Podcast appearances and mentions of adam thierer

President Trump's budget bill, having recently passed the House of Representatives, is headed for the Senate with a proposed 10-year moratorium on AI regulations at the state level. How should lawmakers approach this rapidly-developing technology without stalling US progress in the AI "arms race," while still prioritizing consumers' data privacy and online safety?Dr. Scott Babwah Brennen, Kevin Frazier, and Adam Thierer join the RTP Fourth Branch Podcast to discuss and debate the arguments of AI regulation, innovation, and preemption.

Adam Thierer from the R Street Institute discusses the importance of winning the race for dominance in the field of artificiall intelligence. He compares the competition between US-based AI and China's Deepseek AI and why it matters around the globe.

Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow for the Technology & Innovation team at R Street, joins Kevin Frazier, the AI Innovation and Law Fellow at the UT Austin School of Law and a Contributing Editor at Lawfare, to review public comments submitted in response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy's Request for Information on the AI Action Plan. The pair summarize their own comments and explore those submitted by major labs and civil society organizations. They also dive into recent developments in the AI regulatory landscape, including a major veto by Governor Youngkin in Virginia.Readings discussed:Kevin on Vance's America First, America Only Approach to AIKeegan and Adam on AI Safety Treatises Kevin on Proposed Firings at NISTDean and Alan on PreemptionTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Does a cat stand on two legs or four?  The answer to that question may tell you all you need to know about the government involving itself in social media content moderation. On today's show, we cover the latest tech policy developments involving the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission, AI regulation, and more.   Guests: - Ari Cohn, FIRE's lead counsel, tech policy. - Adam Thierer, a resident technology and innovation senior fellow at the R Street Institute   - Jennifer Huddleston, a technology policy senior fellow at the CATO Institute   Timestamps: 00:00 Intro 01:30 Section 230 06:55 FCC and Section 230 14:32 Brendan Carr and “faith-based programming” 28:24 Media companies' settlements with the Trump 30:24 Brendan Carr at Semafor event 38:37 FTC and social media companies 48:09 AI regulations 01:03:43 Outro   Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org.   Show notes: “Seeing reports that the FCC plans to take a vague and ineffective step on Section 230 to try to control speech online…” FCC Commissioner Anna M. Gomez via X (2025) “Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr taking first steps in eroding key legal protection enjoyed by Big Tech” New York Post (2025) Section 230 text “Federal Communications Commission” Brendan Carr via Project 2025 (2022) “Bless Ron Wyden and his steady defense of Section 230. He is absolutely right: 230 is a pro-competition law.” Adam Kovacevich via X (2025) “If Google is looking to block faith-based programming on YouTube, they are doing a really really bad job at it…” Adam Thierer via X (2025) “I have received complaints that Google's @YouTubeTV is discriminating against faith-based programming…” Brendan Carr via X (2025) “FCC's Carr defends broadcast probes, slams social media ‘threat'” Semafor (2025) “Petition for rulemaking of the national telecommunications and information administration” National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2020) “FCC Chair Brendan Carr taking first steps in eroding key legal protection enjoyed by Big Tech” New York Post (2025) “Big Tech censorship is not just un-American, it is potentially illegal…” FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson via X (2025) “Federal Trade Commission launches inquiry on tech censorship” FTC (2025) “Moody v. NetChoice” (2024) “The FTC is overstepping its authority — and threatening free speech online” FIRE (2025) “Wave of state-level AI bills raise First Amendment problems” FIRE (2025) “AI regulatory activity is completely out of control in the U.S…” Adam Thierer via X (2025)   “Cyber rights: Defending free speech in the digital age” Mike Godwin (1995) “Greg Lukianoff testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, February 6, 2024” FIRE (2024) “Technologies of Freedom” Ithiel de Sola Pool (1984)

Mike Ferguson in the Morning 2-11-2025Also, Adam Thierer of RStreet Institute discusses whether China's DeepSeek AI the new "Sputnik Moment"?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This past week began with a tech selloff as Chinese AI startup DeepSeek spooked investors worldwide. Chipmakers Nvidia and Broadcom were the stocks most impacted, as DeepSeek's AI virtual assistant "R1" was reportedly made much cheaper and faster than its American competitors. Entrepreneurs and policymakers worry DeepSeek could be a modern-day “Sputnik moment” and a sign that America is falling behind in the AI race. Adam Thierer, a senior fellow for the Technology & Innovation team at the R Street Institute, joined host Jessica Rosenthal to discuss the importance of America remaining a global leader in artificial intelligence. On the FOX News Rundown Extra, hear their full discussion about why the emergence of DeepSeek should serve as a wake-up call for our country. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This past week began with a tech selloff as Chinese AI startup DeepSeek spooked investors worldwide. Chipmakers Nvidia and Broadcom were the stocks most impacted, as DeepSeek's AI virtual assistant "R1" was reportedly made much cheaper and faster than its American competitors. Entrepreneurs and policymakers worry DeepSeek could be a modern-day “Sputnik moment” and a sign that America is falling behind in the AI race. Adam Thierer, a senior fellow for the Technology & Innovation team at the R Street Institute, joined host Jessica Rosenthal to discuss the importance of America remaining a global leader in artificial intelligence. On the FOX News Rundown Extra, hear their full discussion about why the emergence of DeepSeek should serve as a wake-up call for our country. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This past week began with a tech selloff as Chinese AI startup DeepSeek spooked investors worldwide. Chipmakers Nvidia and Broadcom were the stocks most impacted, as DeepSeek's AI virtual assistant "R1" was reportedly made much cheaper and faster than its American competitors. Entrepreneurs and policymakers worry DeepSeek could be a modern-day “Sputnik moment” and a sign that America is falling behind in the AI race. Adam Thierer, a senior fellow for the Technology & Innovation team at the R Street Institute, joined host Jessica Rosenthal to discuss the importance of America remaining a global leader in artificial intelligence. On the FOX News Rundown Extra, hear their full discussion about why the emergence of DeepSeek should serve as a wake-up call for our country. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The southern border was a hot-button issue during the campaign, and President Donald Trump continues his push for immigration reform as he enters his second week in office. Former acting ICE Director during the first Trump administration, Jonathan Fahey joins the Rundown to discuss the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigrants, who could be targeted by ICE, and how the Trump White House plans to enforce its reforms. This week began with a tech selloff in the markets after investors were spooked by Chinese AI startup DeepSeek. Experts are calling it “AI's Sputnik moment,” as this China-based company produced a vastly less expensive product that knocked ChatGPT off the number one spot in the Apple App Store. R Street Institute policy analyst Adam Thierer about how China's “world-class AI model” is a wake-up call for America's tech giants and AI innovation. Plus, commentary from FOX News contributor and host of the Jason In The House podcast, Jason Chaffetz. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The southern border was a hot-button issue during the campaign, and President Donald Trump continues his push for immigration reform as he enters his second week in office. Former acting ICE Director during the first Trump administration, Jonathan Fahey joins the Rundown to discuss the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigrants, who could be targeted by ICE, and how the Trump White House plans to enforce its reforms. This week began with a tech selloff in the markets after investors were spooked by Chinese AI startup DeepSeek. Experts are calling it “AI's Sputnik moment,” as this China-based company produced a vastly less expensive product that knocked ChatGPT off the number one spot in the Apple App Store. R Street Institute policy analyst Adam Thierer about how China's “world-class AI model” is a wake-up call for America's tech giants and AI innovation. Plus, commentary from FOX News contributor and host of the Jason In The House podcast, Jason Chaffetz. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The southern border was a hot-button issue during the campaign, and President Donald Trump continues his push for immigration reform as he enters his second week in office. Former acting ICE Director during the first Trump administration, Jonathan Fahey joins the Rundown to discuss the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigrants, who could be targeted by ICE, and how the Trump White House plans to enforce its reforms. This week began with a tech selloff in the markets after investors were spooked by Chinese AI startup DeepSeek. Experts are calling it “AI's Sputnik moment,” as this China-based company produced a vastly less expensive product that knocked ChatGPT off the number one spot in the Apple App Store. R Street Institute policy analyst Adam Thierer about how China's “world-class AI model” is a wake-up call for America's tech giants and AI innovation. Plus, commentary from FOX News contributor and host of the Jason In The House podcast, Jason Chaffetz. Photo Credit: AP Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow for the Technology & Innovation team at R Street, joins Kevin Frazier, Senior Research Fellow in the Constitutional Studies Program at the University of Texas at Austin and a Tarbell Fellow at Lawfare, to examine a lengthy, detailed report issued by the Bipartisan House Task Force on AI. Thierer walks through his own analysis of the report and considers some counterarguments to his primary concern that the report did not adequately address the developing patchwork of state AI regulations.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This virtual event explored the potential trajectories of AI policy under the upcoming shift in presidential administrations. Our expert panel, featuring Ash Kazaryan, Adam Kovacevich, and Neil Chilson, examined the critical issues surrounding AI and offered insights on what policymakers need to know as they navigate rapidly evolving AI technologies. This discussion, moderated by Adam Thierer, provides a balanced range of perspectives on how future administrations can effectively approach AI governance.

Ron and Ed welcome Back Adam Thierer, now with the R Street Institute, to talk about government regulation and AI. Adam has written extensively about how government regulation potentially affects the progress of innovation, especially with regard to new technology. This episode promises to be a wide-ranging and timely conversation.

Professor Werbach speaks with Adam Thierer, senior fellow for Technology and Innovation at R Street Institute. Adam and Kevin highligh developments in AI regulation on the state, federal, and international scale, and discuss both the benefits and dangers of regulatory engagement in the area. They consider the notion of AI as a “field-of-fields,” and the value of a sectoral approach to regulation, looking back to the development of regulatory approaches for the internet. Adam discusses what types of AI regulations can best balance accountability with innovation, protecting smaller AI developers and startups.  Adam Thierer specializes in entrepreneurialism, Internet, and free-speech issues, with a focus on emerging technologies. He is a senior fellow for the Technology & Innovation team at R Street Institute, a leading public policy think tank, and previously spent 12 years as a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Adam has also worked for the Progress and Freedom Foundation, the Adam Smith Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. Adam has published 10 books on a wide range of topics, including online child safety, internet governance, intellectual property, telecommunications policy, media regulation and federalism. Flexible, Pro-Innovation Governance Strategies for Artificial Intelligence Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom Want to learn more? ​​Engage live with Professor Werbach and other Wharton faculty experts in Wharton's new Strategies for Accountable AI online executive education program. It's perfect for managers, entrepreneurs, and advisors looking to harness AI's power while addressing its risks.

In this episode of AI, Government, and the Future, host Max Romanik is joined by Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow at the R Street Institute, to discuss the evolving landscape of AI policy and regulation. They explore the challenges of balancing innovation with governance, drawing parallels between early internet policy and current AI regulatory approaches. Adam shares insights on the pacing problem, the potential pitfalls of overregulation, and the importance of flexible, iterative governance frameworks for emerging technologies.

While AI doomers proselytize their catastrophic message, many politicians are recognizing that the loss of America's competitive edge poses a much more real threat than the supposed “existential risk” of AI. Today on Faster, Please!—The Podcast, I talk with Adam Thierer about the current state of the AI policy landscape and the accompanying fierce regulatory debate.Thierer is a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, where he promotes greater freedom for innovation and entrepreneurship. Prior to R Street, he worked as a senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, president of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, and at the Adam Smith Institute, Heritage Foundation, and Cato Institute.In This Episode* A changing approach (1:09)* The global AI race (7:26)* The political economy of AI (10:24)* Regulatory risk (16:10)* AI policy under Trump (22:29)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationA changing approach (1:09)Pethokoukis: Let's start out with just trying to figure out the state of play when it comes to AI regulation. Now I remember we had people calling for the AI Pause, and then we had a Biden executive order. They're passing some sort of act in Europe on AI, and now recently a senate working group in AI put out a list of guidelines or recommendations on AI. Given where we started, which was “shut it down,” to where we're at now, has that path been what you might've expected, given where we were when we were at full panic?Thierer: No, I think we've moved into a better place, I think. Let's look back just one year ago this week: In the Senate Judiciary Committee, there was a hearing where Sam Altman of OpenAI testified along with Gary Marcus, who's a well-known AI worrywart, and the lawmakers were falling all over themselves to praise Sam and Gary for basically calling for a variety of really extreme forms of AI regulation and controls, including not just national but international regulatory bodies, new general purpose licensing systems for AI, a variety of different types of liability schemes, transparency mandates, disclosure as so-called “AI nutritional labels,” I could go on down the list of all the types of regulations that were being proposed that day. And of course this followed, as you said, Jim, a call for an AI Pause, without any details about exactly how that would work, but it got a lot of signatories, including people like Elon Musk, which is very strange considering he was at the same time deploying one of the biggest AI systems in history. But enough about Elon.The bottom line is that those were dark days, and I think the tenor of the debate and the proposals on the table today, one year after that hearing, have improved significantly. That's the good news. The bad news is that there's still a lot of problematic regulatory proposals percolating throughout the United States. As of this morning, as we're taping the show, we are looking at 738 different AI bills pending in the United States according to multistate.ai, an AI tracking service. One hundred and—I think—eleven of those are federal bills. The vast majority of it is state. But that count does not include all of the municipal regulatory proposals that are pending for AI systems, including some that have already passed in cities like New York City that already has a very important AI regulation governing algorithmic hiring practices. So the bottom line, Jim, is it's the best of times, it's the worst of times. Things have both gotten better and worse.Well—just because the most recent thing that happened—I know with this the senate working group, and they were having all kinds of technologists and economists come in and testify. So that report, is it really calling for anything specific to happen? What's in there other than just kicking it back to all the committees? If you just read that report, what does it want to happen?A crucial thing about this report, and let's be clear what this is, because it was an important report because senator Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was in charge of this, along with a bipartisan group of other major senators, and this started the idea of, so-called “AI insight forums” last year, and it seemed to be pulling some authority away from committees and taking it to the highest levels of the Senate to say, “Hey, we're going to dictate AI policy and we're really scared.” And so that did not look good. I think in the process, just politically speaking—That, in itself, is a good example. That really represents the level of concern that was going around, that we need to do something different and special to address this existential risk.And this was the leader of the Senate doing it and taking away power, in theory, from his committee members—which did not go over well with said committee members, I should add. And so a whole bunch of hearings took place, but they were not really formal hearings, they were just these AI insight forum working groups where a lot of people sat around and said the same things they always say on a daily basis, and positive and negatives of AI. And the bottom line is, just last week, a report came out from this AI senate bipartisan AI working group that was important because, again, it did not adopt the recommendations that were on the table a year ago when the process got started last June. It did not have overarching general-purpose licensing of artificial intelligence, no new call for a brand new Federal Computer Commission for America, no sweeping calls for liability schemes like some senators want, or other sorts of mandates.Instead, it recommended a variety of more generic policy reforms and then kicked a lot of the authority back to those committee members to say, “You fill out the details, for better for worse.” And it also included a lot of spending. One thing that seemingly everybody agrees on in this debate is that, well, the government should spend a lot more money and so another $30 billion was on the table of sort of high-tech pork for AI-related stuff, but it really did signal a pretty important shift in approach, enough that it agitated the groups on the more pro-regulatory side of this debate who said, “Oh, this isn't enough! We were expecting Schumer to go for broke and swing for the fences with really aggressive regulation, and he's really let us down!” To which I can only say, “Well, thank God he did,” because we're in a better place right now because we're taking a more wait-and-see approach on at least some of these issues.A big, big part of the change in this narrative is an acknowledgement of what I like to call the realpolitik of AI policy and specifically the realpolitik of geopoliticsThe global AI race (7:26)I'm going to ask you in a minute what stuff in those recommendations worries you, but before I do, what happened? How did we get from where we were a year ago to where we've landed today?A big, big part of the change in this narrative is an acknowledgement of what I like to call the realpolitik of AI policy and specifically the realpolitik of geopolitics. We face major adversaries, but specifically China, who has said in documents that the CCP [Chinese Communist Party] has published that they want to be the global leader in algorithmic and computational technologies by 2030, and they're spending a lot of money putting a lot of state resources into it. Now, I don't necessarily believe that means they're going to automatically win, of course, but they're taking it seriously. But it's not just China. We have seen in the past year massive state investments and important innovations take place across the globe.I'm always reminding people that people talk a big game about America's foundational models are large scale systems, including things like Meta's Llama, which was the biggest open source system in the world a year ago, and then two months after Meta launched Llama, their open source platform, the government of the UAE came out with Falcon 180B, an open source AI model that was two-and-a-half times larger than Facebook's model. That meant America's AI supremacy and open source foundational models lasted for two months. And that's not China, that's the government of the UAE, which has piled massive resources into being a global leader in computation. Meanwhile, China's launched their biggest super—I'm sorry, Russia's launched their biggest supercomputer system ever; you've got Europe applying a lot of resources into it, and so on and so forth. A lot of folks in the Senate have come to realize that problem is real: that if we shoot ourselves in the foot as a nation, they could race ahead and gain competitive advantage in geopolitical strategic advantages over the United States if it hobbles our technology base. I think that's the first fundamental thing that's changed.I think the other thing that changed, Jim, is just a little bit of existential-risk exhaustion. The rhetoric in this debate, as you've written about eloquently in your columns, has just been crazy. I mean, I've never really seen anything like it in all the years we've been covering technology and economic policy. You and I have both written, this is really an unprecedented level of hysteria. And I think, at some point, the Chicken-Littleism just got to be too much, and I think some saner minds prevailed and said, “Okay, well wait a minute. We don't really need to pause the entire history of computation to address these hypothetical worst-case scenarios. Maybe there's a better plan than that.” And so we're starting to pull back from the abyss, if you will, a little bit, and the adults are reentering the conversation—a little bit, at least. So I think those are the two things that really changed more, although there were other things, but those were two big ones.The political economy of AI (10:24)To what extent do you think we saw the retreat from the more apocalyptic thinking—how much that was due from what businesses were saying, venture capitalists, maybe other tech . . . ? What do you think were the key voices Congress started listening to a little bit more?That's a great question. The political economy of AI policy and tech policy is something that is terrifically interesting to me. There are so many players and voices involved in AI policy because AI is the most important general-purpose technology of our time, and as a widespread broad base—Do you have any doubt about that? (Let me cut you off.) Do you have any doubt about that?I don't. I think it's unambiguous, and we live in a world of “combinatorial innovation,” as Hal Varian calls it, where technologies build on top of the other, one after another, but the thing is they all lead to greater computational capacity, and therefore, algorithmic and machine learning systems come out of those—if we allow it. And the state of data science in this country has gotten to the point where it's so sophisticated because of our rich base of diverse types of digital technologies and computational technologies that finally we're going to break out of the endless cycle of AI booms and busts, and springs and winters, and we're going to have a summer. I think we're having it right now. And so that is going to come to affect every single segment and sector of our economy, including the government itself. I think industry has been very, very scrambled and sort of atomistic in their approach to AI policy, and some of them have been downright opportunistic, trying to throw each other's competitors under the busNow let me let you go return to the political economy, what I was asking you about, what were the voices, sorry, but I wanted to get that in there.Well, I think there are so many voices, I can't name them all today, obviously, but obviously we're going to start with one that's a quiet voice behind the scenes, but a huge one, which is, I think, the National Security community. I think clearly going back to our point about China and geopolitical security, I think a lot of people behind the scenes who care about these issues, including people in the Pentagon, I think they had conversations with certain members of Congress and said, “You know what? China exists. And if we're shooting ourselves in the foot, we begin this race for geopolitical strategic supremacy in an important new general-purpose technology arena, we're really hurting our underlying security as a nation. I think that that thinking is there. So that's an important voice.Secondly, I think industry has been very, very scrambled and sort of atomistic in their approach to AI policy, and some of them have been downright opportunistic, trying to throw each other's competitors under the bus, unfortunately, and that includes OpenAI trying to screw over other companies and technologies, which is dangerous, but the bottom line is: More and more of them are coming to realize, as they saw the actual details of regulation and thinking through the compliance costs, that “Hell no, we won't go, we're not going to do that. We need a better approach.” And it was always easier in the old days to respond to the existential risk route, like, “Oh yeah, sure, regulation is fine, we'll go along with it!” But then when you see the devilish details, you think twice and you realize, “This will completely undermine our competitive advantage in the space as a company or our investment or whatever else.” All you need to do is look at Exhibit A, which is Europe, and say, if you always run with worst-case scenario thinking and Chicken-Littleism is the basis of your technology policy, guess what? People respond to incentives and they flee.Hatred of big tech is like the one great bipartisan, unifying theme of this Congress, if anything. But at the end of the day, I think everyone is thankful that those companies are headquartered in the United States and not Beijing, Brussels, or anywhere else. It's interesting, the national security aspect, my little amateurish thought experiment would be, what would be our reaction, and what would be the reaction in Washington if, in November, 2022, instead of it being a company, an American company with a big investment from another American company having rolled out ChatGPT, what if it would've been Tencent, or Alibaba, or some other Chinese company that had rolled this out, something that's obviously a leap forward, and they had been ahead, even if they said, “Oh, we're two or three years ahead of America,” it would've been bigger than Sputnik, I think.People are probably tired of hearing about AI—hopefully not, I hope they'll also listen to this podcast—but that would all we would be talking about. We wouldn't be talking about job loss, and we wouldn't be talking about ‘The Terminator,' we'd be talking about the pure geopolitical terms that the US has suffered a massive, massive defeat here and who's to blame? What are we going to do? And anybody at that moment who would've said, “We need to launch cruise missile strikes on our own data centers” for fear. . . I mean! And I think you're right, the national security component, extremely important here.In fact, I stole your little line about “Sputnik moment,” Jim, when I testified in front of the House Oversight Committee last month and I said, “Look, it would've been a true ‘Sputnik moment,' and instead it's those other countries that are left having the Sputnik moment, right? They're wondering, ‘How is it that, once again, the United States has gotten out ahead on digital and computational-based technologies?'” But thank God we did! And as I pointed out in the committee room that day, there's a lot of people who have problems with technology companies in Congress today. Hatred of big tech is like the one great bipartisan, unifying theme of this Congress, if anything. But at the end of the day, I think everyone is thankful that those companies are headquartered in the United States and not Beijing, Brussels, or anywhere else. That's just a unifying theme. Everybody in the committee room that day nodded their head, “Yes, yes, absolutely. We still hate them, but we're thankful that they're here.” And that then extends to AI: Can the next generation of companies that they want to bring to Congress and bash and pull money from for their elections, can they once again exist in the United States?Regulatory risk (16:10)So whether it's that working group report, or what else you see in Congress, what are a couple, three areas where you're concerned, where there still seems to be some sort of regulatory momentum?Let's divide it into a couple of chunks here. First of all, at the federal level, Congress is so damn dysfunctional that I'm not too worried that even if they have bad ideas, they're going to pursue them because they're just such a mess, they can't get any basic things done on things like baseline privacy legislation, or driverless car legislation, or even, hell, the budget and the border! They can't get basics done!I think it's a big positive that one, while they're engaging in dysfunction, the technology is evolving. And I hope, if it's as important as I think you and I think, more money will be invested, we'll see more use cases, it'll be obvious—the downsides of screwing up the regulation I think will be more obvious, and I think that's a tailwind for this technology.We're in violent agreement on that, Jim, and of course this goes by the name of “the pacing problem,” the idea that technology is outpacing law in many ways, and one man's pacing problem is another man's pacing benefit, in my opinion. There's a chance for technology to prove itself a little bit. That being said, we don't live in a legislative or regulatory vacuum. We already have in the United States 439 government agencies and sub-agencies, 2.2 million employees just at the federal level. So many agencies are active right now trying to get their paws on artificial intelligence, and some of them already have it. You look at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration], I could go all through the alphabet soup of regulatory agencies that are already trying to regulate or overregulating AI right now.Then you have the Biden administration, who's gone out and done a lot of cheerleading in favor of more aggressive unilateral regulation, regardless of what Congress says and basically says, “To hell with all that stuff about Chevron Doctrine and major questions, we're just going to go do it! We're at least going to jawbone a lot and try to threaten regulation, and we're going to do it in the name of ‘algorithmic fairness,'” which is what their 100-plus-page executive order and their AI Bill of Rights says they're all about, as opposed to talking about AI opportunity and benefits—it's all misery. And it's like, “Look at how AI is just a massive tool of discrimination and bias, and we have to do something about it preemptively through a precautionary principle approach.” So if Congress isn't going to act, unfortunately the Biden administration already is and nobody's stopping them.But that's not even the biggest problem. The biggest problem, going back to the point that there are 730-plus bills pending in the US right now, the vast majority of them are state and local. And just last Friday, governor Jared Polis of Colorado signed into law the first major AI regulatory measure in Colorado, and there's a bigger and badder bill pending right now in California, there's 80 different bills pending in New York alone, and any half of them would be a disaster.I could go on down the list of troubling state patchwork problems that are going to develop for AI and ML [Machine Learning] systems, but the bottom line is this: This would be a complete and utter reversal of the winning formula that Congress and the Clinton administration gave us in the 1990s, which was a national—a global framework for global electronic commerce. It was very intentionally saying, “We're going to break with the Analog Era disaster, we're going to have a national framework that's pro-freedom to innovate, and we're going to make sure that these meddlesome barriers do not develop to online speech and commerce.” And yet, here with AI, we are witnessing a reversal of that. States are in the lead, and again, like I said, localities too, and Congress is sitting there and is the dysfunctional soup that it is saying, “Oh, maybe we should do something to spend a little bit more money to promote AI.” Well, we can spend all the money we want, but we can end up like Europe who spends tons of money on techno-industrial policies and gets nothing for it because they can't get their innovation culture right, because they're regulating the living hell out of digital technology.So you want Congress to take this away from the states?I do. I do, but it's really, really hard. I think what we need to do is follow the model that we had in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998. We've also had moratoriums, not only through the Internet Tax Freedom Act, but through the Commercial Space Amendments having to do with space commercial travel and other bills. Congress has handled the question of preemption before and put moratoria in place to say, “Let's have a learning period before we go do stupid things on a new technology sector that is fast moving and hard to understand.” I think that would be a reasonable response, but again, I have to go back to what we just talked about, Jim, which is that there's no chance of us probably getting it. There's no appetite in it. Not any of the 111 bills pending in Congress right now says a damn thing about state and local regulation of technology!Is the thrust of those federal bills, is it the kinds of stuff that you're generally worried about?Mostly, but not entirely. Some of it is narrower. A lot of these bills are like, “Let's take a look at AI and. . . fill in the blank: elections, AI and jobs, AI and whatever.” And some of them, on the merits, not terrible, others, I have concerns, but it's certainly better that we take a targeted sectoral approach to AI policy and regulation than having the broad-based, general-purpose stuff. Now, there are broad-based, general-purpose measures, and here's what they do, Jim: They basically say, “Look, instead of having a whole cloth new regulatory approach, let's build on the existing types of approaches being utilized in the Department of Commerce, namely through our NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology], and NTIA [National Telecommunications and Information Administration] sub-agencies there. NIST is the National Standards Body, and basically they develop best practices through something called the AI Risk Management Framework for artificial intelligence development—and they're good! It's multi-stakeholder, it's bottom up, it's driven by the same principles that motivated the Clinton administration to do multi-stakeholder processes for the internet. Good model. It is non-regulatory, however. It is a consensus-based, multi-stakeholder, voluntary approach to developing consensus-based standards for best practices regarding various types of algorithmic services. These bills in Congress—and there's at least five of them that I count, that I've written about recently—say, “Let's take that existing infrastructure and give it some enforcement teeth. Let's basically say, ‘This policy infrastructure will be converted into a quasi-regulatory system,'” and there begins the dangerous path towards backdoor regulation of artificial intelligence in this country, and I think that's the most likely model we'll get. Like I said, five models, legislative models in the Senate alone that would do that to varying degrees.AI policy under Trump (22:29)Do you have any feel for what a Trump administration would want to do on this?I do, because a month before the Trump administration left office, they issued a report through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and it basically laid out for agencies a set of principles for how it should evaluate artificial intelligence systems, both that are used by the government or that they regulate in the private sector, and it was an excellent set of principles. It was a restatement of the importance of policy, forbearance and humility. It was a restatement of a belief in cost-benefit analysis and identifying not only existing regulatory capacity to address these problems, but also non-regulatory mechanisms or best practices or standards that could address some of these things. It was a really good memo. I praised it in a piece that I wrote just before the Trump administration left. Now, of course, the Trump administration may change.Yes, and also, the technology has changed. I mean, that was 2020 and a lot has happened, and I don't know where. . . . I'm not sure where all the Republicans are. I think some people get it. . .I think the problem, Jim, is that, for the Republican Party, and Trumpian conservatives, in particular, they face a time of choosing. And what I mean by this is that they have spent the last four to six years—and Trump egged this on—engaging in nonstop quote-unquote “big tech bashing” and making technology companies in the media out to be, as Trumps calls them, “the enemy of the American people.” And so many hearings now are just parading tech executives and others up there to be beaten with a stick in front of the public, and this is the new thing. And then there's just a flood of bills that would regulate traditional digital technologies, repeal things like Section 230, which is liability protection for the tech sector, and so on, child safety regulations.Meanwhile, that same Republican Party and Mr. Trump go around hating on Joe Biden in China. If it's one thing they can't stand more than big tech, it's Joe and China! And so, in a sense, they've got to choose, because their own policy proposals on technology could essentially kneecap America's technology base in a way that would open up the door to whether it's what they fear in the “woke DEI policies” of Biden or the CCP's preferred policy agenda for controlling computation in the world today. Choose two, you don't get all three. And I think this is going to be an interesting thing to watch if Mr. Trump comes back into office, do they pick up where that OMB memo left off, or do they go right back to beating that “We've got to kill big tech by any means necessary in a seek-and-destroy mission, to hell with the consequences.” And I don't know yet.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Part three of this year's Summer with Sphere is coming to you live from Sphere Summit. Join us on Tuesday, July 25th from 2–3 pm EDT for a panel discussion on the most important issues in tech policy and regulation. Joining us will be Jennifer Huddleston, Technology Policy Research Fellow at the Cato Institute, Nicol Turner Lee, Senior Fellow in Governance Studies and Director of the Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings Institution, and Adam Thierer, Resident Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation at R Street. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Thank you for listening to the 43rd episode of "This Week's Economy." Today, I cover: 1) National: - Jobs report from last Friday looks good on the surface but weak under it - CPI inflation indicates it is heating up again, and real earnings are weak - GOP debate was too much infighting and not enough specificity, especially on spending - Trump v. Biden: Comparison after three years of both administrations 2) States: - Texas property tax relief isn't being felt by many Texans, and the amount of tax relief will be much less because of excess state and local spending - Texas Policy Research Initiative launches and posts about the messy legislative process in Texas - New South Carolina Sustainable Budget for FY 2025 will pave a better path forward if followed 3) Other: - I'm now an associate research fellow at AIER; don't miss my latest piece on how states are hurting people by raising their minimum wages - My website is newly updated; be sure to check that out as well - Don't miss the latest LPP podcast with Adam Thierer of R Street Institute on the technology revolution - Mark your calendars for Monday for a new podcast with Michael Cannon of Cato Institute on improving health care affordability, accessibility, and quality Please share this episode on social media, and provide a rating and review. Also, subscribe and see show notes for this episode on Substack (www.vanceginn.substack.com) and visit my website for economic insights (www.vanceginn.com).

Episode 78 is with Adam Thierer, innovation policy analyst at R Street Institute and author of, “Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments?" Today, we discuss: 1) What makes nations rich and how America has become the most prosperous nation on earth; 2) The importance of failure, freedom, and permissionless innovation; and 3) Why AI and technology must be embraced, and the issues with Biden's AI executive order. Check out Adam's book: https://www.amazon.com/Evasive-Entrepreneurs-Innovation-Economies-Governments/dp/1948647761/ref Please share this on social media and provide a rating and review. Also, subscribe and see show notes for this episode on Substack (www.vanceginn.substack.com) and visit my website for economic insights (www.vanceginn.com).

Hosts Joe Grogan and Eric Ueland explore the paths forward for policymakers grappling with the limitless possibilities of AI. They are joined by prolific author and 30+ year veteran of Washington's approach to technology, innovation, and public policy, Adam Thierer. They discuss how global regulators have helped—or harmed—human progress and American innovation. This episode is a master class in the precedents and current thinking shaping this rapidly evolving technology. See more at these links. Helpful links: Pieces by Adam Without Section 230 Protections, Generative AI Innovation Will Be Decimated Flexible, Pro-Innovation Governance Strategies for Artificial Intelligence Overregulating AI Will Disrupt Markets and Discourage Competition White House Executive Order Threatens to Put AI in a Regulatory Cage What I Learned about the Power of AI at the Cleveland Clinic Running List of My Research on AI, ML & Robotics Policy Commentary and contributions by Joe AI Healthcare Working Group AI in health care: The perils of Biden's executive order News and recent developments E.U. Agrees on Landmark Artificial Intelligence Rules Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence

What limits innovation? Is that good? I talk to Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the R Street Institute, exploring the concept of permissionless innovation and its far-reaching implications. From ancient Mesopotamia to the digital revolution, we unpack how policy context shape the trajectory of innovation and, consequently, our society.With Aaron Wildavsky saying "Go!" and my son Kevin Munger saying "Not so fast, there Scooter!", we venture into the contentious territory of innovation intellectual property rights in an era of digital sharing. FOUR TWEJs (trying to keep THAT weekly, at least), and some great letters.LINKS:PAPERS and BOOKS by ADAM THIERER:https://rtp.fedsoc.org/paper/the-coming-onslaught-of-algorithmic-fairness-regulations/https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/the-problem-with-ai-licensing-an-fda-for-algorithms https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/overregulating-ai-will-disrupt-markets-and-discourage-competitionhttps://www.rstreet.org/people/adam-thierer/https://www.amazon.com/Books-Adam-Thierer/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AAdam+ThiererMoney Pump: https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100205601#:~:text=The%20concept%20was%20introduced%20by,willing%20to%20pay%20for%20it. https://johanegustafsson.net/books/money-pump-arguments.pdf   Aaron Wildavsky, SEARCHING FOR SAFETY, https://www.routledge.com/Searching-for-Safety/Wildavsky/p/book/9780912051185Calestous Juma, INNOVATION AND ITS ENEMIES  https://academic.oup.com/book/25649William Baumol, ENTREPRENEURSHIP (article)  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/088390269400014XEpstein and Munger on Capitalism and Stagnation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o-s541UKgI  Munger on “Permissionless Innovation” on Econtalk https://www.econtalk.org/michael-munger-on-permissionless-innovation/ If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

President Biden has signed a sweeping new executive order to regulate the development of artificial intelligence. Is that the federal government's role? Or the role of Congress? And how will this impact our global competitiveness? Adam Thierer from the R Street Institute says this executive order throws the kitchen sink at the issue and threatens innovation.

What does it take to attract the world's most brilliant minds?In this Tech Roundup episode, Caleb Watney and Adam Thierer explore the United States' approach towards highly skilled immigration, its impact on innovation and economic growth, and how it might be improved going forward.They begin by looking backwards, highlighting contributions from scientific refugees that led to remarkable advances such as the Manhattan Project. The conversation then delves into present-day legislative scenarios, including bipartisan support and barriers to immigration reform, alongside an analysis of specific policies like the CHIPS Act and the potential to expand the O-1 visa for extraordinary ability. The episode underscores immigrants' contributions to entrepreneurship and contrasts the United States' policies with those of Canada, the UK, and China's aggressive talent recruitment strategies.Tune in for an in-depth exploration of how the United States could maintain its competitive edge in the global race for talent.Featuring:- Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, Technology & Innovation, R Street Institute- Caleb Watney, Co-Founder and Co-CEO, Institute for ProgressAdditional Resources:- STEM Immigration Is Critical to American National SecurityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Adam is one of the most experienced technology policy analysts in the world - he was writing about the internet on day 1 in the 1990s. Now, Adam is an innovation policy analyst at the R Street Institute, and the author of several books, including Permissionless Innovation (2016) & Evasive Entrepreneurs (2020).Isn't it striking - almost all popular sci-fi movies about technology are dystopian? Not only does that warp the public perception of technology as something dangerous, but it also influences policy. Supposedly serious policymakers make arguments for increased regulation like "we don't want the Terminator, don't we?" all the time.Adam takes us through the quagmire of Washington D.C. policy through the lens of one message: permissionless innovation is key to unlock a better future.He introduces the term "evasive entrepreneurs" through case studies of Uber, Lyft and biohackers that used 3D printing for making prosthetics. These cases of "technology liberation have a few things in common: a) they operate at the borderline of legality, and b) they succeed by making consumers advocates for them.Evasive entrepreneurship describes the premise of this podcast and of Infinita VC. Special jurisdictions like Prospera in Honduras, the Catawba DEZ in North Carolina or other free zones in Africa or Latin America can be regulatory sandboxes.However, evasive entrepreneurs have moral obligations. It is also a tactic used by bad actors, such as Sam Bankman-Fried, who used an offshore jurisdiction (Bahamas) as a launchpad for a move to do regulatory capture in the United States.We concede that evasive entrepreneurship can be done for good and bad.Recently, Adam has been writing about the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. He brings bad news: Washington D.C. policymakers want to use it as an excuse to control the internet. Adam has been in the business for three decades and he's never seen more extreme proposals in a short amount of time.This should be alarming to entrepreneurs. Technology is a force for good in the world, and we need permissionless environments to thrive. The good news is that we don't need to advocate for policy in Washington, we can criticize by creating.Adam's book on Evasive Entrepreneurship contains several chapters to navigate ethical questions, and it's available for free (here). Let's build!Adam blogs at techliberation.com Get full access to Stranded Technologies at niklasanzinger.substack.com/subscribe

What will happen to our jobs when the robots take over? Kelli and Shoshana navigate the world of artificial intelligence and jobs with R Street's Resident Senior Fellow for Technology and Innovation, Adam Thierer. An expert on AI, he explains why you shouldn't worry so much about the robots taking your job.  Kelli also speaks with Dr. Christi Smith who explains why a criminal record shouldn't always prevent you from getting a job. Instead, more states should look at “clean slate” laws that remove barriers to jobs for those with criminal records. Kelli and Christi discuss the importance of giving people second chances and allowing them to become productive members of society.  (0:06:14) The Impact of AI on Jobs (0:08:45) The Evolution of Technology and Professions (0:12:26) AI and Quantum Computers Enhance Creativity (0:16:21) Truckers Union vs. Driverless Trucks (0:20:26) Retraining in Changing Industries (0:26:41) Technology, Burnout, and Job Security (0:36:00) Clean Slate Laws for Convicts (0:39:27) Jobs for Those With Sealed Records (0:42:28) Clean Slate (0:45:31) Clean Slate Reform

The R Street Institute's Adam Thierer offers a perspective on the role artificial intelligence is having in the economy and workplace. The discussion looks at worries many have about AI replacing and leaving workers behind.

On this week's episode of She Thinks, Adam Thierer joins to help us break down the complicated topic of AI. It's a field that combines human intelligence, data, and computer science to problem solve, and it's left us wondering, “can machines think or lie?” If you've been scratching your head trying to figure out this […]

On this week's episode of She Thinks, Adam Thierer joins to help us break down the complicated topic of AI. It's a field that combines human intelligence, data, and computer science to problem solve, and it's left us wondering, “can machines think or lie?” If you've been scratching your head trying to figure out this new field, this episode is for you. We look at what artificial intelligence actually is, the pros and cons, and what, if any, legislation needs to pass to prevent machines from taking over the world. Adam Thierer is a senior fellow for the Technology & Innovation team at the R Street Institute. He works to make the world safe for innovators and entrepreneurs by pushing for a policy vision that is rooted in the idea of “permissionless innovation.” Adam has published 10 books on a wide range of topics, including online child safety, internet governance, intellectual property, telecommunications policy, media regulation, and federalism. In 2008, Adam received the Family Online Safety Institute's “Award for Outstanding Achievement.”--She Thinks is a podcast for women (and men) who are sick of the spin in today's news cycle and are seeking the truth. Once a week, every week, She Thinks host Beverly Hallberg is joined by guests who cut through the clutter and bring you the facts. You don't have to keep up with policy and politics to understand how issues will impact you and the people you care about most. You just have to keep up with us. We make sure you have the information you need to come to your own conclusions. Because, let's face it, you're in control of your own life and can think for yourself. You can listen to the latest She Thinks episode(s) here or wherever you get your podcasts. Then subscribe, rate, and share with your friends. If you are already caught up and want more, join our online community. Be sure to subscribe to our emails to ensure you're equipped with the facts on the issues you care about most: https://iwf.org/connect. Independent Women's Forum (IWF) believes all issues are women's issues. IWF promotes policies that aren't just well-intended, but actually enhance people's freedoms, opportunities, and choices. IWF doesn't just talk about problems. We identify solutions and take them straight to the playmakers and policy creators. And, as a 501(c)3, IWF educates the public about the most important topics of the day. Check out the Independent Women's Forum website for more information on how policies impact you, your loved ones, and your community: www.iwf.org. Subscribe to IWF's YouTube channel. Follow IWF on social media: - on Twitter- on Facebook- on Instagram#IWF #SheThinks #AllIssuesAreWomensIssues Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this Tech Roundup episode, we delve into the discussions raised by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's recent hearing on AI regulation. Neil Chilson and Adam Thierer offer an in-depth analysis of the various approaches to AI that are being considered by regulators and in public policy circles – from voluntary efforts by the industry to promote transparency and accountability to advocating for licensing and testing requirements for AI deployment to the prospect of a global regulatory body for AI. They explore whether AI presents fundamentally new questions for policymakers, or whether regulators already have the tools they need. They discuss the risk of over-regulating this new innovative space and the potential consequences of doing so. Don't miss out on this extensive conversation on one of the most important issues in tech policy today. Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

The advent of AI technologies such as ChatGPT has brought much excitement. While many have celebrated this innovation, an increasing number are calling for greater regulations to mitigate its perceived risks. But could heavy-handed regulation harm the sector and prevent threaten future innovation? To discuss this, IEA Director of Public Policy and Communications Matthew Lesh sat down with Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow in Technology and Innovation at the R Street Institute, a Washington DC think tank.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning have reentered our public discourse due to some fascinating new applications, yet AI's role in these areas has also made many question the moral place of AI and its implications on our culture beyond these applications. We'll be discussing these topics and more with one of the foremost experts on AI and tech regulation, Adam Thierer.

Matt Kibbe is joined by the R Street Institute's Adam Thierer and Wayne Brough to discuss the state of free speech on the internet. With Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, we are in the middle of a national debate about the tension between censorship and free expression online. On the Right, many people are calling for government to rein in what they perceive as the excesses of Big Tech companies, while the Left wants the government to crack down on speech they deem dangerous. Both approaches make the same mistake of giving politicians authority over what we are allowed to say and hear. And with recent revelations about government agents leaning on social media companies to censor speech, it's clear that when it comes to the online conversation, there's no such thing as a purely private company.

In this episode, Adam Thierer interviews Professor Daniel Crane regarding state restrictions on direct car sales and their implications for automobile markets, including the antitrust concerns they may raise.Featuring:– Daniel Crane, Frederick Paul Furth Sr. Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School– [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Eight years after he was first sworn in, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey will leave office in January 2023 due to the state's limit of two consecutive terms. In this episode, Governor Ducey joined tech policy experts Brent Skorup and Adam Thierer to discuss initiatives aimed at boosting innovation Arizona has launched during his time in office. Their conversation covered regulatory sandboxes, occupational licensing reform, autonomous vehicle policy, and much more.This episode was co-sponsored by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.Featuring:- Doug Ducey, Governor, State of Arizona- Brent Skorup, Senior Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In 2017 or so, people started to assert that the FAANG companies—Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Netflix, and Google—were unstoppable juggernauts. Lately that claim has taken some hard hits, as Facebook (now Meta) and Netflix, facing stiff competition, have seen their stock prices tumble. Adam Thierer, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center, joins the show to discuss how the Schumpeterian “gale of creative destruction” unseats dominant market players, why government antitrust cases so often look foolish in hindsight, and why we should celebrate innovation (spoiler: it leads to progress and human betterment). Adam also discusses his book Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments. Corbin's piece on monkeys and double pendulums—mentioned around 20:30—is “Can Experts Structure Markets? Don't Count on It.”

You don't have to end your prayers in the name of Elon Musk to appreciate how deeply he is upsetting our ideological gatekeepers at Twitter. Laura Williams explains how the panice reveals so much about the current state of free speech. If you're unfortunate enough to be shopping for a car right now, you'll notice that the deck is firmly stacked in favor of the dealers. Adam Thierer wonders, why make direct car buying illegal in the first place? Nowhere is the hypocrisy of the U.S. government so apparent than in its lust to get its hands on Julian Assange. Caitlin Johnstone pulls no punches in describing how the U.S. cries about war crimes while while imprisoning a journalist for exposing its war crimes. War is like steroids for the state. Judge Andrew Napolitano has a timely column on how our government is using war to assault freedom. Here's an interesting thought exercise: Imagine that you were transported back into your six year old body with all the wisdom and experience you now possess. Would anyone take you seriously? Why not? William Gillis has an interesting take on our first prison. How important is it to be right? If you want to be capable of clear and independent thinking, you've got to be willing to do your own research and willing to be wrong. The only thing sweeter than succeeding without your critics' approval is when your critics directly contribute to your success. Andrea Widburg explains how the Washington Post has triggered the Streisand effect for Libs of TikTok. As relieved as we might feel for seeing mask mandates fading into history, we still face a serious threat in the name of public health. Kit Knightly warns about the global pandemic treaty being pushed by the WHO. Sponsors: Dixie Chiropractic HSL Ammo Sewing & Quilting Center Monticello College Life Saving Food The Heather Turner Team at Patriot Home Mortgage Govern Your Crypto --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

Social media has become a prominent way for lawmakers, public agencies, experts, and governments to communicate with the public. Meanwhile, a once-obscure provision in federal communications law — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — has become a political football because it provides liability protections to internet-based companies like Facebook and Twitter. Our guests, Kristian Stout, Brent Skorup, and moderator Adam Thierer, are legal experts who have written about the history of media law and Section 230. They joined us for a moderated discussion featuring audience Q&A, as Stout and Skorup debated how lawmakers and courts should approach future Section 230 issues, political speech, and free speech online.Featuring:- Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- Kristian Stout, Director of Innovation Policy, International Center for Law & Economics- [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

What is industrial policy and what role has it played in trade, supply chains, free markets, and diplomacy? Adam Thierer takes us on a tour of the pitfalls and boondoggles that happen when government picks the winners and losers in American industry. Find out (most of) what you need to know about this important subject in less than 25 minutes - along with what happened to the flying cars we were promised! Adam Thierer is the Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He serves on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Artificial Intelligence Commission on Competitiveness, Inclusion, and Innovation. He is the author of "Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom" and "Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance." Follow Adam on Twitter at @AdamThierer.   Subscribe and follow to catch the latest episodes of Hold These Truths featuring thought leaders and legends like Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, Bari Weiss, Jocko Willink, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and many more: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hold-these-truths-with-dan-crenshaw/id1498149200 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2BbbFyOBNTLpYDzUai6ta2?si=f8iPozsGQ5CjAAammAs29g Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dancrenshawtx/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/repdancrenshaw Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RepDanCrenshaw  

Experts Marc Scribner and Adam Thierer join us to provide an update on autonomous vehicle (AV) policy. Why has Congress been unable to pass significant AV legislation? How have the Department of Transportation and state governments filled that void? What are the best and worst examples of how governments should approach AVs?Related Reading:- "Congress' failure to enact an automated vehicle regulatory framework is an opportunity for states"(https://reason.org/commentary/congress-failure-to-enact-an-automated-vehicle-regulatory-framework-is-an-opportunity-for-states/)- "Challenges and Opportunities for Federal Automated Vehicle Policy"(https://reason.org/policy-brief/challenges-and-opportunities-for-federal-automated-vehicle-policy/)- "10 Best Practices For State Automated Vehicle Policy"(https://reason.org/policy-brief/10-best-practices-for-state-automated-vehicle-policy/)- "Elon Musk and the Coming Federal Showdown Over Driverless Vehicles"(https://www.discoursemagazine.com/economics/2021/11/22/elon-musk-and-the-coming-federal-showdown-over-driverless-vehicles/) Featuring:- Marc Scribner, Senior Transportation Policy Analyst, Reason Foundation- [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

There are few things more confusing than the three-tier system controlling alcohol distribution in the United States. It's a topic that is complex even for policy savvy bar owners and...

We live in a "permission society," where it sometimes feels like anything that is not prohibited is mandatory. What is the entrepreneur to do in such a climate? Perhaps, rather than using bad governance as an excuse not to innovate, we should see it as an opportunity to satisfy the needs being unmet by lumbering bureaucracies.Adam Thierer, a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, has written something of a manual for Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance, following his last book, Permissionless Innovation , which offered a kind of cognitive therapy for the obsessive-compulsive personalities that head various regulatory agencies. Thierer specializes in innovation, entrepreneurialism, Internet, and free-speech issues, with a particular focus on the public policy concerns surrounding emerging technologies.From excessive playground rules to ride-sharing red tape, signs of the permission society are everywhere. Thierer says that legitimate concerns about new technology need not stymie innovation in areas that can make all of our lives better. Is it sometimes better to ask forgiveness than permission?

Adam Thierer on the future of governance

A license to arrange flowers? Laws mandating higher prices during difficult financial times? Government lawyers defending economic regulations on the basis of possible extraterrestrial activity? Welcome to the wacky world of the constitutional right to earn a living, which since the 1930s has been relegated to the lowest level of protection by the Courts. In this episode, the ladies discuss the origins of the “tiers of scrutiny” that apply depending on whether you’re talking about judicially favored rights, like free speech, or other rights, like the right to earn a living. In a scorching hot dissent from the 1930s, one justice seemed to predict how this lax treatment by the courts would affect entrepreneurship, innovation, and employment today. Thanks to our guests Hadley Arkes, Timothy Sandefur, and Adam Thierer.Follow us on Twitter: @EHSlattery @Anastasia_Esq @PacificLegal #DissedPod See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Welcome to the Bridge Policy Download produced by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Today, we’re bringing you the audio from a recent webinar we held on the future of innovation policy. Adam Thierer promotes his research and perspectives on technology and innovation policy alongside one of the world’s foremost thinkers on the subject, Matt Ridley. If you’d like to contact a scholar involved in this webinar, please email outreach@mercatus.gmu.edu. We've changed our name! What was formally known at the Mercatus Policy Download is now The Bridge Policy Download. Our goal has always been to provide our audience with smart policy ideas for a growing world, and that remains to be our goal. To learn more about The Bridge, visit mercatus.org/bridge. Subscribe to The Bridge Policy Download for all policy, no punditry, and a path forward, wherever you get your podcasts. 

Adam Thierer, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and author of multiple books about entrepreneurship, talks to us about permissionless innovation and evasive entrepreneurship.

The COVID-19 pandemic is precipitating an unprecedented economic downturn, and small businesses are likely to bear the brunt. Mandatory shutdowns and social distancing forced many small businesses to shut their doors. Even as governments begin lifting social distancing restrictions, the residual effects of unemployment and disrupted business operations will complicate the economic recovery of small businesses. The US government has taken some steps to lessen the damage to small businesses, but these steps impose large costs on taxpayers, and depending on how long the pandemic lasts, these steps may not be enough to keep many small businesses open. Karen Czarnecki, Vice President of Outreach at the Mercatus Center is joined by Patrick McLaughlin, Senior Research Fellow and Director of Policy Analytics at the Mercatus Center, Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center, and Elizabeth Milito, Senior Executive Counsel at the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) to discuss potential next steps for small businesses, how deregulation can help small businesses right now and post pandemic, and the benefits of permissionless innovation during the pandemic and after the pandemic is over.  If you would like to speak with one of the scholars or learn more about future webinars, please reach out to mercatusoutreach@mercatus.gmu.edu  

Did politicians and business interests push health officials aside at the expense of public health? That's the claim being made by some media outlets. Gary Welch joins me to discuss how claims like this are used to rationalize the harm being done to millions of small business owners and employees. We also discuss why fewer and fewer people trust the data or the directives coming from politicians and bureaucrats. Especially when we see their double standards at work. Want to help ensure your kids and grandkids aren't the ones out rioting and attacking people 10 or 20 years from now? Teach them manners. Emma Freire has 4 tricks to help even young children learn the basics. Ever heard of permissionless innovation? It's the idea that innovators and entrepreneurs shouldn't have to seek permission to improve our lives. Adam Thierer says it should be our default setting as a society. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

How should transformative technologies approach the administrative state, and vice versa? In his latest book, “Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance,” Adam Thierer of the Mercatus Center reports that tech companies are finding ways to outpace the regulators—and that this is a very good thing. In this episode, the Gray Center's director Adam White interviews Thierer about his book (and... Source

How should transformative technologies approach the administrative state, and vice versa? In his latest book, “Evasive Entrepreneurs & the Future of Governance,” Adam Thierer of the Mercatus Center reports that tech companies are finding ways to outpace the regulators—and that this is a very good thing. In this episode, the Gray Center’s director Adam White interviews Thierer […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/arbitrary-capricious/evasive-entrepreneurs-innovation-and-the-administrative-state/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Arbitrary & Capricious in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Shane talks to tech policy analyst Adam Thierer about the regulatory hurdles that plague the tech sector during COVID and regular operations The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/permissionless-innovation-during-covid-19-and-beyond-with-adam-thierer-2/ (“Permissionless innovation” during COVID-19 and beyond (with Adam Thierer)) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

On this episode of Pundits on the Porch, JMI's Andrea O'Sullivan interviews Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The post Adam Thierer appeared first on James Madison Institute.

Dr. Jennifer K. Thompson is joined by Adam Thierer, a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercator Center at George Mason University, for a conversation about innovation and regulation during the COVID-19 crisis and beyond.What stands in the way of entrepreneurship and innovation today? What can we do to address those obstacles, and why is it so important that we do it? Show Notes

Adam Thierer joins Political Economy to discuss how many entrepreneurs, particularly in the tech industry, are circumventing regulations in order to innovate without permission. The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/adam-thierer-how-evasive-entrepreneurship-can-beat-the-regulatory-state/ (Adam Thierer: How ‘evasive entrepreneurship' can beat the regulatory state) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).

Despite the best of intentions, regulations often hold back our economy, allowing entrenched interests to block innovations which would benefit consumers and promote human progress. But some companies — particularly in the tech sector — have refused to accept this and skirt local and federal rules in order to innovate without permission. So how much does regulation […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/political-economy-james-pethokoukis/adam-thierer-how-evasive-entrepreneurship-can-beat-the-regulatory-state/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to Political Economy with James Pethokoukis in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

One of the epigraphs in Adam Thierer’s book is an old Chinese saying: “The higher-ups have measures. Those lower down have countermeasures.” Join Ed and Ron for a fascinating look at a new breed of entrepreneurs, Evasive Entrepreneurs, the title of Adam Thierer’s latest book. Evasive entrepreneurs, those innovators who don’t always conform to social or legal norms, are using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems, or at least to put pressure on public policymakers to reform or selectively enforce laws and regulations that are outmoded, inefficient, or illogical. They rely on a strategy of permissionless innovation in both the business world and the political arena, following the adage that “it is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” A remarkably timely book given the COVID-19 crisis and all the useless regulations that have been suspended.

One of the epigraphs in Adam Thierer's book is an old Chinese saying: “The higher-ups have measures. Those lower down have countermeasures.” Join Ed and Ron for a fascinating look at a new breed of entrepreneurs, Evasive Entrepreneurs, the title of Adam Thierer's latest book. Evasive entrepreneurs, those innovators who don't always conform to social or legal norms, are using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems, or at least to put pressure on public policymakers to reform or selectively enforce laws and regulations that are outmoded, inefficient, or illogical. They rely on a strategy of permissionless innovation in both the business world and the political arena, following the adage that “it is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” A remarkably timely book given the COVID-19 crisis and all the useless regulations that have been suspended.

One of the epigraphs in Adam Thierer's book is an old Chinese saying: “The higher-ups have measures. Those lower down have countermeasures.” Join Ed and Ron for a fascinating look at a new breed of entrepreneurs, Evasive Entrepreneurs, the title of Adam Thierer's latest book. Evasive entrepreneurs, those innovators who don't always conform to social or legal norms, are using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems, or at least to put pressure on public policymakers to reform or selectively enforce laws and regulations that are outmoded, inefficient, or illogical. They rely on a strategy of permissionless innovation in both the business world and the political arena, following the adage that “it is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” A remarkably timely book given the COVID-19 crisis and all the useless regulations that have been suspended.

One of the epigraphs in Adam Thierer's book is an old Chinese saying: “The higher-ups have measures. Those lower down have countermeasures.” Join Ed and Ron for a fascinating look at a new breed of entrepreneurs, Evasive Entrepreneurs, the title of Adam Thierer's latest book. Evasive entrepreneurs, those innovators who don't always conform to social or legal norms, are using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems, or at least to put pressure on public policymakers to reform or selectively enforce laws and regulations that are outmoded, inefficient, or illogical. They rely on a strategy of permissionless innovation in both the business world and the political arena, following the adage that “it is easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission.” A remarkably timely book given the COVID-19 crisis and all the useless regulations that have been suspended.

How have regulations stymied the response to the COVID-19 pandemic? And what explains the intense regulatory scrutiny tech companies face? On this episode, Shane talks with Adam Thierer, technology and innovation policy analyst at the Mercatus Center and author of the upcoming book “Permissionless Innovation,” on regulatory hurdles to innovation during the current pandemic and […]Join the conversation and comment on this podcast episode: https://ricochet.com/podcast/aei-podcast-channel/permissionless-innovation-during-covid-19-and-beyond-with-adam-thierer/.Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing: https://ricochet.com/membership/.Subscribe to AEI Podcast Channel in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Beyond boosting economic growth and raising our living standards, evasive entrepreneurialism can play an important role in constraining unaccountable governmental activities that often fail to reflect common sense or the consent of the governed.What moves the needle for progress? How has the sharing economy exposed grotesque regulatory barriers? Could this be a moment of freedom and liberation, or are we gonna get a surveillance state out of this pandemic? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

nnovators who don’t always conform to social or legal norms are using new technological capabilities to circumvent traditional regulatory systems. Adam Thierer is author of Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Ajit Pai joins Adam Thierer and Brent Skorup to discuss the principles driving the Federal Communications Commission in recent years, the "Keep Americans Connected" pledge, and how things have changed for the FCC in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.Featuring: - Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission- Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- [Host] Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this episode, Ajit Pai joins Adam Thierer and Brent Skorup to discuss the principles driving the Federal Communications Commission in recent years, the "Keep Americans Connected" pledge, and how things have changed for the FCC in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.Featuring: - Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission- Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- [Host] Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

SpokenLayer March 16, 2020 This is the spoken edition of the American Institute for Economic Research for March 16, 2020. A longer text version is hosted at AIER.org, along with many other articles. How the US Botched Coronavirus Testing By Adam Thierer Many Americans are wondering why public health officials are not doing more to speed up deployment of coronavirus testing kits. What would happen if a private team of doctors offered an effective test before federal regulators approved one? Dr.

Adam Thierer, a Senior Research Fellow at George Mason's Mercatus Center, joins the show to discuss how the precautionary principle has shaped today's energy landscape and the profound benefits of permissionless innovation. Links: • The latest from Adam: https://www.mercatus.org/scholars/adam-thierer#0 • More about the Mercatus Center: https://www.mercatus.org/ • More from Adam about permissionless innovation: https://permissionlessinnovation.org/ • Get the book Permissionless Innovation: https://permissionlessinnovation.org/book/

In this episode, Adam Thierer and Caleb Watney discuss the emerging questions surrounding the progress of driverless car technology and its regulation.Featuring:- Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- Caleb Watney, Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street Institute Visit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this episode, Adam Thierer and Caleb Watney discuss the emerging questions surrounding the progress of driverless car technology and its regulation.Featuring:- Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- Caleb Watney, Fellow, Technology and Innovation, R Street Institute Visit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this episode, Adam Thierer and Brent Skorup speak with Senator Mike Lee on the current state of drone regulation. The senator speaks to his proposal for a cooperative, federal solution to regulatory holdup in drone technology innovation.Additional Resources:Senator Lee's proposed Drone Integration and Zoning Act: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/10/sen-lee-introduces-drone-integration-and-zoning-actBrent Skorup, "To Kickstart Drone Deliveries, Give Cities and States Regulatory Flexibility": https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/kickstart-drone-deliveries-give-cities-and-states-regulatory-flexibilityFeaturing:- Mike Lee, United States Senator, Utah- Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this episode, Adam Thierer and Brent Skorup speak with Senator Mike Lee on the current state of drone regulation. The senator speaks to his proposal for a cooperative, federal solution to regulatory holdup in drone technology innovation.Additional Resources:Senator Lee's proposed Drone Integration and Zoning Act: https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/10/sen-lee-introduces-drone-integration-and-zoning-actBrent Skorup, "To Kickstart Drone Deliveries, Give Cities and States Regulatory Flexibility": https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/kickstart-drone-deliveries-give-cities-and-states-regulatory-flexibilityFeaturing:- Mike Lee, United States Senator, Utah- Brent Skorup, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University- [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason UniversityVisit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

"Techlash" refers to a growing public concern over the behavior of big technology companies and the call for government action to curtail what are seen as abusive practices. Figures on the right and the left alike have expressed concerns of over privacy, free speech, and fairness on online platforms. Most recently, 50 attorneys general have launched an investigation into Google for violations of antitrust law.In this episode, Adam Thierer moderates a discussion between Geoffrey Manne and Hal Singer on whether these concerns represent genuine consumer harm and whether antitrust law is an appropriate means to address them.Featuring:- Geoffrey Manne, President and Founder, International Center for Law & Economics- Hal Singer, Managing Director, Econ One- [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University Resources discussed in today's episode:- "Concluding Comments: The Weakness of Interventionist Claims (FTC Hearings, ICLE Comment 11)" (https://laweconcenter.org/resource/icle-comments-ftc-hearings-on-competition-consumer-protection-in-the-21st-century-summary/)- "The Real Reason Foundem Foundered" (https://laweconcenter.org/resource/the-real-reason-foundem-foundered/)- "Google and the Limits of Antitrust: The Case Against the Antitrust Case Against Google" (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577556)- "How Big Tech Threatens Economic Liberty" (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-big-tech-threatens-economic-liberty/)- "Sorry, Mr. Delrahim: Big Tech’s Worst Abuses Can’t Be Cured Without Stiffer Regulation" (https://promarket.org/mr-delrahim-big-tech-worst-abuses-cant-be-cured-without-stiffer-regulation/)Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

"Techlash" refers to a growing public concern over the behavior of big technology companies and the call for government action to curtail what are seen as abusive practices. Figures on the right and the left alike have expressed concerns of over privacy, free speech, and fairness on online platforms. Most recently, 50 attorneys general have launched an investigation into Google for violations of antitrust law.In this episode, Adam Thierer moderates a discussion between Geoffrey Manne and Hal Singer on whether these concerns represent genuine consumer harm and whether antitrust law is an appropriate means to address them.Featuring:- Geoffrey Manne, President and Founder, International Center for Law & Economics- Hal Singer, Managing Director, Econ One- [Moderator] Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University Resources discussed in today's episode:- "Concluding Comments: The Weakness of Interventionist Claims (FTC Hearings, ICLE Comment 11)" (https://laweconcenter.org/resource/icle-comments-ftc-hearings-on-competition-consumer-protection-in-the-21st-century-summary/)- "The Real Reason Foundem Foundered" (https://laweconcenter.org/resource/the-real-reason-foundem-foundered/)- "Google and the Limits of Antitrust: The Case Against the Antitrust Case Against Google" (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577556)- "How Big Tech Threatens Economic Liberty" (https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-big-tech-threatens-economic-liberty/)- "Sorry, Mr. Delrahim: Big Tech’s Worst Abuses Can’t Be Cured Without Stiffer Regulation" (https://promarket.org/mr-delrahim-big-tech-worst-abuses-cant-be-cured-without-stiffer-regulation/)Visit our website – www.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Tech companies are often accused of acting without first thinking through all the ramifications of what they’re doing on the principle that it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission. Adam Thierer joins the show to talk about a good habit, something he calls evasive entrepreneurialism. If innovators always waited for regulatory approval first, it would delay consumer access to transformative and even life-saving tech. Permissionless innovation in the relatively regulatory-free internet sandbox of the 1990s-2000s is what drove a great deal of tech innovation and wealth creation in Silicon Valley; the same could be true for other tech sectors in the future. Paul and Will also play a lightening round of “Overrated / Underrated” with Adam revealing a surprising love for malted beverages and the barter system.Who are evasive entrepreneurs? Are there too many barriers to entry in the technology field? How does tech enable civil disobedience? What tech is ‘born free’? What is a regulatory risk? What is the pacing problem with technology? What is the precautionary principle? Should you intentionally diversify your twitter feed?Further Reading:Permissionless Innovation, written by Adam ThiererRegulatory Hacking, written by Evan Burfield and J.D. HarrisonEvasive Entrepreneurs and Permissionless Innovation, Adam Thierer and Chad ReeseThe Twenty-Six Words that Created the Internet event at the Cato Institute on April 17, 2019Related Content:Wearable Tech: Health Care of the Future, Building Tomorrow PodcastThe Right to Print Arms, Building Tomorrow PodcastCrypto-Switzerland: Matching a Decentralized Government with a Decentralized Currency, written by Pascal Hügli See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Privacy and social media have always had a complicated relationship. On the one hand, users of sites like Facebook often voice concerns when they find out how much of their personal information ends up with advertisers. On the other hand, the roughly 2 billion active users of Facebook continue to provide that data voluntarily in exchange for free use of the platform. Add political advertising to that mix, and you have the ingredients for intense Congressional hearings featuring Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, and a national conversation about whether or not the federal government should take a larger role in social media regulation. Here to address some of those challenges are three experts in the field: Adam Thierer, Mercatus Center Senior Research Fellow Ashkhen Kazaryan, Legal Fellow with TechFreedom Will Rinehart, American Action Forum’s Director of Technology and Innovation Policy   Download this episode and subscribe to the Mercatus Policy Download on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to your favorite podcasts. Follow Chad on Twitter @ChadMReese.

In this episode of Smarter Cars, we discuss with Adam Thierer the role of government in regulating autonomous vehicles. Should regulators allow “permissionless innovation” or enact rules that require government pre-approval before cars can be deployed? What role should NHTSA play when the technology is still developing and it’s not clear what the right rules will be? How might voluntary guidance from NHTSA work in practice? Adam shares his views on how government can protect public safety while also permitting a nascent industry to develop without stifling innovation. Adam is a Senior Research Fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. His writings have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Economist, the

What regulatory approach best fosters commercial innovation? Traditionally, it had been thought that ex post, decentralized approaches that exploit private attorney generals like the common law were best, but many business interests today advocate ex ante, centralized, public sector approaches like federal statutes or federal rulemakings that preempt the common law. This panel will explore which attributes of regulation best serve innovation: ex ante or ex post? Decentralized or centralized? Public sector or private sector? -- This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Prof. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University Law School; Prof. Brian Galle, Georgetown University Law Center; Prof. Michael S. Greve, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University; and Mr. Adam Thierer, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center, George Mason University. Moderator: Hon. Rachel Brand, Chairman, Litigation Practice Group.

Should innovation require permission? Should entrepreneurs have to get government approval before experimenting with new products and business models? As technology has rapidly evolved over the last several decades, regulators have taken different approaches to creating and adapting rules to keep up. In his book Permissionless Innovation, Adam Thierer, senior research fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center, examines the conflict between the two main visions for regulating emerging technologies: permissionless innovation and prior restraint. He and Evan discuss the two visions, real world examples of their impact, and what government can do to protect consumers while providing certainty and freedom to innovators. You can get Adam's book on Amazon.

The internet as it has evolved in the United States is perhaps the best example of “permissionless innovation” -- the idea that you can innovate without first waiting for permission or clearance. And so academics, entrepreneurs, and people took up the internet, developed technologies over it, and in the process created fantastically valuable companies that are now household names around the world. But such innovation hasn't happened outside the U.S., argues Adam Thierer -- research fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University -- because other regions have reversed the model of "innovate first, regulate later" (or rather, regulate only as necessary and if not already covered by existing laws). Thierer, who has also authored a book on Permissionless Innovation, joins this segment of the a16z podcast to discuss "technopanic" cycles; emerging areas of interest; and where "best practices" help ... or hurt when it comes to soft regulation.

. The post On Innovation with Gary Shapiro & Adam Thierer appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

Much of the progress in technology today has come about as a result of innovators who did not seek prior approval from regulatory bodies and such. Yet, even with the beneficial results from innovations like the commercial Internet, mobile technologies, and social networks, a disposition exists to be overly cautious with respect to new things. Adam Thierer calls this the “precautionary principle” in his new book Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom (Mercatus Center, 2014). The “precautionary principle”–which, Thierer argues, is based on fear and concern about loss of control–limits the creativity inherent in unfettered tinkering. In contrast, Thierer advocates “permissionless innovation,” an attitude that would allow experimentation to continue without hinderance. Of course does not mean that there is no use for policies for new technology, as some developments require regulation. Policymakers should, however, take a “wait and see” approach to setting rules for innovative products. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Much of the progress in technology today has come about as a result of innovators who did not seek prior approval from regulatory bodies and such. Yet, even with the beneficial results from innovations like the commercial Internet, mobile technologies, and social networks, a disposition exists to be overly cautious with respect to new things.  Adam Thierer calls this the “precautionary principle” in his new book Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom (Mercatus Center, 2014). The “precautionary principle”–which, Thierer argues, is based on fear and concern about loss of control–limits the creativity inherent in unfettered tinkering. In contrast, Thierer advocates “permissionless innovation,” an attitude that would allow experimentation to continue without hinderance. Of course does not mean that there is no use for policies for new technology, as some developments require regulation. Policymakers should, however, take a “wait and see” approach to setting rules for innovative products. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Much of the progress in technology today has come about as a result of innovators who did not seek prior approval from regulatory bodies and such. Yet, even with the beneficial results from innovations like the commercial Internet, mobile technologies, and social networks, a disposition exists to be overly cautious with respect to new things.  Adam Thierer calls this the “precautionary principle” in his new book Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom (Mercatus Center, 2014). The “precautionary principle”–which, Thierer argues, is based on fear and concern about loss of control–limits the creativity inherent in unfettered tinkering. In contrast, Thierer advocates “permissionless innovation,” an attitude that would allow experimentation to continue without hinderance. Of course does not mean that there is no use for policies for new technology, as some developments require regulation. Policymakers should, however, take a “wait and see” approach to setting rules for innovative products. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Much of the progress in technology today has come about as a result of innovators who did not seek prior approval from regulatory bodies and such. Yet, even with the beneficial results from innovations like the commercial Internet, mobile technologies, and social networks, a disposition exists to be overly cautious with respect to new things.  Adam Thierer calls this the “precautionary principle” in his new book Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom (Mercatus Center, 2014). The “precautionary principle”–which, Thierer argues, is based on fear and concern about loss of control–limits the creativity inherent in unfettered tinkering. In contrast, Thierer advocates “permissionless innovation,” an attitude that would allow experimentation to continue without hinderance. Of course does not mean that there is no use for policies for new technology, as some developments require regulation. Policymakers should, however, take a “wait and see” approach to setting rules for innovative products. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Much of the progress in technology today has come about as a result of innovators who did not seek prior approval from regulatory bodies and such. Yet, even with the beneficial results from innovations like the commercial Internet, mobile technologies, and social networks, a disposition exists to be overly cautious with respect to new things.  Adam Thierer calls this the “precautionary principle” in his new book Permissionless Innovation: The Continuing Case for Comprehensive Technological Freedom (Mercatus Center, 2014). The “precautionary principle”–which, Thierer argues, is based on fear and concern about loss of control–limits the creativity inherent in unfettered tinkering. In contrast, Thierer advocates “permissionless innovation,” an attitude that would allow experimentation to continue without hinderance. Of course does not mean that there is no use for policies for new technology, as some developments require regulation. Policymakers should, however, take a “wait and see” approach to setting rules for innovative products. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this TechCast, Adam Thierer discusses the second essay in a series, entitled, "The Wrong Way to Reinvent Media, Part 2: Spectrum Taxes to Subsidize Public Media." MP3 file: PFF TechCast #2 - Saving the Media Through Broadcast Spectrum Taxes...

Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow at the Progress & Freedom Foundation, joins Robert Bloomfield for a great discussion about government involvement in regulating online activities Metanomics