Podcast appearances and mentions of justin hendrix

Late on Friday, June 12, Anthropic announced it had received a letter from the United States Department of Commerce notifying the company that the government had issued an export control directive forcing it to suspend all access to its AI models Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including Anthropic's own foreign-national employees. To comply, the company disabled access to both models for all its customers. The Wall Street Journal called the episode "one of the most powerful examples yet of US government intervention in the AI race."The White House move has left many experts baffled. And, it is raising alarms in foreign capitals about the wisdom of relying on American AI, suggesting the US will operate ad hoc, with access to advanced models revoked on a case-by-case basis. Against that backdrop, a group of cybersecurity leaders organized by Alex Stamos has urged the administration to reverse course in an open letter. Currently, Stamos is chief product officer at an AI security startup called Corridor. Previously, he was chief security officer at Facebook, before he left to found the Stanford Internet Observatory. Justin Hendrix caught up with him on Tuesday, June 16.

Raffi Krikorian, the chief technology officer of Mozilla, has spent the past few months building an argument that the central question in AI isn't open versus closed, but owning versus renting—whether AI becomes something we control or something we lease from a handful of companies. A technologist by background with stops at Twitter, Uber, and the Democratic National Committee, he writes about all of this in his newsletter, Owners Not Renters, and in other outlets, most recently in a New York Times op-ed on what he called the "Mythos moment." Justin Hendrix spoke to him about the idea that generosity is the hidden infrastructure of the internet, how to expand access to powerful AI tools rather than closing it down for security's sake, how to overcome misaligned incentives to build a better information environment, how to counter surveillance, and why those concerned with AI governance should spend more time thinking about the protocol and harness layers.

On Tuesday, May 12, the Center for Civil Rights and Technology hosted its 2026 annual convening, "All Eyes on Tech: Power, Protection, and the Fights for Civil Rights in the Age of AI," at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The Center is a joint project of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and The Leadership Conference Education Fund, and it engages in advocacy, education, and research on issues at the intersection of civil rights and technology policy.During the event, Tech Policy Press editor Justin Hendrix hosted a conversation with Dr. Ruha Benjamin, an acclaimed author, professor of African American Studies at Princeton University, and founding director of the Ida B. Wells Just Data Lab; and Alejandra Montoya-Boyer, vice president of the Center for Civil Rights and Technology. The conversation touched on the necessity of cultural and narrative work as the foundation for policy work; how to build collective power and alternatives, not just guardrails; and why it is important to focus on the people behind technology and their motivations, not just technology itself.

On May 5, Common Sense Media, the nonprofit known for its entertainment and technology recommendations for parents, launched its Youth AI Safety Institute, backed by a $20 million annual budget to “define what child-safe AI actually means” and to “rigorously test AI products” and assign them ratings.The Youth Safety Institute will be led by Bruce Reed, who joined Common Sense Media as Head of AI in March 2025 after serving as President Joe Biden's White House Deputy Chief of Staff, where Politico dubbed him the "AI Whisperer" for leading Biden's AI Executive Order and securing voluntary commitments from frontier labs. Last year, Time named him one of the 100 most influential people in AI. Reed previously worked with Common Sense as a senior tech-policy adviser from 2015 to 2020, and was a lead negotiator on the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Act.Justin Hendrix caught up with Reed about how he views the current state of AI and child safety and his goals for the Institute.

Just days before it was set to begin last week in Lusaka, RightsCon organizer Access Now was forced to announce the annual digital and human rights conference would not proceed after it learned of Chinese pressure on the Zambian government to restrict the participation of delegates from Taiwan. The effective cancellation of the event was a huge blow to Access Now, its local civil society partners in Zambia, and to the global community of rights defenders, some of whom were already traveling when they got the news. To many, it is an ominous signal about the growing challenges to doing pro-democracy and pro-human rights work in an increasingly authoritarian world. To learn more about what transpired and what's next, Justin Hendrix spoke to the head of Access Now, Alejandro Mayoral Baños, and the director of RightsCon, Nikki Gladstone, about their experience, why this moment matters, and what's next for the community they convene.

Is the future something to be calculated and controlled, or something we shape together through democratic struggle? How should we read the convergence of Silicon Valley's "Dark Enlightenment" thinkers with a resurgent authoritarian right, and is Europe truly reckoning with what has shifted in the United States? What is driving the continent's anti-regulatory mood? What counts as "evidence" sufficient to legislate a fast-moving technology, and at what point does the demand for proof become a license for the catastrophe to arrive first?Justin Hendrix addressed these questions and more with scholar and former European Commission official Paul Nemitz, who is one of the authors of a new book titled The Open Future and its Enemies: How We Can Protect Free Society from AI Dictatorship. The book argues that three decades of under-regulation have produced the concentrations of wealth and power we now confront, and that the survival of democracy in the digital age will depend on citizens, civil society, and a new generation willing to treat their work as carrying responsibility not just for safety, but for fundamental rights and self-government.

Yaël Eisenstat discusses the impact of online platforms on public health, safety and democracy. She is currently[1] the Director of Policy and Impact at Cybersecurity for Democracy (C4D),[2] working on policy solutions for how to hold social media and other online platforms accountable for their effects on public safety and democracy. Previously, she was Vice President at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Center for Technology & Society (CTS). She was a Facebook election integrity head in 2018 and later became a whistleblower, speaking publicly about the dangers to democracy stemming from the company's decisions and products. She has held other other positions protecting democracy including as an intelligence officer, diplomat, and White House advisor. C4D contributed to the recent March 24, 2026, jury verdict in a civil case against Internet companies in New Mexico.[3] Eisenstat is interviewed by Spencer Graves.[4] Eisenstat's work Eisenstat's work includes a TED Talk and an SXSW panel in 2020 and a 2024  research report on tech platforms and political violence. 2020 TED talk In Eisenstat's (2020) TED talk, she said that around 2015 she began to notice that she was losing the ability to engage with others who were thought differently. Conversations with others in the US were becoming more difficult than conversations she had had as a CIA officer and diplomat drinking tea and talking with outspoken anti-Western clerics and suspected terrorists in Africa. Many of those engagements began with mutual suspicion but none degenerated into shouting or insults. In some cases she built collaboration on areas of mutual interest. Her most powerful tools were to listen, learn and build empathy. Most of her contacts wanted to feel heard, validated and respected. But social media companies like Facebook incentivize inflammatory content contributing to a culture of political polarization and mistrust. This generates revenue for Facebook and similar companies that make money from clicks, "because the shortest path to a click is anger or hate", in the words of Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen, interviewed 2024-08-19 for this Media & Democracy series. When Facebook asked Eisenstat in 2018 to lead their work to support global elections integrity for political ads, she agreed. She left six months later, speaking openly about Facebook's inability to meet its responsibility to secure elections, subsequently documented, e.g., in the thousands of internal Facebook documents that Haugen released to the Securities and Exchange Commission and The Wall Street Journal in 2021. 2020 SXSW panel Eisenstat was part of a "panel about the Future of Tech Responsibility" for the 2020 South by Southwest festival. The festival was cancelled due to COVID-19, but the panel was held virtually. This panel included a discussion of Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Communications Decency Act of 1996.[5] It was "written before platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter existed" -- written while Google was a research project by Stanford PhD students Larry Page and Sergey Brin. Section 230 includes, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."[6] Eisenstat says that it's time to revisit Section 230, to demand accountability where Internet companies promote or suppress information based on the content while protecting web freedom otherwise. This is similar to the recommendations of Dean Baker that when Internet companies make money by promoting information differentially based on content, they should be liable as are legacy media under the US Supreme Court decision in NYT v. Sullivan (1964). In other cases, they should be treated as common carriers like telephone companies. 2024: Tech platforms and political violence More recently, Eisenstat et al. (2024a, b) are insisting that, "Tech Platforms Must Do More to Avoid Contributing to Potential Political Violence". The New York Times had reported that, "a steady undercurrent of violence and physical risk has become a new normal," particularly targeting public officials and democratic institutions. A survey from the Brennan Center found that 38% of election officials have experienced violent threats. They attributed these threats primarily to tech platforms and gave seven recommendations in four themes "congruent with any number of papers that academics and civil society leaders have published over the years." They said that platforms must develop robust standards for threat assessment and engage in scenario planning, crisis training, and engagement with external stakeholders, with as much transparency as possible. should enforce clear and actionable content moderation policies that address election integrity. should enforce their rules uniformly, not exempting politicians and other political influencers. must clearly explain important content moderation decisions, ensuring transparency especially when it comes to high profile accounts. They hope that increasing demands for accountability will prompt platforms to act more responsibly and prioritize the risk of political violence both in the United States and abroad. More on Wikiversity More on this including a moderated discussion of the issues raised is available in the companion article on Wikiversity on "Online platforms' effects on public health, safety and democracy". Notes Yael Eisenstat, Wikidata Q82046593 Cybersecurity for Democracy, Wikidata Q139568543 McQue (2026), "C4D and the Courts: Meta Guilty Verdicts". Cybersecurity for Democracy. Wikidata Q139572464. Spencer Graves, Wikidata Q56452480 Reid (2020). 47 U.S. Code § 230 - Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, 1996, Wikidata Q139570261 Bibliography Bobby Allyn (25 March 2026). "Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial". NPR. Wikidata Q139572103. Yael Eisenstat (August 2020) Dear Facebook, this is how you're breaking democracy, TED, Wikidata Q138844363 Yael Eisenstat (2021). "Section 230 Revisited: Web Freedom vs Accountability". Cornell Tech. 13 May 2020. Wikidata Q139568755. Yael Eisenstat; Justin Hendrix; Daniel Kreiss (2024a). "Preventing Tech-Fueled Political Violence: What online platforms can do to ensure that they do not contribute to election-related violence". The Bulletin of Technology & Public Life. 22 May 2024. Wikidata Q139571027. Yael Eisenstat; Justin Hendrix; Daniel Kreiss (2024B). "Tech Platforms Must Do More to Avoid Contributing to Potential Political Violence". Tech Policy Press. Wikidata Q139571163. Katie McQue (24 March 2026). "Meta ordered to pay $375m after being found liable in child exploitation case". The Guardian. Wikidata Q139572337. ISSN 0261-3077. Blake E. Reid (4 September 2020), Section 230 of… what?, Wikidata Q139570229

New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez sued Meta in December 2023, alleging the company made false public statements about the safety of its platforms while knowing internally that its products facilitated child sexual exploitation. On March 24, a Santa Fe jury found Meta liable for willful violations of New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act, awarding $375 million in civil penalties. The next phase is a bench trial, starting May 4, to decide the state's public nuisance claim and determine remedies. Justin Hendrix spoke to Torrez about the types of reforms the state hopes to secure.

Project Maven, a Department of Defense program launched in April 2017 to apply AI in military targeting and logistics, is now being used in live combat. Katrina Manson is a reporter and the author of Project Maven: A Marine Colonel, His Team, and the Dawn of AI Warfare, a book just published by W.W. Norton & Company that tells the history of the program. Justin Hendrix spoke to her about the book and about recent events, including the use of AI targeting in the war in Iran and the battle between the Pentagon and Anthropic over 'red lines' such as the use of AI for lethal autonomous weapons.

This was a landmark week for tech accountability in US courts. Juries in New Mexico and California delivered verdicts finding tech giants Meta and Google liable for harms to young users on their platforms, decisions that are projected to open the door to more lawsuits alleging that social media creates addiction or endangers kids.Today's guest sees these developments as positive and in line with the types of thinking he believes will help improve the internet. Olivier Sylvain is a professor at Fordham Law School and the author of a new book titled Reclaiming the Internet: How Big Tech Took Control—and How We Can Take It Back, published by Columbia Global Reports. Justin Hendrix interviewed him at Book Culture, a bookstore on 112th Street in New York City.

In line with the Pentagon's ambitions to build an “AI-first warfighting force,” earlier this year, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded unrestricted use of Anthropic's Claude model. Anthropic had concerns. Now the two parties are engaged in a legal battle that could shape the future of AI safety. Kimberly talks with Justin Hendrix, CEO and editor of Tech Policy Press, to explain Anthropic's lawsuit and why this could signal a turning point in the tech industry's chummy relationship with the Trump administration.

In line with the Pentagon's ambitions to build an “AI-first warfighting force,” earlier this year, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth demanded unrestricted use of Anthropic's Claude model. Anthropic had concerns. Now the two parties are engaged in a legal battle that could shape the future of AI safety. Kimberly talks with Justin Hendrix, CEO and editor of Tech Policy Press, to explain Anthropic's lawsuit and why this could signal a turning point in the tech industry's chummy relationship with the Trump administration.

Early this year, following the deaths of Keith Porter, Renee Good, and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal agents and the violent immigration raids on communities across the United States, 1,500 Google workers signed a new petition demanding the company cut contracts with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).Justin Hendrix spoke to two of the employees who signed the petition about why they signed it, the environment inside the company, and how they think about the risk they face for speaking out.

Online fraud has become one of the fastest-growing criminal enterprises on the planet. Deepfake fraud cases are surging, and Deloitte analysts project that generative AI-driven banking fraud alone could climb to roughly as much as $40 billion in the US alone by 2027.The problem is not just the volume. It's the architecture. These are no longer opportunistic scams—they are industrialized, AI-assisted operations, and the synthetic media tools that power them are becoming cheaper and more convincing by the month.A new report on deepfake financial fraud from Data & Society maps this threat. Justin Hendrix spoke to its authors, including:Alice Marwick, director of research at Data & Society, andAnya Schiffrin, co-director of the tech policy and innovation concentration at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs.

The Pentagon wants AI that can fight wars — without limits. One of the United States' leading AI companies says there are lines it won't cross. And this week, that standoff turned into an all-out confrontation. To discuss the implications of the dispute between Anthropic and the Pentagon, including the determination that the company represents a supply chain risk, Justin Hendrix spoke to two experts:Kat Duffy, senior fellow for digital and cyberspace policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, andAmos Toh, senior counsel in the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.

Concerns about synthetic media and coordinated manipulation of online platforms have moved from theoretical worry to documented reality. Researchers, regulators, and civil society organizations are working to understand how algorithmically driven content recommendation systems can be exploited — not just by ideologically motivated actors, but by ordinary users pursuing financial gain.Fundación Maldita.es is a Spanish nonprofit that has been working on information integrity and fact-checking since 2017. Its most recent investigation focuses on TikTok, and what they found raises pointed questions about the platform's creator monetization program. Researchers at Maldita documented a network of hundreds of accounts — spanning eighteen countries — that were producing AI-generated videos of protests that never happened, and doing so not out of any discernible political motive, but to accumulate followers, qualify for TikTok's revenue-sharing program, and, in some cases, sell the accounts outright. In this episode, Justin Hendrix is joined by Maldita associate director for public policy Carlos Hernández-Echevarría and public policy officer Marina Sacristán.

A wave of lawsuits in the Unites States is targeting tech firms for their product design decisions. Lawyer Carrie Goldberg has played a role in establishing the product liability theory that underlies them. As the founder of C.A. Goldberg, PLLC, in 2017, her firm brought a lawsuit that sought to apply product liability theory to a tech platform — Herrick v. Grindr — arguing that a dangerous app design, not just user behavior, was the source of harm. In 2022, Goldberg was appointed to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the federal social media multidistrict litigation. She's led cases against Amazon, Meta, and Omegle, has testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on child safety issues, and is the author of Nobody's Victim: Fighting Psychos, Stalkers, Pervs, and Trolls. Justin Hendrix spoke to her from her offices in Brooklyn about what she's learned over the last decade, and about some ongoing litigation that remains in dispute.

The Rev. Justin Hendrix // 2 Kings 22:8-20; Psalm 27; 1 Corinthians 2; Matthew 5:13-20

"Operation Metro Surge" — the massive immigration enforcement operation playing out right now in Minnesota — was billed as a targeted effort to apprehend undocumented immigrants. But what it has exposed goes far beyond immigration enforcement. It has pulled back the curtain on a sprawling surveillance apparatus that incorporates artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and other novel tools — not just to enable the raids that have turned violent and, in some cases, deadly; but also to silence dissent, to intimidate entire communities, and to discourage people from even watching what masked federal agents are doing in their own neighborhoods.To discuss these events and the prospects for reform, Justin Hendrix spoke to Irna Landrum, a senior campaigner at Kairos Fellowship and author of a recent piece on Tech Policy Press, "How ICE Uses AI to Automate Authoritarianism," and Alejandra Montoya-Boyer, vice president for the Center for Civil Rights and Technology at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, which has called for reforms at the Department of Homeland Security and its component agencies.

The killing of 37-year old nurse Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis was filmed from multiple angles by residents of the city, and local government officials have implored the public to share evidence of immigration enforcement agents committing acts of violence with investigators. But what are the challenges of using such artifacts in the pursuit of accountability? And what is there to learn from other efforts to use video, including from social media platforms, as evidence when seeking justice for crimes by state actors? Inequality.org managing editor and Tech Policy Press fellow Chris Mills Rodrigo joins Justin Hendrix to discuss these questions and more.

In what Reuters called a "mass digital undressing spree," Elon Musk is provoking outrage after his Grok chatbot responded to user prompts to remove the clothing from images of women and pose them in bikinis and to create "sexualized images of children" and post them on X. To discuss the controversy and the broader policy implications of generative AI with regard to child sexual abuse material and nonconsensual intimate imagery, Justin Hendrix spoke to Riana Pfefferkorn, a policy fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI and author of numerous reports and articles on these subjects, including for Tech Policy Press.

Tech Policy Press fellow Anika Collier Navaroli joined Justin Hendrix to discuss insights from her special 2025 series of podcasts, Through to Thriving. They discussed insights from her interviews over the course of the year with Ellen Pao, Jerrel Peterson, Alice Hunsberger, Vaishnavi J, Desmond Patton, Nora Benavidez, Mimi Ọnụọha, Timnit Gebru, Jasmine McNealy, Naomi Nix, and Chris Gilliard.

On Friday, the European Commission fined Elon Musk's X €120 million for breaching the Digital Services Act, delivering the first-ever non-compliance decision under the European Union's flagship tech regulation. By Saturday, Elon Musk was calling for no less than the abolition of the EU. To discuss the enforcement action, the politics surrounding it, and a variety of other issues related to digital regulation in Europe, Justin Hendrix spoke to Joris van Hoboken, a professor at the Institute for Information Law (IViR) at the University of Amsterdam, and part of the core team of the Digital Services Act (DSA) Observatory.

This episode considers whether today's massive AI investment boom reflects real economic fundamentals or an unsustainable bubble, and how a potential crash could reshape AI policy, public sentiment, and narratives about the future that are embraced and advanced not only by Silicon Valley billionaires, but also by politicians and governments. Justin Hendrix is joined by:Ryan Cummings, chief of staff at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and coauthor of a recent New York Times opinion on the possibility of an AI bubble;Sarah West, co-director of the AI Now Institute and coauthor of a Wall Street Journal opinion, "You May Already Be Bailing Out the AI Business"; andBrian Merchant, author of the newsletter Blood in the Machine, a journalist in residence at the AI Now Institute, and author of a recent piece in Wired on signals that suggest a bubble.

This episode was recorded in Barcelona at this year's Mozilla Festival. One session at the festival focused on how to get better access to data for independent researchers to study technology platforms and products and their effects on society. It coincided with the launch of the Knight-Georgetown Institute's report, “Better Access: Data for the Common Good,” the product of a year-long effort to create “a roadmap for expanding access to high-influence public platform data – the narrow slice of public platform data that has the greatest impact on civic life,” with input from individuals across the research community, civil society, and journalism. In a gazebo near the Mozilla Festival mainstage, Justin Hendrix hosted a podcast discussion with three people working on questions related to data access and advocating for independent technology research:Peter Chapman, associate director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute;Brandi Geurkink, executive director of the Coalition for Independent Tech Research and a former campaigner and fellow at Mozilla; andLK Seiling, a researcher at the Weizenbaum Institute in Berlin and coordinator of the DSA40 Data Access Collaboratory.

Send us a textOn this episode of Walleye Chronicles Podcast we talk to Justin Hendrix of LC'c Fish House Rentals out of Mille Lacs Lake.   In Justin spare time he maintains moves and rents luxury fish house on Miille Lacs including two huge Ice Castles and one pimped out day shack. Sit back and get the inside scope before you schedule your weekend in an icy paradise.  #smileandfish #lcsfishhouserentals #walleyechroniclespodcast #justinhendrix #mattsnell

Across the United States, dozens of state governments have attempted to establish their own efficiency initiatives, some molded in the image of the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). A common theme across many of these initiatives is the "stated goal of identifying and eliminating inefficiencies in state government using artificial intelligence (AI)" and promoting "expanded access to existing state data systems," according to a recent analysis by Maddy Dwyer, a policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology.To learn more about what these efforts look like and to consider the broader question of AI's use in government, Justin Hendrix spoke to Dwyer and Ben Green, an assistant professor in the University of Michigan School of Information and in the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, who has written about DOGE and the use of AI in government for Tech Policy Press.

​From September 21–28, New York City will host Climate Week. Leaders from business, politics, academia, and civil society will gather to share ideas and develop strategies to address the climate crisis.​The tech industry intersects with climate concerns in a number of ways, not least of which is through its own growing demand for natural resources and energy, particularly to power data centers. What should a “tech agenda” for Climate Week include? What are the most important issues that need attention, and how should challenges and opportunities be framed?​Last week, Tech Policy Press hosted a live recording of The Tech Policy Press Podcast to get at these questions and more. Justin Hendrix was joined by three expert guests:​Alix Dunn, founder and CEO of The Maybe​Tamara Kneese, director of Data & Society's Climate, Technology, and Justice Program​Holly Alpine, co-Founder of the Enabled Emissions Campaign

Demand for computing power is fueling a massive surge in investment in data centers worldwide. McKinsey estimates spending will hit $6.7 trillion by 2030, with more than $1 trillion expected in the U.S. alone over the next five years. As this boom accelerates, public scrutiny is intensifying. Communities across the country are raising questions about environmental impacts, energy demands, and the broader social and economic consequences of this rapid buildout. To learn more about these debates—and the efforts to shape the industry's future—Justin Hendrix spoke with two activists: one working at the national level, and another organizing locally in their own community. Vivek Bharathan is a member of the No Desert Data Center Coalition in Tucson, Arizona.Steven Renderos is executive director of MediaJustice, an advocacy organization that just released a report titled The People Say No: Resisting Data Centers in the South.

Charlie Kirk, a conservative activist and co-founder of Turning Point USA, died Wednesday after he was shot at an event at Utah Valley University. Kirk's assassination was instantly broadcast to the world from multiple perspectives on social media platforms including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and X. But in the hours and days that have followed, the video and various derivative versions of it have proliferated alongside an increasingly divisive debate over Kirk's legacy, the possible motives of the assassin, and the political implications. It is clear that, in some cases, the tech platforms are struggling to enforce their own content moderation rules, raising questions about their policies and investments in trust and safety, even as AI generated material plays a more significant role in the information ecosystem. To learn more about these phenomena, Justin Hendrix spoke to Wired senior correspondent Lauren Goode, who is covering this story.

Rev. Justin Hendrix, Psalm 112; Hebrews 13:1-16; Luke 14:1, 7-14

On this podcast, we've come back again and again to questions around mis- and disinformation, propaganda, rumors, and the role that digital platforms play in anti-democratic phenomena. In a new book published this summer by Oxford University Press called Connective Action and the Rise of the Far-Right: Platforms, Politics, and the Crisis of Democracy, a group of scholars from varied research traditions set out to find new ways to marry more traditional political science with computational social science approaches to understand the phenomenon of democratic backsliding and to bring some clarity to the present moment, particularly in the United States. Justin Hendrix had the chance to speak to two of the volume's editors and two of its authors:Steven Livingston,  a professor and founding director of the Institute for Data Democracy and Politics at the George Washington University;Michael Miller,  managing director of the Moynihan Center at the City College of New York;Kate Starbird,  a professor at the University of Washington and a co-founder of the Center for an Informed Public; andJosephine Lukito,  assistant professor at the University of Texas at Austin and senior faculty research associate at the Center for Media Engagement.

On Thursday, Reuters tech reporter Jeff Horwitz, who broke the story of the Facebook Papers back in 2021 when he was at the Wall Street Journal, published two pieces, both detailing new revelations about Meta's approach to AI chatbots. In a Reuters special report, Horwitz tells the story of a man with a cognitive impairment who died while attempting to travel to meet a chatbot character he believed was real. And in a related article, Horwitz reports on an internal Meta policy document that appears to endorse its chatbots engaging with children “in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” as well as other concerning behaviors. Earlier today, Justin Hendrix caught up with Horwitz about the reports and what they tell us about Silicon Valley's no holds barred pursuit of AI, even at the expense of the safety of vulnerable people and children.

Daniel J. Solove is the Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor of Intellectual Property and Technology Law at the George Washington University Law School. The project of his latest book, On Privacy and Technology, is to synthesize twenty five years of thinking about privacy into a “succinct and accessible” volume and to help the reader understand “the relationship between law, technology, and privacy” in rapidly changing world. Justin Hendrix spoke to him about the book and how recent events in the United States relate to his areas of concern.

On Saturday, July 26, three days after the Trump administration published its AI action plan, China's foreign ministry released that country's action plan for global AI governance. As the US pursues “global dominance,” China is communicating a different posture. What should we know about China's plan, and how does it contrast with the US plan? What's at stake in the competition between the two superpowers?To answer these questions, Justin Hendrix reached out to a close observer of China's tech policy.  Graham Webster is a lecturer and research scholar at Stanford University in the Program on Geopolitics, Technology, and Governance, and he is the Editor-in-Chief of the DigiChina Project, a "collaborative effort to analyze and understand Chinese technology policy developments through direct engagement with primary sources, providing analysis, context, translation, and expert opinion." Webster attended the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in Shanghai.

Yesterday, United States President Donald Trump took to the stage at the "Winning the AI Race Summit" to promote the administration's AI Action Plan. Shortly after it was published, Tech Policy Press editor Justin Hendrix sat down with Sarah Myers West, the co-director of the AI Now Institute; Maia Woluchem, the program director of the Trustworthy Infrastructures team at Data and Society; and Ryan Gerety, the director of the Athena Coalition, to discuss the plan and what it portends for the future.

At Tech Policy Press we've been tracking the emerging application of generative AI systems in content moderation. Recently, the European Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ECNL) released a comprehensive report titled Algorithmic Gatekeepers: The Human Rights Impacts of LLM Content Moderation, which looks at the opportunities and challenges of using generative AI in content moderation systems at scale. Justin Hendrix spoke to its primary author, ECNL senior legal manager Marlena Wisniak.

Helen Nissenbaum, a philosopher, is a professor at Cornell Tech and in the Information Science Department at Cornell University. She is director of the Digital Life Initiative at Cornell Tech, which was launched in 2017 to explore societal perspectives surrounding the development and application of digital technology. Her work on contextual privacy, trust, accountability, security, and values in technology design led her to work with collaborators on projects such as TrackMeNot, a tool to mask a user's real search history by sending search engines a cloud of ‘ghost' queries, and AdNauseam, a browser extension that obfuscates a user's browsing data to protect from tracking by advertising networks. Building on such projects, in 2015, she coauthored a book with Finn Brunton called Obfuscation: A User's Guide for Privacy and Protest. The book detailed ideas on mitigating and defeating digital surveillance. With concerns about surveillance surging in a time of rising authoritarianism and the advent of powerful artificial intelligence technologies, Justin Hendrix reached out to Professor Nissenbaum to find out what she's thinking in this moment, and how her ideas can be applied to present day phenomena.

If you've been reading Tech Policy Press closely over the last three weeks, you may have come across one or more posts from collaboration with Data & Society called “Ideologies of Control: A Series on Tech Power and Democratic Crisis.” The articles in the series examine how powerful tech billionaires and authoritarian leaders and thinkers are leveraging AI and digital infrastructure to advance anti-democratic agendas, consolidate control, and reshape society in ways that threaten privacy, labor rights, environmental sustainability, and democratic governance. For this episode, Justin Hendrix spoke to four of the authors who made contributions to the series, including:Jacob Metcalf,  program director of the AI On the Ground Initiative at Data & Society;Tamara Kneese, program director of the Climate, Technology and Justice program at Data & Society;Reem Suleiman,  outgoing US advocacy lead at the Mozilla Foundation and  member of the city of Oakland's Privacy Advisory Commission; and Kevin De Liban, founder of TechTonic Justice.

The Big Beautiful Bill contains AI legislation that would preclude all states from regulating AI for 10 years. Any existing laws would be paused for 10 years. Such action could decimate consumer protections. But AI fans argue that having 50 states each legislating their own rules would hamstring AI development putting the US at a competitive disadvantage to China.

Concerns about AI chatbots delivering harmful, even profoundly dangerous advice or instructions to users is growing. There is deep concern over the effects of these interactions on children, and a growing number of stories—and lawsuits—about when things go wrong, particularly for teens. In this conversation, Justin Hendrix is joined by three legal experts who are thinking deeply about how to address questions related to chatbots, and about the need for substantially more research on human-AI interaction: Clare Huntington, Barbara Aronstein Black Professor of Law at Columbia Law School;Meetali Jain, founder and director of the Tech Justice Law Project; and Robert Mahari, associate director of Stanford's CodeX Center.

In this episode, Justin Hendrix speaks with Nerima Wako-Ojiwa, director of Siasa Place, and Odanga Madung, a tech and society researcher and journalist, about the intersection of technology, labor rights, and political power in Kenya and across Africa. The conversation explores the ongoing struggles of content moderators and AI data annotators, who face exploitative working conditions while performing essential labor for major tech companies; the failure of platforms fail to address harmful biases and disinformation that particularly affect African contexts; the ways in which governments increasingly use platform failures as justification for internet censorship and surveillance; and the promise of youth and labor movements that point to a more just and democratic future.

Emily M. Bender and Alex Hanna are the authors of a new book that The Guardian calls “refreshingly sarcastic” and Business Insider calls a “funny and irreverent deconstruction of AI.” They are also occasional contributors to Tech Policy Press. Justin Hendrix spoke to them about their new book, The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want, just out from Harper Collins.

Earlier this year, an entity called the Observatory on Information and Democracy released a major report called INFORMATION ECOSYSTEMS AND TROUBLED DEMOCRACY: A Global Synthesis of the State of Knowledge on News Media, AI and Data Governance. The report is the result of a combination of three research assessment panels comprised of over 60 volunteer researchers all coordinated by six rapporteurs and led by a scientific director that together considered over 1,600 sources on topics at the intersection of technology media and democracy ranging from trust in news and to mis- and disinformation is linked to societal and political polarization. Justin Hendrix spoke to that scientific director, Robin Mansell, and one of the other individuals involved in the project as chair of its steering committee, Courtney Radsch, who is also on the board of Tech Policy Press.

On May 29, the Center for Civil Rights and Technology at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights released its Innovation Framework, which it calls a “new guiding document for companies that invest in, create, and use artificial intelligence (AI), to ensure that their AI systems protect and promote civil rights and are fair, trusted, and safe for all of us, especially communities historically pushed to the margins.” Justin Hendrix spoke to the Center's senior policy advisor on Civil Rights and Technology, Frank Torres, about the framework, the ideas that informed it, and the Center's interactions with industry.

In February, California Governor Gavin Newsom appointed Vera Zakem as California's State Chief Technology Innovation Officer at the California Department of Technology. Zakem brings deep experience from national security, democracy and human rights, and technology policy. Most recently, under former President Joe Biden, she served as the Chief Digital Democracy and Rights Officer at USAID, where she led global efforts to align emerging technologies with democratic values. Zakem assumes the role as California, like many governments, is accelerating its embrace of artificial intelligence. Justin Hendrix spoke with Zakem about the promise of state-led innovation and how to avoid its perils, what responsible AI governance might mean in practice, and how California might chart a course that's both ambitious and accountable to its citizens.

On Thursday, May 22, the United States House of Representatives narrowly advanced a budget bill that included the "Artificial Intelligence and Information Technology Modernization Initiative," which includes a 10-year moratorium on the enforcement of state AI laws. Tech Policy Press editor Justin Hendrix and associate editor Cristiano Lima-Strong discussed the moratorium, the contours of the debate around it, and its prospects in the Senate.

In his New York Times review of the book, Columbia Law School professor and former White House official Tim Wu calls journalist Karen Hao's new book, Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI, “a corrective to tech journalism that rarely leaves Silicon Valley.” Hao has appeared on this podcast before, to help us understand how the business model of social media platforms incentivizes the deterioration of information ecosystems, the series of events around OpenAI CEO Sam Altman's abrupt firing in 2023, and the furor around the launch of DeepSeek last year. This week, Justin Hendrix spoke with Hao about the book, and what she imagines for the future.

In early April 2025, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released two major policies on Federal Agency Use of AI and Federal Procurement of AI - OMB memos M-25-21 and M-25-22, respectively. These memos were revised at the direction of President Trump's January 2025 executive order, “Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence” and replaced the Biden-era guidance. Under the direction of the same executive order, the Department of Energy (DOE) also put out a request for information on AI infrastructure on DOE lands, following the announcement of the $500 billion Stargate project that aims to rapidly build new data centers and AI infrastructure throughout the United States. As the Trump administration is poised to unveil its AI Action Plan in the near future, the broader contours of its strategy for AI adoption and acceleration already seem to be falling into place.Is a distinct Trump strategy for AI beginning to emerge—and what will that mean for the United States and the rest of the world?  Show Notes:Joshua GeltzerBrianna Rosen  Just Security series, Tech Policy Under Trump 2.0Clara Apt and Brianna Rosen's article "Shaping the AI Action Plan: Responses to the White House's Request for Information" (Mar. 18, 2025)Justin Hendrix's article "What Just Happened: Trump's Announcement of the Stargate AI Infrastructure Project" (Jan. 22, 2025)Sam Winter-Levy's article "The Future of the AI Diffusion Framework" (Jan. 21, 2025)Clara Apt and Brianna Rosen's article, "Unpacking the Biden Administration's Executive Order on AI Infrastructure" (Jan. 16, 2025)Just Security's Artificial Intelligence Archive Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI

Silicon Valley's biggest power players traded in their hoodies for suits and ties this week as they sat front and center to watch Donald Trump take the oath of office again.Seated in front of the incoming cabinet were Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, and Trump confidant and leader of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk. Apple CEO Tim Cook, Sam Altman from OpenAI, and TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew also looked on.For an industry once skeptical of Trump, this dramatic transformation in political allegiance portends changes for the country — and the world. From the relaxing of hate speech rules on Meta platforms to the mere hourslong ban of TikTok to the billions of government dollars being pledged to build data centers to power AI, it is still only the beginning of this realignment.On this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing, Justin Hendrix, the CEO and editor of Tech Policy Press, and Intercept political reporter Jessica Washington dissect this shift. “Three of the individuals seated in front of the Cabinet are estimated by Oxfam in its latest report on wealth inequality are on track to potentially become trillionaires in the next just handful of years: Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk,” says Hendrix. “Musk is estimated to be the first trillionaire on the planet, possibly as early as 2027.”Washington says there's more at stake than just personal wealth. “These are people who view themselves as world-shapers, as people who create reality in a lot of ways. Aligning themselves with Trump and with power in this way is not just about their financial interests, it's about pushing their vision of the world.”To hear more of this conversation, check out this week's episode of The Intercept Briefing. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.