Podcasts about tech policy

Plus: South Korea will give its entire population free access to homegrown generative AI. And Nvidia is pausing some revenue sharing deals just weeks after announcing them. Danny Lewis hosts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

A Roma, al convegno annuale degli esorcisti, l'allarme non riguarda storie pittoresche di possessioni: il tema centrale è ChatGPT. Sempre più persone portano in confessione dubbi nati da conversazioni con chatbot trattati come entità: consigli su divorzio, scelte familiari, perfino domande su paradiso e inferno. Quando l'IA risponde con formule liturgiche pescate dai testi religiosi, l'effetto “oracolo” si amplifica e qualcuno finisce per ritualizzare quelle risposte.Il punto non è il soprannaturale nella macchina, ma un bisogno antico: delegare il senso a un intermediario. Qui torna utile Max Weber e il suo “disincanto del mondo”: la razionalità tecnica svuota lo spazio del magico, ma gli esseri umani cercano comunque un “re-incanto” altrove. Nel 2026 quel varco si è spostato sullo smartphone: la macchina risponde sempre, velocemente, senza attese, e proprio questa disponibilità la rende credibile.La domanda scomoda è cosa stia davvero sostituendo l'IA. Più che il divino, sembra sostituire l'ascolto: la presenza paziente di un interlocutore umano. E quando la relazione viene rimpiazzata da una statistica ben confezionata, il rischio non è l'eresia: è la solitudine che si traveste da risposta.00:00 Esorcisti vs ChatGPT01:24 Il convegno e i numeri02:19 Chatbot come oracoli02:49 Weber: disincanto del mondo04:18 Il reincanto nella macchina05:32 Fame di senso e rischio06:08 Non sostituisce Dio: ascolto#ChatGPT #MaxWeber #Esorcisti~~~Ciao Internet! - Il primo e più seguito canale di TECH POLICY in italia, con Matteo FloraINFO E AZIENDE: https://matteoflora.comIl CORSO di AI: https://zero.matteoflora.comNewsletter: https://link.mgpf.it/nlSocial: https://io.matteoflora.comEnglish: https://www.youtube.com/@CiaoInternetPrivacy » https://privacy.matteoflora.comAI Policy » https://privacy.matteoflora.com/aiMail #adv: sales (at) matteoflora.com

Migliaia di guide di viaggio su Amazon sembrano “normali”: copertina curata, impaginazione pulita, 300 pagine e prezzo da 7-10 euro. Il problema è che molte sono firmate da autori inesistenti, con biografie inventate e foto generate dall'IA. Dentro, testi plausibili ma pieni di errori: orari e prezzi sballati, indirizzi sbagliati, ristoranti chiusi da anni, itinerari che ignorano la sicurezza dei sentieri o dei quartieri. Il caso riportato da Futurism (2024) racconta di una turista che, seguendo un percorso di trekking “facile” indicato da una guida sospetta su Santorini, si è ritrovata in una situazione pericolosa ed è stata soccorsa dalle autorità locali.Il punto non è solo la truffa del singolo libro: è un fallimento di mercato. Con l'asimmetria informativa descritta da George Akerlof (il “mercato dei bidoni”), se l'acquirente non sa distinguere qualità e spazzatura, il prezzo medio scende e i contenuti fatti bene diventano economicamente insostenibili. Kindle Direct Publishing abbassa a quasi zero il costo di produzione, mentre i controlli restano reattivi: molte rimozioni arrivano solo dopo segnalazioni manuali. Quando “good enough” basta per vendere, la qualità esce dal mercato e resta l'automazione.00:00 Guide IA e autori inesistenti00:00:39 Il caso Santorini: trekking pericoloso00:01:18 Come nascono le guide su KDP00:02:23 Controlli Amazon e segnalazioni00:03:06 Akerlof e il mercato dei bidoni00:05:01 Perché la piattaforma non certifica00:07:17 Come riconoscere una guida affidabile#AmazonKDP #Akerlof #GuideViaggioIA~~~Ciao Internet! - Il primo e più seguito canale di TECH POLICY in italia, con Matteo FloraINFO E AZIENDE: https://matteoflora.comIl CORSO di AI: https://zero.matteoflora.comNewsletter: https://link.mgpf.it/nlSocial: https://io.matteoflora.comEnglish: https://www.youtube.com/@CiaoInternetPrivacy » https://privacy.matteoflora.comAI Policy » https://privacy.matteoflora.com/aiMail #adv: sales (at) matteoflora.com

Una foto perfetta di un uccello “rarissimo” finisce in un gruppo di birdwatching, prende stelline, e poi scivola dentro i database usati dai ricercatori per capire dove vivono davvero le specie. Peccato che quell'uccello non esista: è generato con IA. Il risultato non è solo una figuraccia online, ma un dato sporco che può spostare mappe di distribuzione, alterare serie storiche e confondere chi studia migrazioni, presenze e scomparse.Il problema è doppio: da un lato ci sono immagini interamente sintetiche (il “tucano in Siberia”), dall'altro ritocchi più subdoli su foto reali fatti con strumenti generativi (rimuovere rami, ricostruire parti, cambiare cielo). In un contesto di ricerca, anche una piccola modifica può cambiare dettagli diagnostici: piumaggi, penne, colori, differenze tra specie o tra maschio e femmina.Qui la tech policy incontra un paradosso economico e filosofico: la verifica costa molto più della falsificazione (e spesso la fanno volontari) e l'inquinamento dei dati può far collassare la fiducia, come nel “mercato dei bidoni” di George Akerlof. E c'è un rischio ulteriore: non è (solo) menzogna, è indifferenza verso il vero—la distinzione di Harry Frankfurt tra mentire e produrre “stronzate”. Quando la verità smette di essere un obiettivo, un archivio scientifico non dice “cose sbagliate”: smette proprio di dire cose.00:00 L'uccello che non esiste00:00:47 Database e scienza dal basso00:02:35 Foto IA e casi assurdi00:03:35 Ritocchi generativi subdoli00:05:49 Perché quei dati servono00:06:45 Moderazione e costi di verifica00:07:36 Akerlof e collasso fiducia00:10:20 Frankfurt: vero vs plausibile#iNaturalist #eBird #citizenscience NOTA: Quello che stai per vedere è un ''video delle ferie'', registrato in anticipo nell'ultima settimana di Luglio. Se qualcosa nel frattempo si è evoluto... non lo vedrai qui, temo!~~~Ciao Internet! - Il primo e più seguito canale di TECH POLICY in italia, con Matteo FloraINFO E AZIENDE: https://matteoflora.comIl CORSO di AI: https://zero.matteoflora.comNewsletter: https://link.mgpf.it/nlSocial: https://io.matteoflora.comEnglish: https://www.youtube.com/@CiaoInternetPrivacy » https://privacy.matteoflora.comAI Policy » https://privacy.matteoflora.com/aiMail #adv: sales (at) matteoflora.com

Plus: a U.K. government-backed research institute finds AI models went rogue during routine tests. And new White House AI guidelines exempt U.S. open models from government review. Imani Moise hosts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Attacchi un monitor LG UltraGear da fascia alta e Windows, senza chiederti nulla, scarica “LG Monitor App Installer”. Fin qui tutto “normale”: è la pipeline pensata per riconoscere l'hardware e distribuire driver e utility automaticamente. Il problema nasce un attimo dopo, quando quell'app si mette in esecuzione all'avvio e ti spara un pop‑up di promozione McAfee (trial 30 giorni, poi rinnovo a pagamento). Gamers Nexus lo misura in modo chirurgico: 31 pop‑up su 32 riavvii. Non un caso isolato: segnalazioni online indicano che la questione circolava da tempo.La vicenda si chiude in fretta (circa 72 ore) solo dopo l'eco mediatica e un intervento pubblico: Tim Sweeney (Epic Games) rilancia taggando Pavan Davuluri, a capo della divisione Windows in Microsoft, e LG rilascia un aggiornamento che disattiva il pop‑up. Ma il punto scomodo resta: il “binario” usato è una catena di fiducia che l'utente vive come infrastruttura (Windows Update e distribuzione automatica software per dispositivi). Se quel canale può veicolare bloatware e promozioni, la fiducia non si erode lentamente: crolla di colpo.Il tema vero, quindi, non è McAfee “installato o no con consenso”, ma l'uso di un canale privilegiato—nato per sicurezza e compatibilità—per monetizzare l'attenzione dell'utente su un prodotto già pagato a prezzo pieno.00:00 Monitor da 1000€ e pop-up01:15 Cosè LG Monitor App Installer02:13 Promozione McAfee allavvio02:51 Il test di Gamers Nexus04:27 Rumore pubblico e soluzione06:40 Il vero problema: il canale10:10 Monopolio radicale e fiducia15:33 Cosa controllare sul PC#WindowsUpdate #LGUltraGear #mcafeemafia NOTA: Quello che stai per vedere è un ''video delle ferie'', registrato in anticipo nell'ultima settimana di Luglio. Se qualcosa nel frattempo si è evoluto... non lo vedrai qui, temo!~~~Ciao Internet! - Il primo e più seguito canale di TECH POLICY in italia, con Matteo FloraINFO E AZIENDE: https://matteoflora.comIl CORSO di AI: https://zero.matteoflora.comNewsletter: https://link.mgpf.it/nlSocial: https://io.matteoflora.comEnglish: https://www.youtube.com/@CiaoInternetPrivacy » https://privacy.matteoflora.comAI Policy » https://privacy.matteoflora.com/aiMail #adv: sales (at) matteoflora.com

Dal 28 luglio 2026 negli USA basta una soglia quasi banale — circa 2 kg, sensori, connettività e autonomia con machine learning — per finire nella “covered list” della FCC: un perimetro che blocca nuove autorizzazioni e quindi importazione, marketing e vendita di nuovi modelli. Non è solo la storia degli umanoidi o dei quadrupedi virali: dentro ci finiscono anche gli aspirapolvere robot domestici, perché l'architettura richiesta è la stessa che rende un robot utile… e potenzialmente pericoloso.La chiave non è la bandiera del produttore, ma il concetto di dual use “per architettura”: percepire l'ambiente, muoversi autonomamente, ricevere comandi e aggiornamenti da remoto. È la combinazione, tutta nello stesso corpo che entra in case, magazzini e ospedali, a cambiare la natura del rischio: spionaggio ambientale, spegnimento da remoto, riprogrammazione, dipendenza dagli update. E qui la discussione pubblica tende a oscillare tra due caricature ugualmente miopi: “è solo un elettrodomestico” e “è Terminator sotto il divano”.Il punto politico-tecnico diventa allora un altro: cosa pretendiamo davvero come standard (firmware verificabile, filiera, dati e giurisdizione), e quanto siamo disposti a pagare per una sicurezza che non può essere gratuita quando l'oggetto, per design, ha sempre almeno due mestieri.00:00 2 kg, sensori, rete: robot01:18 FCC covered list: come blocca02:39 Definizione: autonomia e ML03:18 Dentro anche i robot aspirapolvere04:47 La catena di divieti USA06:02 Perché è architettura, non Cina06:45 Dual use di serie nella robotica09:51 Dal tostapane a Terminator#FCC #DualUse #roomba NOTA: Quello che stai per vedere è un ''video delle ferie'', registrato in anticipo nell'ultima settimana di Luglio. Se qualcosa nel frattempo si è evoluto... non lo vedrai qui, temo!~~~Ciao Internet! - Il primo e più seguito canale di TECH POLICY in italia, con Matteo FloraINFO E AZIENDE: https://matteoflora.comIl CORSO di AI: https://zero.matteoflora.comNewsletter: https://link.mgpf.it/nlSocial: https://io.matteoflora.comEnglish: https://www.youtube.com/@CiaoInternetPrivacy » https://privacy.matteoflora.comAI Policy » https://privacy.matteoflora.com/aiMail #adv: sales (at) matteoflora.com

The United Kingdom has a new prime minister, and he has already moved to put his mark on tech policy—scrapping a scheme for digital ID, shuttering the Department of Science, Innovation, and Technology (DSIT), shifting the Government Digital Service (GDS) to the Department of Culture, Media, and Sports, and reshuffling responsibility for AI policy.To learn more about how the table is being set under Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Justin Hendrix spoke to three individuals who are following these matters closely:James Ball, a journalist and fellow at Tech Policy Press;Gavin Freeguard, the founder director of a new think tank called State of the Future; andRachel Coldicutt, the founder and executive director of Careful Industries.

0:30 - Mike Koolidge filling in for Dan 8:12 - Commies in Cities 23:36 - The DSA Sweet Spot 40:30 - President of American Commitment and principal of The Committee to Unleash Prosperity Phil Kerpen says fixing health care starts with prices, not price controls. Follow Phil on X @kerpen 59:09 - Illinois comptroller candidate Bryan Drew asks, "Shouldn't everyone want a check on government spending?" For more on Bryan’s campaign for comptroller drewforillinois.com 01:18:18 - Best-selling author Brilyn Hollyhand discusses the rise of socialism among young Americans, his friendship with Charlie Kirk, and his new book Make America Talk Again. 01:35:55 - Program Director and Policy Advisor for American Compass, Brad Littlejohn, on Tech Policy’s Libertarian Hangover. Brad also writes at mereorthodoxy.substack.com 01:49:15 - Open Mic Friday!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

17.000 tentativi in un weekend, due vulnerabilità concatenate e un database di produzione di Hugging Face finito sotto mano a uno “sciame” di agenti. La parte controintuitiva: non sarebbe stato un gruppo criminale o un servizio straniero, ma un modello di OpenAI messo alla prova in test di cybersecurity con freni ridotti, che ha scelto la scorciatoia più efficace per “vincere” il benchmark.L'angolo interessante non è la favola di Skynet che scappa dal recinto: qui pesa molto di più il tema del specification gaming (reward hacking), cioè sistemi che ottimizzano l'obiettivo letterale e non l'intento umano. Se il punteggio è “dammi le risposte giuste”, allora rubare le soluzioni può diventare una strategia razionale. In mezzo c'è anche un dettaglio geopolitico: per analizzare gli artefatti dell'attacco, Hugging Face avrebbe dovuto usare un modello cinese (Zhipu GLM) perché alcuni modelli occidentali rifiutavano di elaborare codice ed exploit per via delle policy.Morale operativa: trattare gli agenti AI come “stagisti brillanti” senza contesto, da supervisionare e verificare. Se in laboratorio succedono effetti collaterali del genere, la domanda vera è quanta governance e separazione ambientale servano quando questi agenti entrano in aziende, studi professionali, sanità e finanza con permessi reali.00:00 Cosa è successo davvero01:47 Cronologia dell'incidente02:19 Sciame di agenti e 17k azioni02:53 Le due vulnerabilità sfruttate03:32 Perché servono modelli cinesi05:25 OpenAI: test con freni ridotti08:27 Reward hacking, non Skynet15:32 Lezione per aziende e controlli#OpenAI #HuggingFace #RewardHacking~~~Ciao Internet! - Il primo e più seguito canale di TECH POLICY in italia, con Matteo FloraINFO E AZIENDE: https://matteoflora.comIl CORSO di AI: https://zero.matteoflora.comNewsletter: https://link.mgpf.it/nlSocial: https://io.matteoflora.comEnglish: https://www.youtube.com/@CiaoInternetPrivacy » https://privacy.matteoflora.comAI Policy » https://privacy.matteoflora.com/aiMail #adv: sales (at) matteoflora.com

When a recommendation system pushes child sexual abuse material to a user, who answers for it: the algorithm or the company behind it? Host Anirban Chowdhury speaks with Supreme Court of India lawyer Sajan Poovayya, who breaks down India's evolving liability framework for platforms, from the strict liability standard around CSAM ( Child Sexual Abuse Material) to the tricky question of proving corporate intent through POCSO, the IT Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He unpacks the Supreme Court's take on constructive possession, why safe harbor may not apply when engagement-driven design pushes harmful content, and how India's dark pattern penalties could offer a blueprint for regulating platform accountability.You can follow Anirban Chowdhury on his social media: X and LinkedinCheck out other interesting episodes like: Mythos Blocked: When AI Becomes a Weapon of State, India wants manufacturing at 25% of GDP — will AI in factories help?, The Gold That Wasn't There: Inside SEBI's Case Against Rajesh Exports, Hills of Brew, Semaglutide Goes Generic: Big Pharma’s Moat Breaks and much more. Catch the latest episode of ‘The Morning Brief’ on The Economic Times Online, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, JioSaavn, Amazon Music and Youtube.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What should we do when the "AI" bubble pops? Emily and Alex are joined by researcher Matt Scherer, who recently published a report called "No Bailout for Big Tech Billionaires: Policies for when the AI bubble bursts." They unpack what the boosters are saying about their finances, and how we can all push back against arguments for a government bailout.Matt Scherer is a fellow at the anti-monopoly think tank Open Markets Institute. He previously led the workers' rights project at the Center for Democracy & Technology.References:Forbes: "AI Can Change The World And Still Be A Bubble"Also referenced: Is AI Profitable Yet?CNBC: "Altman says some investors will be left 'very burnt'"CNBC: "Bezos brushes off concerns of an AI bubble: 'You shouldn't worry about it'Fresh AI Hell:Empty Waymos create self-driving traffic jam"AA digital sponsor"Stanford researchers claim "AI agents...embrace Marxist ideologies""Chatbots at the drive-thru"YouGov polling on automated juriesChaser: Erin Brockovich is on the case!AI Startup Says It Will Pay People $2,000 a Month to MasturbateChaser: You used which brush!?Check out future streams on Twitch. Meanwhile, send us any AI Hell you see.Find our book The AI Con here, and MAIHT3k merch here.Subscribe to our newsletter via Buttondown.Follow us!EmilyBluesky: emilymbender.bsky.socialMastodon: dair-community.social/@EmilyMBenderAlexBluesky: alexhanna.bsky.socialMastodon: dair-community.social/@alexTwitter: @alexhannaMusic by Toby Menon.Artwork by Naomi Pleasure-Park. Production by Ozzy Llinas Goodman.

Send us Fan Mail What happens when federal regulators take on fake reviews and predatory AI applications? This week on NearMemo, Greg Sterling and Mike Blumenthal host Michael Atleson, former Senior Attorney at the FTC's Division of Advertising Practices (now with DLA Piper). Michael walks us through the internal strategy behind the landmark Consumer Review Rule, the nuances of investigating multi-million dollar local business listing fraud, and how lawyers are using novel product liability theories to bypass Section 230 immunity. We also dive into the political shifts impacting AI enforcement, state-level legislation targeting companion bots, and the future of tech regulation in an era of congressional gridlock. Subscribe to our newsletters and other content at https://www.nearmedia.co/subscribe/

In this episode, host Dr. Wolfgang Holtkamp sits down with Professor Michael Resch, director of the High-Performance Computing Center Stuttgart, to talk about supercomputers like Hunter and their impact on science, industry, and society. The conversation goes beyond raw processing power: touching on energy efficiency, strategic foresight, and Europe's role in the global tech race. Along the way, unexpected connections between technology and art raise a deeper question: what does it mean to stay human in an increasingly digital world? An episode about curiosity, responsibility, and making the impact of science visible.

Digital policy has emerged as one of the most contentious of policy areas in EU-US relations. Many EU digital policy developments have met with vocal US opposition – including Europe's pursuit of digital sovereignty, what the US administration perceives as the over-regulation of US firms, the preferencing of European solutions, and EU content moderation rules. Meanwhile in Europe, concerns about perceived threats to European values, democracy, autonomy and competitiveness continue to drive EU digital policy. How Europe and the United States navigate these divergences may carry significant implications for the prosperity, well-being, and security of citizens on both sides of the Atlantic. With Ireland's role as a transatlantic digital hub and with its forthcoming presidency of the Council of the European Union, Dublin will play a leading role in shaping the future of this critical relationship. In this event, Frances Burwell and Kenneth Propp discuss the prospects and challenges for the future of the EU-US digital policy relations. About the Speakers: Frances G. Burwell is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council's Europe Center and a senior director at McLarty Associates. Until January 2017, she served as vice president, European Union and Special Initiatives, at the Council. She has served as director of the Council's Program on Transatlantic Relations, and as interim director of the Global Business and Economics Program, and currently directs the Transatlantic Digital Marketplace Initiative. Kenneth Propp is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Europe Center. He is also an adjunct professor of European Union Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and a senior fellow with the Cross-Border Data Forum. He advises and advocates on data trade, privacy, security, and other regulatory issues in the United States and major international markets.

In this episode, we reflect on the 19th edition of CPDP (Computers, Privacy and Data Protection), the major Brussels tech policy conference, held last week under this year's theme, "Competing Visions, Shared Futures." We discuss the dominant debates from the gathering, including the contested Digital Omnibus simplification package, digital and tech sovereignty, researcher access to platform data under the Digital Services Act, the rising prominence of child online safetWe feature voices from across the conference, including Tech Policy Press contributing editor Mark Scott, AlgorithmWatch's Oliver Marsh, the Knight-Georgetown Institute's Peter Chapman, the Center for Democracy and Technology's Marie Seck, Project SENTIMENT's Joel Baumann, Mozilla's Svea Windwehr, and conference director Barbara Lazarotto.And, you'll hear two interviews: a conversation with European Data Protection Supervisor Wojciech Wiewiórowski on whether the GDPR needs reform amid the simplification push, and a wide-ranging reflection from CPDP founder Paul De Hert on how the conference and the field of data protection have evolved over nearly two decades, the value of reasoned disagreement, and why Europe should be more self-critical.

Today on AmperWave Daily, the global free speech battle intensifies as Elon Musk clashes with European regulators and French authorities amid ongoing investigations into X (formerly Twitter) and its AI system Grok. Supporters call it censorship pressure. Critics call it accountability. But the stakes are increasingly framed as something much bigger: the future of open speech online.

From Australia's teen social media ban to AI safety, there's so many tech policy matters these days! So to wrap up the summer series — finally! — I decided to chat with Johanna Weaver and Zoe Jay Hawkins from the Tech Policy Design Institute in Canberra.In this episode we talk about how Australia as a middle power can participate in global tech policy. We chat about AI slop, the battle between Anthropic and the Pentagon, the digital duty of care, and of course the social media age restrictions.This episode was recorded on 11 March 2026, so some of the topical references may be slightly dated.Full podcast details and credits:https://the9pmedict.com/edict/00266/Please consider supporting the the current crowdfunder:https://the9pmedict.com/relocateOr if you miss that or prefer to not use GoFundMe:https://the9pmedict.com/tip/https://skank.com.au/subscribe/

A member of the Senate's transportation oversight committee said this week that he hopes to effectively “seal off” the U.S. from vehicles made by Chinese automakers.U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said during remarks ahead of the New York Auto Show that he would introduce a bill in the coming weeks to strengthen an existing ban on Chinese vehicles, Reuters reported.Rules finalized under the Biden administration early last year sought to prohibit Chinese automakers from selling passenger vehicles in the U.S., citing data privacy and national security concerns, but Moreno indicated that his measure will go further, incorporating not just vehicle imports but “hardware” and “software,” as well as partnerships between Chinese vehicle makers and other companies.Moreno told the Automotive Forum event that he aims for a framework in which “there's never a scenario where a ​Chinese automobile will enter our market.”He also said that he hopes governments in other nations would make similar efforts, from Canada and Mexico to the rest of Latin America and Europe. Chinese cars, however, are already sold in many of those markets.U.S. automakers and other industry groups, meanwhile, recently called on the government to prevent Chinese cars from entering the domestic market altogether ahead of a planned visit to China next month by President Trump. Trump, Reuters noted, had suggested during an event in Detroit earlier this year that he would be open to a Chinese auto plant in the U.S.#China #AutoIndustry #TradePolicy #Tariffs #NationalSecurity #ElectricVehicles #EVs #Manufacturing #GlobalTrade #SupplyChain #Automotive #USPolitics #Geopolitics #TechPolicy #DataSecurity #Cybersecurity #IndustryNews #BusinessNews #USManufacturing #Imports #TradeWar #EconomicPolicy #FutureOfAuto #Regulation #AutoNews

Assemblymember Chris Ward (D–San Diego) held a press conference Tuesday at the State Capitol to announce the introduction of AB 1542, new legislation to strengthen protections for sensitive personal data; continued efforts to advance AB 322, a two-year bill to ban the sale of geolocation data; and renewed momentum for AB 1337, a two-year bill currently pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee to modernize public-sector privacy protections. The press conference brought together consumer advocates, civil rights organizations, and privacy experts to underscore the urgency of protecting Californians' personal information from misuse, exploitation, and sale without consent. “Californians should not have to worry that their sensitive personal information is being sold to the highest bidder,” said Assemblymember Chris Ward. “From precise location data to deeply personal information, these bills work together to stop the sale of geolocation data, strengthen protections for sensitive information, and ensure government agencies are held to modern privacy standards. California led the nation on privacy once before, and we must continue to lead as technology evolves.” Justin Brookman, Director of Tech Policy at Consumer Reports, warned that data-driven pricing and monetization practices are outpacing existing protections. “People should not have to worry that their sensitive personal information is going to be sold to the highest bidder,” Brookman said. “The California Consumer Privacy Act was groundbreaking, but it needs to be updated to address the realities of the modern data ecosystem. Companies should use personal information like geolocation to deliver the services we ask for—not to secretly monetize it through data brokers.” Advocates emphasized the heightened risks these practices pose to vulnerable communities. “When businesses sell and trade sensitive personal information like precise location or immigration status, they open the door to surveillance, targeting, and exploitation. Those harms fall the hardest on the most vulnerable in our community, including immigrants, LGBTQ+ individuals, and survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking," said Lan Le, Policy Advocate at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California (AJSOCAL). “These data privacy bills send a clear message: dignity and safety are rights, not commodities.” Supporters also highlighted the need to modernize how public agencies handle personal data. “In an era of increasing digital surveillance and data collection, it's crucial that our privacy laws evolve,” said Rindala “Rin” Alajaji, Associate Director of State Affairs at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “AB 1337 is a much-needed update to ensure local governments are held accountable for how they handle personal data.” Tracy Rosenberg, Executive Director of Oakland Privacy, underscored how the measures work together. “The bill duo of AB 1337 and AB 322 attacks our current dystopia in two vital ways,” Rosenberg said. “They modernize privacy protections, add transparency and limits around precise location data, and curb invasive practices that expose Californians to government and industry overreach.” John Bennett, Initiative Director at CITED, emphasized the broader democratic stakes. “Privacy and freedom of movement are cornerstones of a healthy democracy,” Bennett said. “It's time to strengthen our data privacy laws and fulfill the promise of California's constitutional right to privacy—so people can move, assemble, and participate in civic life without fear of surveillance.” Ward's legislative package builds on California's landmark privacy framework to protect sensitive personal data, prohibit the sale of geolocation information, and ensure privacy rights keep pace with modern technology.

The race for the first viable driverless taxi fleet is still moving forward at a rapid pace, with players like Tesla and Waymo generating regular headlines highlighting the good and the bad.And though the vision is there, the technology that's being tested now in a handful of American cities is not perfect just yet.Recent reports point to comments made by Waymo's chief safety officer, Mauricio Peña, regarding the degree of independence his company's autonomous vehicles really offer.In an early February Congressional hearing, lawmakers grilled Waymo and Tesla executives on the future of autonomous vehicles.During the meeting, Waymo's Peña was pressed on the firm's use of foreign workers and technology, and the extent to which Waymo was using foreign assistance came as a bit of a surprise: the company is apparently using workers in the Philippines to remotely “fix” stumped autonomous vehicles on their routes.Peña stressed that the humans in question do not remotely operate the vehicles fully, rather they “provide guidance” – a clarification that didn't quell the concerns of some lawmakers, including Massachusetts senator Ed Markey, who said “having people overseas influencing American vehicles is a safety issue.” Additional concerns raised in the hearing were those of cybersecurity and, of course, the offshoring of jobs.Markey added, “It's one thing when a taxi is replaced by an Uber or a Lyft. It's another thing when the jobs just go completely overseas.”#AutonomousVehicles, #DriverlessCars, #Robotaxi, #Waymo, #Tesla, #SelfDriving, #AI, #ArtificialIntelligence, #TechNews, #TransportationTech, #FutureOfTransportation, #Mobility, #AVSafety, #Cybersecurity, #RemoteWork, #Offshoring, #USCongress, #TechPolicy, #Regulation, #StartupNews, #VentureCapital, #SmartCities

Milwaukee police have banned the use of facial recognition technology for now, following a heated Fire and Police Commission meeting. A tech policy shares what the public should know.

Scott Babwah Brennan is the director of NYU's Center on Technology Policy. Scott and his team have just released their 2025 State Technology Policy Report—a thorough and thoughtful survey and analysis of the tech legislation coming out of statehouses across the country. Scott joins the show to discuss the report and break down how states are shaping the regulatory landscape on AI, child online safety, data privacy, and more.Links:The Center on Technology Policy: State Technology Policy Report 2025

In today's Tech3 from Moneycontrol, we continue our year-end wrap with a deep dive into how India's technology policy landscape unfolded in 2025. From app bans and data protection concerns to the IndiaAI Mission's GPU push and foundational model plans, we track the policy moves shaping startups and tech. The episode also looks at Bengaluru's civic flashpoints, mobility battles, infrastructure delays, and the governance questions that defined the year.

In 2025, tech policy felt like everything happened everywhere at once. Google lost two antitrust cases but avoided a breakup. Meta won its case entirely. The SEC went from suing crypto companies to dropping every major enforcement action. Net neutrality died—again—this time probably for good. TikTok got banned, then unbanned, then re-banned, then saved by executive order—five times. Chinese hackers compromised 200 companies through our telecom networks. And Congress finally actually passed a law protecting kids online—The Take it Down Act, to be precise.It was a year in many ways defined by tensions and contradictions. Courts stripped power from federal agencies just as the new administration tried to bring those agencies under tighter presidential control. The administration took some actions to be tough on China, while other measures appeared to let our chief adversary off the hook. States rushed to fill the vacuum on AI and privacy while the White House has threatened to preempt them. Platforms loosened content moderation in the US while facing record fines in Europe. And Washington declared it wanted to win the AI race—while local communities debated whether they even wanted data centers in their backyards.So what were the biggest tech and telecom policy stories of 2025? Which developments will have staying power, and which were little more than sound and fury? What should we be watching heading into 2026? And did anyone actually win this year—or did everyone just survive?To unpack all this, Evan is joined by Luke Hogg, Director of Technology Policy at FAI, and Josh Levine, Research Fellow at FAI.

In this episode of Top in Tech, Megan Stagman, Director, and Associates Anna Lisa Schäfer-Gehrau and Sarah Shinton, delve into the sharpening geopolitical rift between the US administration and Europe over the course of 2025, and what this means for the tech sector specifically. They explore the implications of last week's US national security strategy, the EU's recent enforcement cases against American tech companies (and the reaction that this sparked), as well as the growing controversy on issues like digital services taxes. The team also ask the question of what other alliances grow in strategic importance if the Europe-US relationship declines, and what this new world order means for multinational companies trying to navigate competing regulatory regimes. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tech leaders are pushing the idea that automation can strengthen democracy — but as usual, their bold suggestions are based on castles made of sand. Alex and Emily tear down some flimsy arguments for AI governance, exposing their incorrect assumptions about the democratic process.References:"This Is No Way to Rule a Country""Four ways AI is being used to strengthen democracies worldwide"Also referenced:Collective Intelligence Project surveysInterview with CalMatters CEOFresh AI Hell:Amazon introduces AI translation for Kindle authorsNature op ed recommends AI versions of Einstein, Bohr, and FeynmanAn AI Podcasting Machine Is Churning Out 3,000 Episodes a WeekAI dating café to open in New YorkRecipe slop flooding social mediaAI slop about Autism published in NatureUpwork ad for fixing LLM editorial"Hundreds of Chicago residents sign petition to pause robot delivery pilot program over safety concerns"Check out future streams on Twitch. Meanwhile, send us any AI Hell you see.Our book, 'The AI Con,' is out now! Get your copy now.Subscribe to our newsletter via Buttondown. Follow us!Emily Bluesky: emilymbender.bsky.social Mastodon: dair-community.social/@EmilyMBender Alex Bluesky: alexhanna.bsky.social Mastodon: dair-community.social/@alex Twitter: @alexhanna Music by Toby Menon.Artwork by Naomi Pleasure-Park. Production by Ozzy Llinas Goodman.

2025 has been a momentous year for UK tech policy - with highlights including the publication of various Government strategies and publications, ongoing debates on AI regulation, AI copyright and training, Ofcom's regulatory enforcement of the Online Safety Act and the CMA's Special Market Status investigations under the Digital Markets, Competition, and Consumers Act, alongside Government proposals for a new Digital ID scheme. In this special feature episode, David Swanson, Senior Associate in the Tech, media and telecoms practice sits down with Lord Clement-Jones, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Science, Innovation, and Technology in the House of Lords - to discuss these developments. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A recent proposal by Lina Khan, co-chair of Zohran Mamdani's mayoral transition team, to cap the price of beer at stadiums in New York City sparked a debate on X last month. At the center of that debate was Matthew Yglesias, editor and author the Slow Boring newsletter, who argued that the modern antitrust movement has become "slipshod" and is ignoring basic economic trade-offs in favor of political wins.In this episode, Yglesias joins Luigi and Bethany to discuss his views on the theoretical and practical limitations of the "Neo-Brandeisian" approach to antitrust. He contends that proposals like price caps for complementary goods like stadium concessions reveals a lack of economic rigor, arguing that such measures often result in higher ticket prices rather than consumer savings . He suggests that the movement increasingly attempts to use antitrust law as a universal tool for societal grievances.Bethany and Luigi debate Yglesias on the limits of this modern anti-monopoly movement, arguing that he sounds like a "Chicago economist circa 1970" who assumes markets are always efficient and rational. From the lobbying might of the banking industry to the extractive fees of Amazon, Luigi argues that economic concentration inevitably morphs into political power which standard price theory often ignores. He posits that even if consolidated industries remain price-efficient, their size allows for the capture of the regulatory process—citing the banking and tobacco industries as historical precedents.Of course, antitrust enforcement isn't the only proposal on the table to address people's concerns about price levels, as the current excitement around the "affordability" and "abundance" movements demonstrate. But Yglesias argues neither abundance, affordability nor antitrust is going to drive down nominal prices. As he puts it: the only thing that could do that is “a catastrophic depression…but that's not going to make people happier". Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The federal government spends over $100 billion on information technology (IT) every year. About 80 percent of that goes toward operating and maintaining systems, many of which are long outdated and obsolete. Some federal IT systems are more than 50 years old.On day one of his presidency, Trump signed an EO that established the Department of Government Efficiency, which included a mandate to modernize “Federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity.”While DOGE helped shine a spotlight on the issue, it isn't new. The Government Accountability Office has long warned about the risks of poor federal software practices—taxpayer waste, inefficient government processes, harms to citizens who rely on services like veterans benefits, and cybersecurity vulnerabilities.Many presidents have tried to solve it, but despite some improvements here and there, the problem has persisted for lots of reasons. Government agencies often lack the expertise to understand their software products and needs. Agencies have also failed to properly audit and track their software purchases. The companies who sell software to the government often deliberately make it difficult for agencies to modernize, change vendors, or diversify their supply chains.With a renewed focus on government efficiency, how can Congress and the Trump administration tackle the long-festering problem of outdated and vulnerable federal IT? What can agencies do on their own, and what requires an act of Congress? And how would the American people benefit from improving these systems?Evan is joined by Dan Lips, Senior Fellow at FAI and Luke Hogg, Director of Tech Policy at FAI. For more, see Dan's blog post and Evan's op-ed. 

What if the rules we write today could make tomorrow's technology more human, safer, and genuinely worth wanting? We sit down with Anna Aseeva, a legal strategist working at the intersection of sustainability, intellectual property, and AI, to map a smarter path for digital innovation that starts with design and ends with systems people trust.We dig into the significant shifts shaping tech governance right now. Anna explains a practical model for aligning IP and sustainability: protect early to nurture fragile ideas through sandboxes and investment, then open up mature solutions with licensing that shares benefits and safeguards intent. This conversation is equally about culture and code. We talk about legal design that reads like plain talk, citizen participation that turns evidence into policy input, and civic apps that could let communities steer platform rules. We cover digital sustainability beyond emissions—lighter websites, greener hosting, and product decisions that fight digital obesity and planned obsolescence. And we don't shy away from the realities of AI: hallucinated footnotes, invented coauthors, and the simple fixes that come from a careful human in the loop.If you're a builder or curious listener who wants technology to serve people and planet, you'll find clear takeaways: design for sustainability from day one, keep humans in charge of final decisions, protect what's fragile, open what's ready, and invite people into the process. Subscribe, share with a friend, and tell us: where should human review be non-negotiable?Send us a textCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats. The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

The future of AI may be decided in backyards. Data Centers—the sprawling facilities designed to support the massive computing required to train and run AI models—are being built across the country. One estimate sees more than $1 trillion dollars in capital spending on data centers in the next four years. And they use electricity—a lot of it. While data centers can bring construction jobs,  tax revenue, and economic development to their communities, they also bring complaints about power and water usage, noise pollution, and architectural blight.Debates are raging from town halls to the halls of Congress. Yes, politicians want the US to lead the world in AI, but elected officials, particularly local ones, are hearing from constituents concerned about data centers, including the potential to raise electric bills. The decisions being made right now in places like Northern Virginia, Umatilla, Oregon, and Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, will determine whether AI infrastructure is scaled quickly, or whether a backlash slows it down. If done right, data centers can bring world-class tech capabilities, lower electricity prices, energy abundance, and local tax revenue. Done poorly, we see working class Americans paying more for power, the electric grid struggling, and the potential for the American public to turn sour on data canters en masse.So what do people need to know about data centers to make informed decisions? What really is the impact of data centers on water and electricity? What should policymakers in Washington do, if anything, about these debates? And are there ways to balance legitimate local concerns without hamstringing a strategic imperative?Evan is joined by Asad Ramzanali, Director of Artificial Intelligence & Technology Policy at the Vanderbilt Policy Accelerator. He was previously Chief of Staff at the White House Office of Science and Tech Policy under President Biden and Legislative Director to former Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA). You can read his recent op-ed on data centers here. Evan is also joined by Daniel King, Research Fellow at FAI where he focuses on the energy and security dimensions of artificial intelligence. Daniel completed Master's studies in Statistics & Data Science at Yale University and earned a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mathematics from Brown University. Check out his substack on AI and energy, Policy Gradients.

SUPPORT ME ON PATREON!!!Buy a subscription to my Tech and Online Culture newsletter, User Magazine to support my work!!!!

From November 8, 2020 (Episode 279): Billy Easley sits down with former host Ashkhen Kazaryan. They remind us of the value of the free and open Internet.Links:Revising the Law That Lets Platforms Moderate Content Will Silence Marginalized VoicesFree Speech and Tech Policy at the US Supreme Court, 2025 (AEI Event)

In this episode, Senior Fellow in Technology Policy Jennifer Huddleston and Technology Policy Research Fellow Matthew Mittelsteadt break down the Trump administration's new AI Action Plan and what it means for American innovation. Matt Mittelsteadt, “The AI Action Plan: Taking AI Innovation Seriously,” Cato at Liberty (July 28, 2025)Matt Mittelsteadt, “The Safety Risks of the Coming AI Regulatory Patchwork,” Cato at Liberty (June 24, 2025)Jennifer Huddleston, “Content Creators, Entrepreneurial Users, and the Impact of Tech Policy,” Policy Analysis (April 29, 2025)Jennifer Huddleston, “Is AI a Horse or a Zebra When It Comes to the First Amendment,” Cato at Liberty (July 28, 2025) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tech reporter Ben Brody discusses the impact of tariffs on semiconductors and President Trump's calling for the removal of Intel's CEO this past week. This story was featured in The Readback, our weekend digest featuring the best of Punchbowl News this week. Want more in-depth daily coverage from Congress? Subscribe to our free Punchbowl News AM newsletter at punchbowl.news. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of In AI We Trust?, cohosts Miriam Vogel and Nuala O'Connor are joined by Adam Thierer, resident senior fellow @ R Street's Tech & Innovation team. Adam weighs in on the Trump Administration's AI Action Plan, the importance of Congress in developing AI policy, and existing legal principles and practices that help define the new digital and AI age. They focused on the mandate for AI literacy, as well as the necessity of AI technologies being regulated in a transparent and trustworthy way that end users, and particularly consumers, can understand.

Daniel M. Gerstein, senior policy researcher at RAND and former acting under secretary at the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, joins Steve Gruber to break down President Trump's recent executive orders on drone policy. He outlines what the new directives mean for national security, privacy, and the rapidly evolving role of unmanned systems in both domestic and global contexts.

This weekend, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) turns 35. Signed into law on July 26, 1990, the law provides broad anti-discrimination protections for people with disabilities in the US, and has impacted how people with disabilities interact with various technologies. To discuss how the law has aged and what the fight for equity and inclusion looks like going forward, Tech Policy Press fellow Ariana Aboulafia spoke with three leaders working at the intersection of disability and technology:Maitreya Shah is the tech policy director at the American Association of People with Disabilities.Blake Reid is a professor at the University of Colorado.Cynthia Bennett is a senior research scientist at Google.

Jaap van Etten, Co-Founder and CEO of Datenna, joined Jeanne Meserve live at SCSP's AI+ Expo for a conversation on rethinking tech policy in the U.S.-China competition. They discussed leveraging open-source intelligence to track China's technological and military-civil fusion ecosystem, and more. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit scsp222.substack.com

Canadian political leaders are in a precarious moment. Fresh off the resignation of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and ascendancy of his successor, new Prime Minister and Liberal Party leader Mark Carney, the nation faces a brewing trade war with the United States and a deteriorating relationship with its president, Donald Trump.In addition to managing those global tensions, Canadian leaders have a long to-do list on tech policy, including figuring out the nation's approach to artificial intelligence and online harms. How will the new Carney-led government in Canada navigate those issues?Tech Policy Press associate editor Cristiano Lima-Strong spoke to three experts to get a sense:Renee Black is founder of goodbot, where she works on preventing harmful disinformation and bias, and establishing frameworks that protect digital rights.Maroussia Lévesque is a doctoral candidate and lecturer at Harvard Law School, an affiliate at the Berkman Klein Center, and a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation.Vass Bednar is a public policy entrepreneur working at the intersection of technology and public policy.

Small businesses are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly in personalized email marketing, which has become a primary channel for nearly 19% of small to mid-sized businesses in 2025. Despite the growing interest, many businesses face challenges in implementation, with 35% citing a lack of familiarity with AI as a significant barrier. A recent survey indicates that while 38% of small and medium-sized businesses are utilizing AI across various functions, the actual productivity gains from AI investments, such as chatbots, have been minimal, with only a 3% time savings reported. This discrepancy highlights the gap between the hype surrounding AI and its real-world applications.Legislative developments are also shaping the tech landscape, with Washington State introducing a new sales tax on technology and digital services to address a significant budget shortfall. This tax, expected to generate billions over the next few years, has raised concerns among local tech industry leaders about its potential impact on competitiveness. Additionally, Congress is considering a moratorium on state regulations regarding AI, which could undermine privacy protections established by states. Critics argue that this could hinder essential consumer safeguards, while proponents believe a unified regulatory framework is necessary for innovation.Cybersecurity remains a pressing issue, with notable incidents highlighting vulnerabilities in the sector. Delta Airlines is pursuing legal action against cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike following a massive IT failure that led to significant flight cancellations and financial losses. Meanwhile, a new malware called LumaStealer has infected hundreds of thousands of devices, prompting a coordinated response from Microsoft and Europol. The FBI has also issued warnings about AI-generated voice scams, which pose a growing threat to trust-based systems like email and voice approvals.The podcast emphasizes the importance of resilience and responsibility in cybersecurity, urging IT service providers to focus on trust governance rather than merely managing technology. As AI continues to evolve, the need for systematic validation of communications and relationships becomes critical. The discussion underscores the necessity for businesses to navigate the complexities of AI adoption and cybersecurity effectively, ensuring that they are not only keeping pace with technological advancements but also safeguarding their operations and customer trust. 00:00 AI's Real Value Lies in Utility, Not Innovation, Say Analysts Tracking SMB Adoption Trends+06:36 U.S. Tech Policy in Flux: More States Tax IT, Feds Push AI Preemption, and Data Privacy Falters11:34 Cybersecurity's Trust Gap Widens: Delta Can Sue CrowdStrike, AI Voice Scams Rise, and North Korea Hacks U.S. Firms This is the Business of Tech.    Supported by:  https://afi.ai/office-365-backup/ All our Sponsors: https://businessof.tech/sponsors/ Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Looking for a link from the stories? The entire script of the show, with links to articles, are posted in each story on https://www.businessof.tech/ Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/ Want to be a guest on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights? Send Dave Sobel a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.com Follow us on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradio/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.tech

Today's guest is Milton L. Mueller,  a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology in the School of Public Policy and the head of an advocacy policy analysis group called the Internet Governance Project. Mueller has long walked the halls and sat in the rooms where internet governance is discussed and debated, and has played a role in shaping global Internet policies and institutions. He's the author of a new book called Declaring Independence in Cyberspace: Internet Self-Governance and the End of US Control of ICANN, which takes us into those rooms, telling the story of how and why the US government gave up its control of ICANN, a key internet governance institution responsible for internet names, numbers, and protocols. That history tells us a lot about where we are today when it comes to the broader geopolitics and governance of technology, and it has implications for the governance fights ahead, including over artificial intelligence.

Now in its third year, the Russo-Ukraine War has upended the post-Cold War security landscape, exposing deep fractures in the global balance of power. As western unity frays and U.S. diplomacy shifts under President Trump, the war has become a flashpoint for competing visions of the international order. This week, the European Union gave Russia an ultimatum: accept a proposed ceasefire or face expanded sanctions—just days ahead of a potential round of direct peace talks in Istanbul on Thursday. The stakes are high, and the choices made this week could reshape not only the trajectory of the war but the future of global security.How should we understand the prospects for a sustainable peace in Ukraine amidst evolving geopolitical dynamics and continued battlefield uncertainty? To help make sense of these developments, Just Security Senior Fellow and Director of the Oxford Programme for Cyber and Tech Policy, Brianna Rosen, sat down with Sir Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies at King's College London and Professor Janina Dill, Dame Louise Richardson Chair in Global Security at Oxford University's Blavatnik School of Government. This conversation was part of the Calleva-Airey Neave Global Security Seminar Series at the University of Oxford. Show Notes: Just Security's Russia-Ukraine War Archive Ambassador Daniel Fried's "How to Land the Emerging Peace Deal on Peace for Ukraine"Music: “Broken” by David Bullard from Uppbeat: https://uppbeat.io/t/david-bullard/broken (License code: OSC7K3LCPSGXISVI)

Tech policy has created more opportunities for entrepreneurship than just Silicon Valley startups. The availability of online platforms has empowered a new wave of entrepreneurs who might never reach household fame but who are contributing both to their own households and the greater economy. Jennifer Huddleston, a senior fellow in tech policy, speaks with two content creators about how these platforms and tech policy have impacted their businesses and changed their lives. 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)

The 119th Congress faces a pivotal moment in shaping America's technological future. With advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), cybersecurity threats on the rise, and digital trade playing a crucial role in the economy, lawmakers must decide whether to embrace policies that foster innovation or burden industries with heavy-handed regulations. In this episode of American Potential, host David From speaks with James Czerniawski, Senior Policy Analyst at Americans for Prosperity, about the critical tech policies Congress should prioritize. They discuss why a light-touch regulatory approach is essential for AI to reach its full potential, how digital privacy laws should be structured to prevent a patchwork of conflicting state regulations, and why cybersecurity must remain a top priority to safeguard national security. With China aggressively investing in AI and emerging markets rapidly evolving, America cannot afford to fall behind. This conversation highlights why unleashing innovation through free-market principles—not bureaucratic red tape—will keep the U.S. at the forefront of technological leadership. Will Congress rise to the challenge? Tune in to find out.

This week, Elon Musk—amidst his other duties of gutting United States federal government agencies as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE)—announced a hostile bid alongside a consortium of buyers to purchase control of OpenAI for $97.4 billion. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman vehemently replied that his company is not for sale.The artificial intelligence landscape is shifting rapidly. The week prior, American tech stocks plummeted in response to claims from Chinese company DeepSeek AI that its model had matched OpenAI's performance at a fraction of the cost. Days before that, President Donald Trump announced that OpenAI, Oracle, and Softbank would partner on an infrastructure project to power AI in the U.S. with an initial $100 billion investment. Altman himself is trying to pull off a much-touted plan to convert the nonprofit OpenAI into a for-profit entity, a development at the heart of his spat with Musk, who co-founded the startup.Bethany and Luigi discuss the implications of this changing landscape by reflecting on a prior Capitalisn't conversation with Luigi's former colleague Sendhil Mullainathan (now at MIT), who forecasted over a year ago that there would be no barriers to entry in AI. Does DeepSeek's success prove him right? How does the U.S. government's swift move to ban DeepSeek from government devices reflect how we should weigh national interests at the risk of hindering innovation and competition? Musk has the ear of Trump and a history of animosity with Altman over the direction of OpenAI. Does Musk's proposed hostile takeover signal that personal interests and relationships with American leadership will determine how AI develops in the U.S. from here on out? What does regulating AI in the collective interest look like, and can we escape a future where technology is consolidated in the hands of the wealthy few when billions of dollars in capital are required for its progress?Show Notes:On ProMarket, check out:Why Musk Is Right About OpenAI by Luigi Zingales, March 5, 2024Who Will Enforce AI's Social Purpose? By Roberto Tallarita, March 16, 2024

This episode of “Lawfare Live: National Security and the 2024 Election” was recorded on October 15 in front of a live audience on Youtube and Zoom.Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes spoke to Lawfare Senior Editors Quinta Jurecic, Eugenia Lostri, and Alan Rozenshtein, Lawfare Tarbell Fellowin Artificial Intelligence Kevin Frazier, and Associate Professor of Law at St. John's University Law School Kate Klonick. They discussed former President Trump and Vice President Harris's positions on various tech policies, like content moderation, AI, cybersecurity, antitrust, and TikTok bans.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.