology that centers the needs of our communities. In one of these pieces, Dr. Gebru, along with her colleagues Asmelash Teka Hadgu and Dr. Alex Hanna describe “An Internet for Our Elders.”

In this conversation, Justin Hendrix is joined by three legal experts who are thinking deeply about how to address questions related to chatbots, and about the need for substantially more research on human-AI interaction:

•  Clare Huntington, Barbara Aronstein Black Professor of Law at Columbia Law School;
• Meetali Jain, founder and director of the Tech Justice Law Project; and
• Robert Mahari, associate director of Stanford's CodeX Center.

To help us unpack all of this, Tech Policy Press associate editor Ramsha Jahangir spoke to Kai Zenner, Head of Office and Digital Policy Advisor to German MEP Axel Voss, and one of the more influential voices shaping the future of EU digital policy.

The second episode in the series features her conversation with Dr. Desmond Upton Patton, who has long studied the intersection of technology and social issues and advised companies developing technologies and policies for social media and AI. Dr. Patton is the Brian and Randi Schwartz University Professor and Penn Integrates Knowledge University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and he serves on the board of Tech Policy Press.

Recently, Dr. Patton has been teaching a class within Annenberg and the School of Social Policy & Practice called "Journey to Joy: Designing a Happier Life." In this episode, he discusses his personal and intellectual journey, and what the concept of joy has to do with technology and how we imagine the future.

In addition to managing those global tensions, Canadian leaders have a long to-do list on tech policy, including figuring out the nation’s approach to artificial intelligence and online harms. How will the new Carney-led government in Canada navigate those issues?

Tech Policy Press associate editor Cristiano Lima-Strong spoke to three experts to get a sense:

• Renee Black is founder of goodbot, where she works on preventing harmful disinformation and bias, and establishing frameworks that protect digital rights.
• Maroussia Lévesque is a doctoral candidate and lecturer at Harvard Law School, an affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center, and a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation.
• Vass Bednar is a public policy entrepreneur working at the intersection of technology and public policy.

Justin Hendrix spoke with Zakem about the promise of state-led innovation and how to avoid its perils, what responsible AI governance might mean in practice, and how California might chart a course that’s both ambitious and accountable to its citizens.

Justin Hendrix spoke to the Center’s senior policy advisor on Civil Rights and Technology, Frank Torres, about the framework, the ideas that informed it, and the Center’s interactions with industry.

Hao has appeared on this podcast before, to help us understand how the business model of social media platforms incentivizes the deterioration of information ecosystems, the series of events around OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s abrupt firing in 2023, and the furor around the launch of DeepSeek last year. This week, Justin Hendrix spoke with Hao about the book, and what she imagines for the future.

• Pratik Sinha, co-founder and editor at Alt News—one of India’s major fact-checking websites, and 
• Asad Baig, founder of Media Matters for Democracy—a non-profit focused on media literacy and development in Pakistan.

Sinha and Baig reflect on how the India-Pakistan conflict played out across digital platforms—and how it revealed a deeper, more dangerous dysfunction in the information ecosystem. 

To learn more about their goals, Justin Hendrix spoke to three of the signatories:

• J. Nathan Matias, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Information Science at Cornell University.
• Emma Pierson, an Assistant Professor of Computer Science at the University of California, Berkeley.
• Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a Professor of Computer Science and Data Science at Brown University.

To prepare to cover the arguments, Tech Policy Press Associate Editor Cristiano Lima-Strong spoke to two experts to better understand the issues at play.

• William (Bill) Kovacic is a Professor of Law and Policy and Director of the Competition Law Center at the George Washington School of Law. From January 2006 to October 2011, he was a member of the Federal Trade Commission and chaired the agency from March 2008 to March 2009. And for nearly a decade, Professor Kovacic served as a Non-Executive Director with the United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority.
• Gene Kimmelman is a senior policy fellow at Yale’s Tobin Center for Economic Policy. He was the Justice Department’s deputy associate attorney general during the Biden administration, and he has served as chief counsel to the head of the DOJ Antitrust Division and the Senate Antitrust Subcommittee.

To delve into the challenges this lack of transparency presents and how it impacts the public's understanding of the DSA, Tech Policy Press Associate Editor Ramsha Jahangir spoke to two researchers:

• Jacob van de Kerkhof, a PhD researcher at Utrecht University. His research is focused on the DSA and freedom of expression.
• Matteo Fabbri, a PhD candidate at IMT School for Advanced Studies in Lucca, Italy. Fabbri is also a visiting scholar at the Institute for Information Law at the University of Amsterdam. He recently published a research article titled "The Role of Requests for Information in Governing Digital Platforms Under the Digital Services Act: The Case of X."

In this conversation, Justin Hendrix is joined by four individuals who are following DOGE closely. The conversation touches on the broader context and history of attempts to use technology to streamline and improve government services, the apparent ideology behind DOGE and its conception of AI, and what the future may look like after DOGE. Guests include:

• Eryk Salvaggio, a visiting professor at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a fellow at Tech Policy Press;
• Rebecca Williams, a senior strategist in the Privacy and Data Governance Unit at ACLU;
• Emily Tavoulareas, who teaches and conducts research at Georgetown's McCourt School for Public Policy and is leading a project to document the founding of the US Digital Service; and
• Matthew Kirschenbaum, Distinguished University Professor in the Department of English at the University of Maryland.

​This discussion delved into the global implications of these developments and key lessons from reporting in various political contexts. Questions included:

• ​What key narratives are emerging globally from recent shifts in US policy?
• ​How is the rise of a tech oligarchy shaping technology coverage outside the US?
• ​What practical lessons can journalists learn from reporting on technology and politics in non-Western contexts?

This session explored the intersection of technology and the current political situation in the US. Key questions included:

• How are tech journalists addressing the current situation, and why is their perspective so crucial?
• What critical questions are journalists covering the intersection of tech and democracy currently asking?
• How does the field approach reporting on anti-democratic phenomena and the challenges journalists face in this work?

• Ryan Goodman is the Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law and co-editor-in-chief of Just Security. He served as special counsel to the general counsel of the Department of Defense (2015-16).
• Cooper Quintin is a senior staff technologist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). He has worked on projects including Privacy Badger, Canary Watch, and analysis of state-sponsored malware campaigns such as Dark Caracal.

Tech Policy Press Associate Editor Cristiano Lima-Strong spoke to Bedoya on Monday, March 24.

To say the Trump administration has taken a different approach to AI and how to think about its role in government and in society would be an understatement. President Trump rescinded President Biden’s executive order and is at work developing a new approach to AI policy. At the Paris AI Action Summit in February, Vice President JD Vance promoted a vision of American dominance and challenged other nations that would seek to regulate American AI firms. And then there is DOGE, which is at work gutting federal agencies with the stated intent of replacing key government functions with AI systems and using AI to root out supposed fraud and waste.

This week, Justin Hendrix had the chance to speak with Dr. Nelson about how she’s thinking about these phenomena and the work to be done in the years ahead to secure a more just, democratic, and sustainable future. 

Today’s guests are among the authors of a new paper that argues the field should stop treating AGI as the north-star goal of AI research. They include:

• Eryk Salvaggio, a visiting professor in the Humanities Computing and Design department at the Rochester Institute of Technology and a Tech Policy Press fellow;
• Borhane Blili-Hamelin, an independent AI researcher and currently a data scientist at the Canadian bank TD; and
• Margaret Mitchell, chief ethics scientist at Hugging Face.

To answer these questions and more, Tech Policy Press contributing editor Dean Jackson spoke to a set of experts following a conference hosted by the Knight Georgetown Institute titled “DMA and Beyond.” His guests include:

• Alissa Cooper, Executive Director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute (KGI)
• Anu Bradford, Henry L. Moses Professor of Law and International Organization at Columbia Law School
• Haeyoon Kim, a Non-Resident Fellow at the Korea Economic Institute (KEI), and
• Gunn Jiravuttipong, a JSD Candidate and Miller Fellow at Berkeley Law School.

• Audrey Tang, Taiwan's Cyber Ambassador and former Digital Minister
• Ravi Iyer, managing director of the USC Marshall School Neely Center for Ethical Leadership and Decision Making
• Beth Goldberg, head of R&D at Jigsaw and a lecturer at Yale School of Public Policy

The “Innocence at Risk (Inocencia en Juego)” project, coordinated by EL CLIP with participation from Chequeado, includes a report from Lara Putnam, a professor of Latin American history and Director of the Civic Resilience Initiative of the Institute for Cyber Law, Policy, and Security at the University of Pittsburgh, and independent reports from journalists across Latin America investigating a pattern of behavior on the platform’s public groups in Colombia, Venezuela, and Argentina. They published their reports in EL CLIP, Chequeado, Crónica Uno, El Espectador, and Factchequeado.

This episode features a discussion with Lara Putnam and Pablo Medina Uribe, who led the project at EL CLIP.

On February 24, two of the three terminated members filed suit against the government, arguing they were wrongfully terminated and must be reinstated. The outcome could determine the independence and effectiveness of the PCLOB going forward.

This episode explores what's at stake in this matter, and it features three segments, including:

• Excerpts from remarks by the remaining PCLOB board member, Republican Beth Williams, at the annual State of the Net conference on February 11 in Washington, DC;
• An interview with former board member Travis LeBlanc conducted just days before he filed suit against the government;
• An interview with Greg Nojeim, Senior Counsel and Director of the Security and Surveillance Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology.

• Hillary Ross, program lead at the Global Network Initiative (GNI);
• Magdalena Jozwiak, associate researcher at the DSA Observatory; and
• Svea Windwehr, the assistant director of EU policy at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

• Liu I-Chen (劉以正), Asia Program Officer at ARTICLE 19
• Kuan-Ju Chou (周冠汝), Deputy Secretary-General of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights 
• Grace Huang (黃寬心), Director for Global Justice and Digital Freedom at Judicial Reform Foundation 

• David Kaye, a professor of law at the University of California Irvine and formerly the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, and
• Yaël Eisenstat, director of policy impact at Cybersecurity for Democracy at New York University.

To discuss these issues, Justin Hendrix spoke to Karen Hao,  a reporter who covers AI. In recent years, she's reported on China and tech for the Wall Street Journal, written about AI for The Atlantic, and run a program for the Pulitzer Center  to teach other journalists how to report on AI. Hao has a book about OpenAI, the AI industry, and its global impacts that will be released later this year.

The decision clears the way for a ban to go into effect on January 19, 2025. Late this evening, TikTok issued a statement saying that “Unless the Biden Administration immediately provides a definitive statement to satisfy the most critical service providers assuring non-enforcement, unfortunately TikTok will be forced to go dark on January 19.” The White House had previously announced it would not enforce the ban before President Biden leaves office on Monday. Unless Biden takes action, this may set President-elect Donald Trump up to somehow come to TikTok’s rescue. 

To learn more about the ruling and what may happen next, Justin Hendrix  spoke to Kate Klonick, an associate professor of law at St. John's University and a fellow at Brookings, Harvard's Berkman Klein Center, and the Yale Information Society Project. The conversation also touches on recent moves by Meta’s founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, to ingratiate himself to the incoming Trump administration. 

•  Keir Lamont, senior director at the Future of Privacy Forum (FPF) and author of The Patchwork Dispatch, a newsletter on state tech policy issues;
•  Caitriona Fitzgerald, deputy director at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), which runs a state privacy policy project and scores AI legislation;
•  Scott Babwah Brennen, director of the Center on Technology Policy at New York University and an author of a recent report on trends in state tech policy.

• Cristina Caffarra is a competition economist and an honorary Professor at University College London, and cofounder of the Competition Research Policy Network at CEPR (Centre for Economic Policy Research), London.
• Kate Brennan is associate director at the AI Now Institute; and
• David Dinielli is an attorney and a visiting clinical lecturer and senior research scholar at Yale Law School.

But the scale of today's migration may be dwarfed by what's to come. How has the movement of people affected the politics driving the development of surveillance, biometrics, big data and artificial intelligence technologies? And how do these technologies employed at borders and in governments themselves drive policy and change the way we think about the movement of people?

Today's guest has spent years traveling the world to study how technology is being deployed in border regions and conflict zones, and she's written a book about it. Petra Molnar is a lawyer and an anthropologist and the author of The Walls Have Eyes: Surviving Migration in the Age of Artificial Intelligence.

Justin Hendrix spoke to Evan last week about the incident, where she believes the tech accountability and digital rights movement should draw the line when it comes to engaging with far-right politicians, and how we can go about building spaces where we can imagine a different future that is truly just and liberatory.

Today's guest has looked deeply at this effort, conducting an analysis of over 1800 pages of primary documents to identify the strategic approaches employed by these parties, including the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, and the outcomes and broader democratic implications of the campaign. Philip M. Napoli is the James R. Shepley Professor of Public Policy, the Director of the DeWitt Wallace Center for Media & Democracy, and Senior Associate Dean for Faculty and Research for the Sanford School at Duke University. His findings are published in a new paper The Information Society titled "In pursuit of ignorance: The institutional assault on disinformation and hate speech research."

Today’s guest is Greg Epstein, who drew on lessons from his vocation as a humanist chaplain at Harvard and MIT to write a new book, just out from MIT Press, called Tech Agnostic: How Technology Became the World's Most Powerful Religion, and Why It Desperately Needs a Reformation.

• Katie Harbath, CEO of Anchor Change and chief global affairs officer at Duco Experts;
• Nicole Schneidman, technology policy strategist at Protect Democracy; and
• Dean Jackson, principal of Public Circle LLC and a reporting fellow at Tech Policy Press.

• Samuel Woolley, Dietrich Chair of Disinformation Studies at the University of Pittsburgh and one of the authors of a set of studies titled Generative Artificial Intelligence and Elections;
• Lindsay Gorman, Managing Director and Senior Fellow of the Technology Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and an author of a report and online resource titled Spitting Images: Tracking Deepfakes and Generative AI in Elections; and
• Scott Babwah Brennen, Director of the NYU Center on Technology Policy and one of the authors of a deep dive into the literature on the effectiveness of AI content labels and another on the efficacy of recent US state legislation requiring labels on political ads that use generative AI.

In today’s episode, Tech Policy Press Staff Writer Gabby Miller speaks with three experts involved in conversations to try and get to best practices:

• Jason Pielemeier, Executive Director of the Global Network Initiative;
• David Sullivan, Executive Director of the Digital Trust & Safety Partnership; and
• Chantal Joris, Senior Legal Officer at Article 19

On Monday, September 16 - in a letter that called into question EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s governance - Breton resigned his post. While certain tech executives may be happy to see him go- Elon Musk posted “bon voyage” to the news - his departure spells change for Europe’s approach to tech going forward. To learn more, Justin Hendrix reached out to a European journalist who is covering these matters closely, and who has been kind enough to share his reporting on the EU AI Act with Tech Policy Press in the past: MLex Senior AI Correspondent Luca Bertuzzi.

Ramsha Jahangir, a reporting fellow at Tech Policy Press, recently discussed these questions with Dr. Oliver Marsh, who is head of tech research at Algorithm Watch, an NGO with offices in Berlin and Zurich that works on issues at the intersection of technology and society. Dr. Marsh has been leading research on systemic risks and the DSA’s approach, and just put out a detailed summary of his work. 

To get a bit more detail on what to expect, Justin Hendrix spoke to two individuals covering the case closely who take a critical view of Google, the government’s allegations about its power in the online advertising market, and the company’s effect on journalism and the overall media and information ecosystem:

• Sarah Kay Wiley, director of policy at Check My Ads, which is running a comprehensive tracker on the case;
• Karina Montoya, a senior reporter and policy analyst at the Center for Journalism and Liberty, a program of the Open Markets Institute, who has covered the case extensively for Tech Policy Press.

To learn a little more about some of the key pieces of legislation and the overall atmosphere around tech regulation in California, Justin Hendrix spoke to two journalists who live and work in the state and cover these issues regularly:

• Jesús Alvarado, a reporting fellow at Tech Policy Press and author of a recent post on SB 1047, a key piece of the California legislation;
• Khari Johnson, a technology reporter at CalMatters,a fellow in the Digital Technology for Democracy Lab at the Karsh Institute for Democracy at the University of Virginia, and the author of a recent article on the California legislation.

• Dr. Shannon McGregor, associate professor at the UNC Hussman School of Journalism and Media and a principal investigator with the Center for Information Technology in Public Life (CITAP);
• Dr. Jonathan Corpus Ong, professor of global digital media. at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, inaugural director of the Global Technology for Social Justice Lab; and
• Dr. Chris Tenove, research associate and instructor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs and Assistant Director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, the University of British Columbia.

This episode features a lightly edited recording of the conversation, which touches on topics ranging from the role of civil society and independent researchers in engaging with efforts to protect the integrity of elections and mitigate the spread of misinformation to current questions about how generative AI may impact politics.

On Friday afternoon, August 30, following a standoff over an order requiring X to appoint a new legal representative in Brazil, the Judge issued an order to suspend X in the country.

Justin Hendrix spoke to three people following the situation closely in Brazil: Laís Martins, a journalist at the The Intercept in Brazil; Sérgio Spagnuolo, executive director & founder of the data-driven tech news organization Nucleo Journalism; and Dr. Ivar Alberto Hartmann, an associate professor at the Insper Institute of Education and Research in Brazil.

In this episode, Justin Hendrix recounts the basics of the Ninth Circuit ruling. And in a second segment that was recorded just days before Friday's ruling, Tech Policy Press fellow Dean Jackson is joined by Tech Justice Law Project executive director Meetali Jain and USC Marshall School Neely Center managing director Ravi Iyer for a discussion on key questions that were before the Ninth Circuit and their implications for future efforts at tech regulation.

Justin Hendrix spoke to Attorney General Torrez in advance of a panel discussion he participated in alongside the Attorney General of Virginia at the 2024 Coalition to End Exploitation Global Summit on Wednesday, August 7, 2024 in Washington DC.

David is one of the authors, with Thomas Costello and Gordon Pennycook, of a paper published this spring titled "Durably reducing conspiracy beliefs through dialogues with AI." The paper considers the potential for people to enter into dialogues with LLMs and whether such exchanges can change the minds of conspiracy theory believers. According to the study, dialogues with GPT-4 Turbo reduced belief in various conspiracy theories, with effects lasting many months. Even more intriguingly, these dialogues seemed to have a spillover effect, reducing belief in unrelated conspiracies and influencing conspiracy-related behaviors.

While these findings are certainly promising, the experiment raises a variety of questions. Some are specific under the premise of the experiment- such as how compelling and tailored does the counter-evidence need to be, and how well do the LLMs perform? What happens if and when they make mistakes or hallucinate? And some of the questions are bigger picture- are there ethical implications in using AI in this manner? Can these results be replicated and scaled in real-world applications, such as on social media platforms, and is that a good idea? Is an internet where various AI agents and systems are poking and prodding us and trying to shape or change our beliefs a good thing? This episode contains an edited recording of the discussion, which was hosted at Betaworks.

• Henry Farrell, a professor of the international affairs and democracy at Johns Hopkins University and the recent co-author with Abraham Newman of Underground Empire: How America Weaponized the World Economy.
• Elizabeth Spiers, a writer and digital strategist and contributing writer for the New York Times, and co-host the Slate Money Podcast.
• Dave Karpf, an associate professor at George Washington University in the School of Media and Public Affairs.

• Olga Belogolova, director of the Emerging Technologies Initiative at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS);
• Mayze Teitler, a legal fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute; and
• Nina Jankowicz, co-Founder and CEO of the American Sunlight Project.

Justin Hendrix the chance to speak to two of the papers authors about some of these issues:

• Shannon Vallor, a professor of AI and data ethics at the University of Edinburgh and director of the Center for Technomoral Futures in the Edinburgh Futures Institute; and
• Iason Gabriel, a research scientist at Google DeepMind in its ethics research team.

The advocacy group Article 19 documents this shift in a recent report titled "The Digital Silk Road: China and the Rise of Digital Repression in the Indo-Pacific," examining China's influence on digital infrastructure and governance in Cambodia, Malaysia, Nepal, and Thailand. As the Indo-Pacific remains strategically significant for China in deploying next-generation technologies, the report argues that assessing China’s regional partnerships and their implications for digital repression is crucial for understanding its broader ambitions to reshape global digital norms.

To discuss these issues in more depth, Justin Hendrix is joined by:

• Michael Caster, Asia Digital Program Manager at ARTICLE 19; and
• Catherine Tai, the deputy director for Asia and the Pacific team at Center for International Enterprise (CIPE).

• Rose Jackson, the director of the Democracy + Tech Initiative within the Atlantic Council Technology Programs;
• Konstantinos Komaitis, a nonresident fellow with the Democracy + Tech Initiative of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab;
• Kenton Thibaut, a senior resident China fellow at the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab; and
• Iria Puyosa, a senior research fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab.

In this episode, Justin Hendrix speaks with two people on the front lines of the fight to secure access to data, including advocating for Meta to do better in light of the impending deprecation of CrowdTangle, a tool used by researchers study Meta's products, including Facebook and Instagram. They are:

• Brandi Guerkink, the executive director of the Coalition for Independent Technology Research, and
• Claire Pershan, EU advocacy lead at the Mozilla Foundation.

In a series of field interviews, the authors spoke with three vendors of political generative AI tools, a political candidate, a legal expert, a technology expert, an extremism expert, a digital organizer, a trust and safety industry professional, four Republican campaign consultants, and eight Democratic campaign consultants. Joining Justin Hendrix to discuss the results are:

• Dean Jackson, the principal at Public Circle LLC and a reporting fellow with Tech Policy Press;
• Zelly Martin, a PhD candidate at the University of Texas at Austin and a senior research fellow at the Propaganda Research Lab at the Center for Media Engagement; and
• Inga Trauthig, head of research at the Propaganda Research Lab at the Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin.

• Michael Connor, Executive Director of Open MIC
• Jessica Dheere, Advocacy Director at Open MIC
• Natasha Lamb, Chief Investment Officer at Arjuna Capital
• Jonas Kron, Chief Advocacy Officer at Trillium Asset Management
• Christina O'Connell, Senior Manager for Shareholder Engagement and Investments at Ekō

• Sarah West, co-executive director of the AI Now Institute
• Nasser Eledroos, policy lead on technology at Color of Change
• Paramita Shah, executive director of Just Futures Law
• Cynthia Conti-Cook, director of research and policy at the Surveillance Resistance Lab

• Alejandra Montoya-Boyer, Senior Director at the Center for Civil Rights & Tech at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
• Claudia Ruiz, Senior Civil Rights Policy Analyst at UnidosUS

The piece was a preview of sorts to a two-day workshop Dr. McNealy organized at the University of Florida in Gainesville that touched on topics ranging from connectivity to bias and discrimination in algorithmic systems to the connection between AI and natural resources. Justin Hendrix attended the workshop, and recently he checked in with Dr. McNealy and three of the other attendees he met there:

• Michaela Henley, program director and curriculum writer at Black Tech Futures and a senior research fellow representing Black Tech Futures at the Siegel Family Endowment;
• Dr. Dominique Harrison, founding principal of Equity Innovation Ventures; and
• Dr. Theodora Dryer, who is director of the Water Justice and Technology Studio, founder of the Critical Carbon Computing Collective, and teaches on technology and environmental justice at New York University.

Today’s guest is Chinmayi Sharma, an Associate Professor at Fordham Law School. Sharma thinks there should be a similar professional ethics framework in place for the developers of AI systems, and she’s written a substantial paper on the 'why' and the 'how' of her proposal. 

But the guests in this episode suggest that in the broader political discourse, the term is more than over used. Often, they say, lawmakers and other elites that employ it are crossing the line into hyping the effects of disinformation, which they say only helps propagandists and diminishes trust in society. To learn more Justin Hendrix spoke with Gavin Wilde, Thomas Rid, and Olga Belogolova, who with Lee Foster are the authors of an essay in the publication Foreign Affairs titled "Don’t Hype the Disinformation: Downplaying the Risk Helps Foreign Propagandists, But So Does Exaggerating It." 

To learn more about some of the ideas in the special issue, Justin Hendrix spoke to Burrell, Metcalf, and two of the other authors of papers included in it: Shazeda Ahmed and Émile P. Torres.

To learn more, Justin Hendrix spoke with Anupam Chander, law professor at Georgetown and a visiting scholar at the Institute for Rebooting Social Media at Harvard University; Rose Jackson, the director of the Democracy and Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council; and Justin Sherman, CEO of global cyber strategies and adjunct professor at Duke University.

One of the witnesses that the hearing was David Brody, who is managing attorney of the Digital Justice Initiative of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Justin Hendrix caught up with Brody the day after the hearing, we spoke about the challenges of advancing the American Privacy Rights Act, and why he connects fundamental data to privacy rights to so many of the other issues that the Lawyers' Committee cares about, including voting rights and how to counter disinformation that targets communities of color.

In the first, we’ll hear from Sayash Kapoor, a PhD candidate at the Department of Computer Science and the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University, and Rishi Bommasani, the society lead at the Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models. They are two of the authors of a recent paper titled On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models.

And in the second, we’ll hear from Politico Chief Technology Correspondent Mark Scott about the US-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC) meeting, and what he’s learned about the question of access to social media platform data by interviewing over 50 stakeholders, including regulators, researchers, and platform executives.

Tech Policy Press reporting fellow Dean Jackson speaks to experts including the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University's Mayze Teitler and Jennifer Jones, and the Tech Justice Law Project's Meetali Jain.

He's joined by three other experts, including:

• Brandi Collins-Dexter, a media and technology fellow at Harvard's Shorenstein Center, a fellow at the National Center on Race and Digital Justice, and the author of the recent book, Black Skinhead: Reflections on Blackness and Our Political Future. Brandi is developing a podcast of her own with MediaJustice that explores 1980s era media, racialized conspiracism, and politics in Chicago;
• Dr. Danielle Brown, a social movement and media researcher who holds the 1855 Community and Urban Journalism professorship at Michigan State and is the founding director of the LIFT project, which is focused on mapping, networking and resourcing, trusted messengers to dismantle mis- and disinformation narratives that circulate in Black communities and about Black communities; and
• Kathryn Peters, who was the inaugural executive director of University of North Carolina's Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life and was the co-founder of Democracy Works, where she built programs to help more Americans navigate how to vote. These days, she's working on a variety of projects to empower voters and address election mis- and disinformation.

To learn more about what is happening in Hong Kong and what role tech firms and other outside voices could be doing to preserve freedoms for the people of Hong Kong, Justin Hendrix spoke to three experts who are following developments there closely:

• Chung Ching Kwong, senior analyst at the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China
• Lokman Tsui, a fellow at Citizen Lab at University of Toronto, and
• Michael Caster, the Asia Digital Program Manager with Article 19.

Today’s guests are Jon Bateman and Dean Jackson. The two have just produced a report for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that looks at what is known about a variety of interventions against disinformation, and provides evidence that should guide policy in governments and at technology platforms.

The book is structured to explore three essential inquiries: What is our interpretation of January 6, 2021? How should research evolve post-January 6, 2021? And what measures can be taken to avert a similar incident in the future? Justin Hendrix spoke to three of the book's four editors: Khadijah Costley White, Daniel Kreiss, and Shannon C. McGregor.

At Tech Policy Press, we're lucky to have a group of seven fellows this year who are based on four continents. They are paying close attention to elections in the nations they know best. To learn more about the recent election in Pakistan, its chaotic aftermath, and the unique role of technology and events there, I spoke to one of our fellows last week: Ramsha Jahangir, a Pakistani journalist currently based in the Netherlands.

Justin Hendrix talked to Kate Kaye, one of the report’s authors, about a range of issues it covers, from the involvement of large tech companies in shaping AI governance tools the role of organizations like the OECD in developing AI governance tools, to the need to consult people and communities that are often overlooked when making decisions about how to think about AI.

“Society needs trustworthy, independent research to relieve the harms of digital technologies and advance the common good,” they wrote. “Research can help us understand ourselves more clearly, identify problems, hold power accountable, imagine the world we want, and test ideas for change. In a democracy, this knowledge comes from academics, journalists, civil society, and community scientists, among others. Because independent research on digital technologies is a powerful force for the common good, it also faces powerful opposition.”

In the months since that document was published, that opposition has grown. From investigations in Congress to lawsuits aimed at specific researchers, there is a backlash particularly against those who study communications and media, especially where the subjects of that research are often those most interested in advancing false and misleading claims about issues including elections and public health. 

Justin Hendrix, who is a member of the coalition, caught up with Brandi Geurkink, who was hired as the coalition's first Executive Director in December 2023, to discuss its priorities.

“Evident across all platforms,” they write, “is the intertwined nature of content moderation and political expression—and the critical role that social media will play in preserving the historical record.”

This troubling discovery builds on prior research into the “dubious curation” of large-scale datasets used to train AI systems, and raises concerns that such content may contributed to the capability of AI image generators in producing realistic counterfeit images of child sexual exploitation, in addition to other harmful and biased material. 

Justin Hendrix spoke the report’s author, Stanford Internet Observatory Chief Technologist David Thiel.

In today’s episode, we’re going to hear from two researchers at two different points in their careers who spend their days grappling with questions about how we can develop systems and modes of thinking about systems that lead to more just and equitable outcomes, and that preserve our humanity and the planet:

• Dr. Batya Friedman is a Professor in the Information School and holds adjunct appointments in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, the School of Law, and the Department of Human Centered Design and Engineering at the University of Washington, where she co-directs the Value Sensitive Design Lab and the UW Tech Policy Lab.
• Dr. Aylin Caliskan is an Assistant Professor in the Information School at the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering, is an affiliate of the UW Tech Policy Lab, part of the Responsible AI Systems and Experiences Center, the NLP Group, and the Value Sensitive Design Lab. She is also co-director elect for the Tech Policy Lab, a role she will assume when Dr. Friedman retires from the university.

To learn more about the situation on the ground and what it’s been like for the individuals involved in this fight while the legal progress unfolds, Justin Hendrix spoke to Njenga Kimani, a researcher at Siasa Place, a youth-led, prodemocracy NGO based in Nairobi, and three moderators who’ve worked on platforms including TikTok, Meta, and OpenAI: James Oyange Odhiambo, Sonia Kgomo, and Richard Mathenge.

Justin Hendrix moderated a discussion on harms to artists and creators, exploring questions around copyright and fair use, the ways in which AI is shaping the entire incentive structure for creative labor, and the economic impacts of the "junkification" of online content. The panelists included Liz Pelly, a freelance journalist specialized in the music industry; Ashley Irwin, President of the Society of Composers & Lyricists; and Jen Jacobsen, Executive Director of the Artist Rights Alliance.

The Neely Center has developed a design code that seeks to address a number of concerns about the harms of social media, including issues related to child online safety. It is endorsed by individuals and organizations ranging from academics at NYU and USC to the Tech Justice Law Project and New Public, as well as technologists that have worked at platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google. Justin Hendrix spoke to Iyer about the details of the proposed code, and in particular how they relate to the debate over child online safety.

But even as an Indian vision for DPI appears to be attractive beyond that country’s borders, what are the ideas and events that shaped India’s approach? Today's guest is Mila Samdub, a researcher at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School who recently published an essay titled “The Bangalore Ideology: How an amoral technocracy powers Modi’s India,” looking at histories of technocratic ideas in India, and how they have combined with Modi’s particular brand of populism.

Today’s guest has devoted her research to this subject, and has just published a book that serves as a very accessible entry point to the latest scholarship on this question. Dannagal Young is a Professor of Communication and Political Science at the University of Delaware and the author of Wrong: How Media, Politics, and Identity Drive our Appetite for Misinformation.

Now, she has a new book, just out from Oxford University Press, called Digital Empires: The Global Battle to Regulate Technology The book describes the geopolitical competition to establish digital governance models between the US, the EU, and China. Justin Hendrix had the opportunity to speak to Bradford about the book, and why she thinks the US government, by failing to regulate its tech companies, may ultimately imperil not only the US model but internet freedom more broadly.

As negotiations continue between the European Parliament, Council, and Commission, Justin Hendrix spoke to one observer who is paying close attention to every detail: the Ada Lovelace Institute's European Public Policy Lead, Connor Dunlop. Connor recently published a briefing on five areas of focus for the trilogue negotiations that recommence next week.

In their new book, Graphic: Trauma and Meaning in Our Online Lives, University of California Berkeley scholars Alexa Koenig and Andrea Lampros set out to answer those questions.

Three years later, Hill has published a book that tells the story of Clearview AI, but with the benefit of a great deal more reporting and study on the social, political, and technological forces behind it. It's called Your Face Belongs to Us: A Secretive Startup's Quest to End Privacy As We Know It, just out from Penguin Random House.

In the first, Rebecca Rand delivers a conversation with University of Technology Sydney researcher Dr. Luis Lozano-Paredes about a community of drivers in Colombia who have hacked together a way to preserve their power alongside the adoption of ride sharing apps.

And in the second, Justin Hendrix speaks with Columbia University Law School Professor of Law, Science and Technology Tim Wu, who recently spent two years on the National Economic Council in the White House as Special Assistant to the President for Competition and Technology. The conversation touches on privacy legislation, ideas about competition and scale, and Wu's observations on the landmark antitrust trial between the Justice Department and Google, which wrapped up its first week of testimony on Friday. The conversation took place at the All Tech is Human Responsible Tech Summit, hosted with the Consulate General of Canada in New York, on September 14th.

In the first, Rebecca Rand speaks with Dr. Shelby Grossman, a research scholar at the Stanford Internet Observatory, on recent research that looks at whether AI can write persuasive propaganda. 

In the second segment, Justin Hendrix speaks with Dr. Kirsty Park, the Policy Lead at the European Media Observatory Ireland, and Stephan Mündges, the manager of the Institute of Journalism at TU Dortmund University and one of the coordinators of the German-Austrian Digital Media Observatory, about the report they authored that looks in detail at baseline reporting from big technology platforms that are part of the EU Code of Practice on Disinformation.

Today’s guest is Paul Gowder, Professor of Law and Associate Dean of Research and Intellectual Life at Northwestern University's Pritzker School of Law and a founding fellow of the Integrity Institute. Gowder is the author of The Networked Leviathan: For Democratic Platforms, a book that he says takes an institutional political science approach to the problem of tech platform governance, arguing “that the goals of effective governance capacity development and of global justice” can come together, and that we can build “worldwide direct democratic institutions to exercise public authority over the operations of the big platforms.”

In the second segment, Justin Hendrix speaks with Tom Kemp, author of a new book out August 22 from Fast Company Press titled Containing Big Tech: How to Protect Our Civil Rights, Economy, and Democracy.

To discuss the bill, Justin Hendrix is joined by Aditi Agrawal, an independent technology journalist based in New Delhi; Kamesh Shekar, a tech policy expert who leads the privacy and data governance vertical at The Dialogue, a think tank based in Delhi; and Prateek Waghre, the Policy Director at the Internet Freedom Foundation, a digital rights advocacy organization based in India.

But beyond the findings of the research, the partnership between Meta and some of the most prominent researchers in the field has been held up as a model. With active discussions ongoing in multiple jurisdictions about how best to facilitate access to platform data for independent researchers, it’s worth scrutinizing the strengths and weaknesses of this partnership. And to do that, Justin Hendrix is joined by one researcher who was able to observe and evaluate nearly every detail of the process for the last three years: the project's rapporteur, Michael Wagner, who in his day job is a professor in the University of Wisconsin-Madison's School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

Today’s guest is Justine Bateman, a writer, director, producer, author, and member of the Directors Guild of America (DGA), the WGA, and SAG-AFTRA. Bateman has been on both sides of the camera for much of her life, and has a particularly sharp perspective on how AI may change the entertainment industry, and why it matters to all workers that the unions are standing up on these issues now.

Today’s guest is James Grimmelmann, a legal scholar with a computer science background who recently conducted a review of various moderation technologies to determine how they might hold up in under US federal communication privacy regimes including the Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA). The conversation touches on how technologies like server side and client side scanning work, the extent to which the law may fail to accommodate or even contemplate such technologies, and where the encryption debate is headed as these technologies advance.

Drawing from the discussion at a conference hosted earlier this year at Stanford University called "Existing Law and Extended Reality," this episode asks what challenges will emerge from human behavior and interaction-- with one another and with technology-- inside XR experiences, and what choices governments and tech companies will face in addressing those challenges.

This episode of The Sunday Show was produced by Tech Policy Press audio and reporting intern Rebecca Rand, and features the voices of experts such as Brittan Heller (the organizer of the Stanford conference), Mary Anne Franks, Kent Bye, Jameson Spivack, Joseph Palmer, Eugene Volokh, Amie Stepanovich, Susan Aaronson, Florence G'Sell, and Avi Bar Zeev.

To learn more about the handbook and the ideas on which it is based, Justin Hendrix spoke to GMF research assistant Adrienne Goldstein, as well as Kathryn Peters, executive director of UNC CITAP.

The Act itself has yet to be implemented- it has to first go through a regulatory process to sort out how it will work. So, these moves by the platforms may be a tactic in the negotiation of the particulars. But the platforms also clearly want to send a message to other jurisdictions where similar legislation is under consideration.

For an expert opinion on the politics surrounding Canada’s Online News Act and its broader implications, Tech Policy Press Contributing Editor Ben Lennett spoke to one person who has been following it closely from his perch in Montreal. Taylor Owen is the Beaverbrook Chair in Media, Ethics and Communications, the founding director of The Center for Media, Technology and Democracy, and an Associate Professor in the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University. 

To help get his head around the complicated, evolving ecology of global AI governance, Justin Hendrix spoke to two of the three authors of a recent paper in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science that attempts to take stock of and explore the tensions between different approaches, including Michael Veale, an associate professor in the Faculty of Laws at University College London, where he works on the intersection of computer science, law, and policy; and Robert Gorwa, a postdoctoral researcher at the Berlin Social Science Center, a large publicly-funded research institute in Germany.

A key panel at RightsCon featured Signal President Meredith Whittaker, who spoke out about policies proposed in legislatures around the world that threaten the promise of end-to-end encryption to preserve the privacy of messages sent between individuals and groups. Leaders of encrypted apps have pulled together of late to speak out against the proposed UK Online Safety Bill, signing letters and appearing at events. Shortly after RightsCon, Hendrix connected with Whittaker to learn more about Signal’s posture against such legislation, why she sees encrypted communications as so crucial to freedom and human rights, and how the company thinks about safety and its role in the broader digital ecosystem.

Jennifer Pahlka, who served in President Barack Obama’s administration as deputy chief technology officer and founded the nonprofit Code for America, has written a book that asks us to reexamine how government works, and how it should work, in the digital age. It's called Recoding America: Why Government Is Failing in the Digital Age and How We Can Do Better, and it's the subject of the podcast today.

To hear an unvarnished view from someone who was at the meeting about what might actually come of it all, Justin Hendrix invited on a journalist who is, in my opinion, one the best tech policy reporters in the world: Mark Scott, Chief Technology Correspondent for Politico.

And in the second segment, Justin Hendrix speaks with Calli Schroeder and Ben Winters at the Electronic Privacy Information Center about a new report they helped write about the harms of generative AI, and what to do about them.

The conversation covered a range of topics, from how to think about the relationship between technology and the law, how to get engineers to engage with ethical and legal concepts, the view of the coastal tech policy discourse from Hurwitz’s vantage in the middle of the country, the role and politics of the Federal Trade Commission, and why he finds some inspiration in Frank Herbert’s Dune.

One of the individuals that testified to the Select Committee was a former Twitter official, Anika Collier Navaroli. Justin Hendrix had a chance to speak with Anika earlier this month, to hear how her thinking has evolved in this time under the spotlight, and what she’s hoping to do next to continue her journey as an intellectual and an activist working at the intersection of tech, media and democracy.

5Rights played a key role in advancing the UK Children’s Code, as well as the California Age Appropriate Design Code Act, passed last year. Baroness Kidron discussed the broad trajectory of efforts to address online child safety, what she thinks about the legal challenge to the California law and some of the harsher provisions of child safety laws in other parts of the country, and where she believes the fight for child digital safety is headed in the future. 

And, we’ll speak with Dr. Michal Luria, a Research Fellow at the Center for Democracy & Technology who had a column in Wired this month under the headline, Your ChatGPT Relationship Status Shouldn’t Be Complicated. She says the way people talk to each other is influenced by their social roles, but ChatGPT is blurring the lines of communication. 

That number, and the scale of the scandal, would only grow in the weeks and months ahead. It served as a major catalyzing moment for privacy concerns in the social media age. In these two episodes we’ll look back on what has happened since, the extent to which perceptions of what happened have changed or been challenged, and what unresolved questions that emerged from the scandal mean for the future.

In this second episode, we’ll hear a panel discussion hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center that I helped moderate at the end of March. The panel featured Katie Harbath, a former Facebook executive who is now a Fellow in the Digital Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center; Alex Lundry, Co-Founder, Tunnl, Deep Root Analytics; and Matthew Rosenberg, a Washington-based Correspondent for the New York Times and one of the individuals on the byline of that first story on Cambridge Analytica.

That number, and the scale of the scandal, would only grow in the weeks and months ahead. It served as a major catalyzing moment for privacy concerns in the social media age. In these two episodes we’ll look back on what has happened since, the extent to which perceptions of what happened have changed or been challenged, and what unresolved questions that emerged from the scandal mean for the future.

In this first episode, Justin Hendrix speaks with David Carroll, a professor of media design in the MFA Design and Technology graduate program at the School of Art, Media and Technology at Parsons School of Design at The New School. Carroll legally challenged Cambridge Analytica in the UK courts to recapture his 2016 voter profile using European data protection law, events that were chronicled in the 2019 Netflix documentary The Great Hack.

• Bridget Todd, director of public communications for Ultraviolet, a gender justice organization trying to build a more feminist, anti-racist internet and the creator and host of the iHeartRadio tech and culture podcast There Are No Girls on the Internet
• Quinta Jurecic, a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, a senior editor at Lawfare, and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. Jurecic is one of an array of hosts on the Lawfare podcast, and she’s the co-host of a long running series called Arbiters of Truth that focuses on the information ecosystem.

In today’s podcast, we speak to the author of a new book that takes on this question. In More than a Glitch. Confronting Race, Gender, and Ability Bias in Tech, data scientist and journalist Meredith Broussard considers the ways in which racism, sexism, and ableism are coded into systems, and what we must do to ensure a more inclusive future.

Guests, in order of appearance, include: 

• Jess Miers, legal advocacy counsel at the Chamber of Progress, an industry coalition whose partners include Meta, Apple, Google, Amazon, and others;
• James Grimmelmann, a law professor at Cornell with appointments at Cornell Tech and Cornell Law School;
• Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California Berkeley with a joint appointment in the computer and information science departments.

In this episode, Justin Hendrix speaks with one German lawmaker, Tobias Bacherle, who was elected to the Bundestag in 2021 representing Alliance 90/The Greens. The conversation touches on issues including encryption, the Digital Services Act, the US-EU Trade and Technology Council, and the relationship between tech and the environment.

A recent guest speaker was Peter Pomerantzev, an author and researcher who is concerned with propaganda, polarization and how we come to understand the world around us. Emily Bell, director of the Tow Center at Columbia and one of the faculty on the course, led the discussion, which ranges from topics including the information component of the war in Ukraine to the tension between democracy and authoritarianism to the role of journalism and technology in shaping public discourse.

The first segment features Matthew Ferraro, an attorney at the firm WilmerHale who counsels clients about such risks and, with his colleagues, recently wrote a piece for Tech Policy Press on the "Ten Legal and Business Risks of Chatbots and Generative AI."

And the second segment features Claire Leibowicz from the Partnership on AI and Sam Gregory from the human rights organization WITNESS, who worked together with other partners to develop a set of Responsible Practices for Synthetic Media.

• Kadia Goba, a politics reporter at Semafor and author of a recent report on the AI Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives;
• Micah Sifry, an expert observer of the relationship between tech and politics and the author of The Connector, a Substack newsletter on democracy, organizing, movements and tech, where he recently wrote about ChatGPT and politics;
• Zach Graves, executive director of Lincoln Network, and Marci Harris, CEO and co-founder of PopVox.com, co-authors with Daniel Schuman at DemandProgress of a recent essay in Tech Policy Press on the risks and benefits of emerging AI tools in the legislative branch.

An academic and a tech policy expert, today’s guest played an active role in the investigations and legislative proposals led by Democrats over the last few years. Anna Lenhart served as a staffer on the House Judiciary Committee Antitrust Subcommittee under then Chairman David Cicilline (R-RI), where she supported tech oversight and investigations. And, she was senior technology policy Advisor to Representative Lori Trahan (D-MA), who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee. I caught up with Anna for a kind of exit interview, as she recently left Congress to return to academia and a handful of projects focused on some of the issues she cared most about in her time on the Hill. 

Asking the questions is Ben Lennett, a tech policy researcher and writer focused on understanding the impact of social media and digital platforms on democracy. He has worked in various research and advocacy roles for the past decade, including serving as the Editor in Chief of Recoding.tech and as policy director for the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation.

Ben’s first interview is with two student editors at the publication Just Security, Aaron Fisher and Justin Cole, whom Tech Policy Press worked with this week to co-publish a review of key arguments in the amicus briefs filed with the Court on the Gonzalez case. Then, we’ll hear three successive interviews, with Mary McCord, Executive Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) and a Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center; Anupam Chander, a Professor of Law and Technology at Georgetown Law; and David Brody, Managing Attorney of the Digital Justice Initiative at the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law. 

This week, there were two hearings in the House of Representatives on this subject, including a Committee on Oversight and Accountability hearing titled “Protecting Speech from Government Interference and Social Media Bias, Part 1: Twitter’s Role in Suppressing the Biden Laptop Story,” and a hearing of the new Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government that was intended to “discuss the politicization of the FBI and DOJ and attacks on American civil liberties.”

If we look past the conspiracy theories and legal gibberish, is there any there there? Should we pursue reforms and require greater transparency around the interaction between platforms and government? In this episode, we hear from three experts:

• Shoshana Weissmann, Digital Director and Fellow at the R Street Institute
• Darren Linvill, Associate Professor, Clemson University Media Forensics Hub
• Mike Masnick, Founder of TechDirt and CEO of the Copia Institute

Samuel Woolley is the author of Manufacturing Consensus: Understanding Propaganda in the Age of Automation and Anonymity, just out this week from Yale University Press. He’s also the author of The Reality Game: How the Next Wave of Technology Will Break the Truth; co-author, with Nick Monaco, of a book on Bots; and co-editor, with Dr. Philip N. Howard, of a book on Computational Propaganda.

Earlier this month I attended a symposium on Existing Law and Extended Reality, hosted at Stanford Law School. There, I met today’s guest, Michael Running Wolf, who brings a unique perspective to questions related to AI and ownership, as a former Amazon software engineer, a PhD student in computer science at McGill University, and as a Northern Cheyenne man intent on preserving the language and culture of native people.

Now, there are nearly 3 billion monthly active users of the site, and it is readily apparent that it has had a significant impact on society in a variety of ways. One such impact is on mental health. Researchers have found that Facebook use is associated with multiple mental health issues, ranging from anxiety, insomnia, depression and addiction to body image and eating disorders, alcohol use, and more. But while much of the evidence collected is concerning, most such studies have not identified a solid causal connection between Facebook and negative mental health, and many skeptics remain. 

But in today’s episode, we’re going to discuss one study that does appear to draw a causal connection between the use of Facebook and poor mental health with two its authors: Luca Braghieri, an Assistant Professor in the department of Decision Sciences at Bocconi University in Italy; and Alexey Makarin, an Assistant Professor in the Applied Economics group at the MIT Sloan School of Management.

A new paper in the journal Nature Communications provides an answer to that specific question. Titled Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior, the paper matches Twitter data with survey data to study the impact of the IRA's tweets.

To learn more about the paper, Justin Hendrix spoke with one of its authors, Joshua Tucker, a professor of politics at NYU, where he also serves as the director of the Jordan Center for the Advanced Study of Russia and the co-director of the NYU Center for Social Media and Politics (CSMaP). Hendrix and Tucker talked about the study, as well as what can and cannot be understood about the impact of the broader campaign of the IRA, or certainly the broader Russian effort to interfere in the U.S. election, from its results.

Is this some organized crime syndicate or shady offshore shell company? No, it’s Google, one of the biggest and most prominent technology companies on the planet. 

This episode features a conversation with Craig Silverman, a journalist who has spent years uncovering fraud in the opaque world of digital advertising and media manipulation. With his colleagues at ProPublica, in a recent series of articles Silverman employed a unique investigative approach to uncover just exactly how Google operates in a shadowy realm of deceit and disinformation.

When the Committee issued subpoenas to platforms a year ago, Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) said, “Two key questions for the Select Committee are how the spread of misinformation and violent extremism contributed to the violent attack on our democracy, and what steps—if any—social media companies took to prevent their platforms from being breeding grounds for radicalizing people to violence.”

In order to learn what came of this particular aspect of the Committee’s sprawling, 18 month investigation, in this episode I’m joined by four individuals who helped conduct it, including staffing the depositions of social media executives, message board operators, far-right online influencers, militia members, extremists and others that gave testimony to the Committee:

• Meghan Conroy is the U.S. Research Fellow with the Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) and a co-founder of the Accelerationism Research Consortium (ARC), and was an Investigator with the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol.
• Dean Jackson is Project Manager of the Influence Operations Researchers’ Guild at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and was formerly an Investigative Analyst with the Select Committee. 
• Alex Newhouse is the Deputy Director at the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism and the Director of Technical Research at the Accelerationism Research Consortium (ARC), and served as an Investigative Analyst for the Select Committee.
• Jacob Glick is Policy Counsel at Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, and served as an Investigative Counsel on the Select Committee.

The letters followed a report issued by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) earlier this month that found that 77 percent of adults and 66 percent of teens have reported experiences of harassment while playing online games over the past year, and identified a number of other concerns about social gaming environments. 

Today, I’m joined by one of the authors of that report, ADL Center for Technology and Society Director of Strategy and Operations Daniel Kelley; as well as by Queens University professor Amarnath Amarasingam, coauthor of a report commissioned by the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism on the intersection of gaming and violent extremism that was released in October. 

Following the Journal’s reporting and subsequent concern in the public, Facebook (now Meta) President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg announced the company would request a policy advisory opinion from its independent Oversight Board. 14 months later, the Oversight Board has completed its review and published its opinion. 

To talk more about the opinion, the Cross Check system and the problem of content moderation more generally, I’m joined with one member of the Oversight Board, Nighat Dad, a lawyer from Pakistan and founder of the Digital Rights Foundation; and one outside observer who answered the board’s call for opinions about the Cross Check system, R Street Institute senior fellow and University of Pennsylvania Annenberg Public Policy Center distinguished research fellow Chris Riley.

This week’s Tech Policy Press podcast comes in two parts. In both, we’ll hear from reporters covering the intersection of China and technology. This is the second part, and it features a conversation with two individuals covering China for the New York Times, Paul Mozur and Muyi Xiao. In their collaborative coverage they have mixed open source visual investigations methods with traditional reporting to get a sense of the protests and the state’s response. 

This week’s Tech Policy Press podcast comes in two parts. In both, we’ll hear from reporters covering the intersection of China and technology. This is the first part, and it features a conversation with Liza Lin, a Reporter at The Wall Street Journal. She covers Asia technology news for the Journal from Singapore. Before that she was the paper’s China correspondent, based in Shanghai. She was part of a team at the Journal to named as Pulitzer Finalists for the International Reporting category in 2021 for coverage of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and with other Journal reporters won the Gerald Loeb Award for International Reporting in 2018 for a series of stories on China's Surveillance state. She’s co-author of a book on that subject titled Surveillance State: Inside China's Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control, with Josh Chin. 

Today, we’ll hear two voices on the disclosures. The first is David Ingram, who covers tech for NBC News and will walk us through what happened. And the second is Mike Masnick, the editor of the influential site Tech Dirt, who offers his first thoughts on the disclosures, and what they portend for the future of Twitter under Elon Musk.

Documents such as A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace and A Manifesto for Cyborgs have given way to more vacuous statements from billionaires, such as Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook manifesto, Building Global Community. These days a lot of Silicon Valley’s leaders don’t have much in the way of ideas, but they do have a lot of money, so either way they can push whatever agenda they may have on the rest of us. From promises of abundance delivered by artificial intelligence, to a 'global community' convened on social media platforms, to reimagined economies or even a new world order built on the blockchain, tech manifestos remain important, since they often signify large amounts of capital are about to be deployed to try to manifest someone's new vision.

In this episode, Tech Policy Press editor Justin Hendrix had the chance to discuss Musk’s takeover with Dr. Johnathan Flowers, and to learn more about some of the exclusive norms he’s observed that may create obstacles to communities of color when contemplating the switch to Mastodon.