Podcasts about tech policy press

Just ahead of the start of the new school year, districts across the United States are issuing new policies on the use of artificial intelligence applications in classrooms. Last Wednesday, New York City effectively banned most student facing AI in all K-8th grade classes while allowing a limited set of approved tools to be used for high schoolers for the upcoming school year. And on the same day, Los Angeles school officials announced the district was placing a one-year moratorium on generative AI for all of its estimated 378,000 students.To learn more about these announcements and the politics driving them, Justin Hendrix spoke to two individuals who covered these matters for Tech Policy Press this summer: Tech Policy Press fellow Chris Mills Rodrigo and audio reporter Laura Karpas, who interned at Tech Policy Press this summer and is currently a graduate student at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY.

Tech Policy Press fellow Jake Laperruque, who is also the Deputy Director of Center for Democracy and Technology's Security and Surveillance Project, spoke to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) about the  the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and ongoing efforts to reform it.

Kenji Yoshino, Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law at New York University School of Law and a member of Meta's Oversight Board, joins Kevin Frazier, director of the AI Innovation and Law Program at the University of Texas School of Law and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and guest co-host Lawfare Senior Editor Kate Klonick, to discuss what frontier AI companies can learn from the Oversight Board. Yoshino recently co-authored a Tech Policy Press piece with fellow Board member Ronaldo Lemos arguing that meaningful AI oversight should feature independent and representative overseers, external standards, and transparent, reasoned decisions.The trio tests that proposal against some of the hardest questions raised by the Oversight Board's own experience. Can a selective, precedent-setting institution provide meaningful oversight at AI scale? What gives a privately created board legitimacy to constrain decisions with global consequences? What powers would an AI oversight body actually need? And when does private oversight complement democratic regulation—and when might it merely give corporate power a new source of legitimacy?Find Scaling Laws on the Lawfare website, and subscribe to never miss an episode.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Days into a bellwether trial brought by four states, Meta reached a settlement with a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general to resolve their claims, agreeing to pay up to ~$17 billion and to make a series of teen-safety changes to Instagram and Facebook. The day after the settlement was announced, Tech Policy Press convened a live podcasting recording with to assess the settlement and its implications. Expert guests included:Alissa Cooper, Executive Director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute (KGI)Meetali Jain, Executive Director of Tech Justice Law (TJL)Matthew B. Lawrence, Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law

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.

At Tech Policy Press, we've monitored the massive influx of money into the Department of Homeland Security to support the Trump administration's brutal and increasingly lawless immigration crackdown. Last month saw the publication of a report commissioned by Mijente, Just Futures Law, and Surveillance Resistance Lab titled "The Tech Behind Ice: Oligarchs, Immigration Enforcement, and the Threat to Democracy." Tech Policy Press contributing editor Dean Jackson spoke to two of the report's authors—Surveillance Resistance Lab founder and executive director Mizue Aizeki and Just Futures Law founding executive director Paromita Shah—about what billions in tech investment is buying DHS and its component agencies, and what is necessary to reverse the authoritarian trajectory the country is on.

When Europe 2031 was published in June, it set off an immediate debate in Brussels and beyond. The fictional near-future scenario authored by a group of AI researchers argues that Europe risks economic and political irrelevance if it fails to compete at the frontier of AI development. Within days of its release, the United States government ordered Anthropic to restrict access to its most advanced AI models for non-US users—an event the report had projected for 2029, underscoring the potential threat.In this episode, Tech Policy Press Deputy Editor Ramsha Jahangir is joined by Europe 2031 co-author Maximilian Negele and AI Now Institute advisor Frederike Kaltheuner, an author of a three-part series for Tech Policy Press that argues Europe's dependency problem runs deeper than frontier model access, to debate what Europe is actually getting wrong, and what it would take to change course.

Big Tech is looking for land to build its AI data centers. HBCUs are looking for new funding after federal cuts.And partnerships between them, like one announced by Fisk University, could be a mutually beneficial — or could end up being a form of "digital sharecropping," according to strategist Ashley Northington, who wrote about this for Tech Policy Press.

Big Tech is looking for land to build its AI data centers. HBCUs are looking for new funding after federal cuts.And partnerships between them, like one announced by Fisk University, could be a mutually beneficial — or could end up being a form of "digital sharecropping," according to strategist Ashley Northington, who wrote about this for Tech Policy Press.

Senator Bernie Sanders recently hosted a panel on "The Existential Threat of AI," featuring Future of Life Institute co-founder Max Tegmark and other x-riskers. Dr. Nathalie Maréchal joins Emily and Alex to unpack this latest stop on Bernie's descent into doomerism. We return to the MST3k model with a rare video artifact!Nathalie Maréchal is a writer, researcher and advocate fighting for democracy and human rights in the age of technofascism. Her latest article, "Tech Policy Is on the Front Line of Fascism vs. Democracy. Pick a Side," is available in Tech Policy Press. She is currently the managing policy director at Northeastern University's Institute for Information, the Internet, and Democracy.References:"LIVE: The Existential Threat of AI and the Need for International Cooperation"Fresh AI Hell:"The AI Pledge for Humanity" petitionRichard Dawkins force-femmes a chatbotAnthropic claims LLMs have "emotion concepts"Palantir wants us all to stop being mean to data centers"Optimizing LLM costs by inventing employees again"Luxury surveillance catCheck 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.

As Brussels prepares to unveil a tech sovereignty package on June 3, the political tone around Europe's digital infrastructure is shifting. A recent investigation by Investigate Europe, published with partners including Tech Policy Press, shows that a confidentiality clause inserted into an EU regulation after industry lobbying allows companies to keep site-level data center energy and water use out of public view, and many operators are not reporting at all. The finding highlights a disconnect between policy ambition and oversight.What does expanding “technological sovereignty” with real accountability look like in practice? To explore this, Tech Policy Press senior editor Ramsha Jahangir spoke with Nico Schmidt, the journalist behind the Investigate Europe report, and Christiaan van Veen of Leitmotiv, a Dutch research and policy consultancy that has analyzed data center permit filings in the Netherlands.

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.

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.

At the end of last month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Chatrie v. United States. The case involves the use of a geofence warrant, which police use to demand information on all cellphones within a certain area and period of time. The outcome of the case, which revolves around Fourth Amendment questions, could have profound implications for location tracking and privacy in the digital age. To learn more, Tech Policy Press fellow Jake Laperruque, who is monitoring the case, spoke to Michael Price, who serves as litigation director for the Fourth Amendment Center at National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), one of the lawyers representing the plaintiff.

The tech bros could be in for a rude awakening come November. We've seen the big names in AI increasingly cozy up with Republicans, but they may have forgotten that there is another party is poised to get back into power. How is Silicon Valley going to respond to a future Democratic administration? Are tech bros hoping to tip the scales to the point where it doesn't matter who wins? GWU Professor and Tech Policy Press contributor Dave Karpf joins David Rothkopf to consider all this and more.  This material is distributed by TRG Advisory Services, LLC on behalf of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in the U.S.. Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The tech bros could be in for a rude awakening come November. We've seen the big names in AI increasingly cozy up with Republicans, but they may have forgotten that there is another party is poised to get back into power. How is Silicon Valley going to respond to a future Democratic administration? Are tech bros hoping to tip the scales to the point where it doesn't matter who wins? GWU Professor and Tech Policy Press contributor Dave Karpf joins David Rothkopf to consider all this and more.  This material is distributed by TRG Advisory Services, LLC on behalf of the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in the U.S.. Additional information is available at the Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, Tech Policy Press fellow Chris Mills Rodrigo speaks with Katie Wells, a senior fellow at the AI Now Institute and the author of two reports on the 'gig-ification' of nursing, to dig into how AI is reshaping the profession from the inside out. Rodrigo and Wells examine what's actually being deployed in hospitals: scheduling algorithms, productivity tools, and a fast-growing app-based contingent workforce that is turning bedside care into something closer to gig work. Wells reports that these trends prefigure the broader adoption of AI in healthcare, raising questions not only about the stability of the profession and the quality of patient care, but also about how the degradation of healthcare work affects communities.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how people search for information, including how families learn about pregnancy and birth. As this technology grows, it raises important questions about accuracy, ethics, and the role of human expertise in healthcare information.   In this episode, Dr. Rebecca Dekker and Dr. Sara Ailshire share a behind-the-scenes look at how Evidence Based Birth® developed its own AI policies. They discuss concerns about misinformation, bias, privacy, and environmental impact, as well as the potential effects on critical thinking and human connection.   Learn why EBB has chosen to avoid the use of AI in our research, and what that means both for our team and for you.   (03:22) Why EBB began developing an AI policy  (10:39) Defining AI, generative AI, LLMs, and hallucinations  (17:03) Ethical concerns: Accuracy, bias, and risks to evidence-based information  (20:14) Environmental impact of AI and data centers  (21:47) Privacy concerns and data security risks  (26:21) Intellectual property, sustainability, and loss of research context  (27:03) Humanitarian concerns and the impact of AI on jobs and communities  (31:24) AI's potential effects on cognition and critical thinking  (37:30) Why EBB takes a cautious, evidence-based approach to AI  (38:20) Research team policy (42:06) Content team policy (45:01) Programs team policy and guidance for applicants  (47:32) Hiring practices and commitment to human review (52:29) Final takeaways: EBB's overall stance on AI    References Read EBB's Statement on Artificial Intelligence: ebbirth.com/artificial-intelligence-statement/ For a Student Who Used AI to Write a Paper, by Joseph Fasano: https://poets.org/poem/student-who-used-ai-write-paper Barrington, F. (2025). "Thirsty for power and water, AI-crunching data centers sprout across the West." & The West Magazine, Stanford University. April 8, 2025. https://andthewest.stanford.edu/2025/thirsty-for-power-and-water-ai-crunching-data-centers-sprout-across-the-west/ Gecker, J. (2025). "Big Tech is paying millions to train teachers on AI, in a push to bring chatbots into classrooms." Associated Press. October 20, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-teacher-union-microsoft-f7554b6550fb90519dd8129acac8e291 Han, Y., Wu, Z., Li, P., et al. (2024). "The Unpaid Toll: Quantifying and Addressing the Public Health Impact of Data Centers." arXiv preprint arXiv: 2412.06288. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2412.06288 Hou, H., Leach, K., & Huang, Y. (2024). "ChatGPT Giving Relationship Advice - How Reliable Is It?" Proceedings of the Eighteenth International AAI Conference on Web and Social Media: 610–623. https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/31338 Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., et al. (2025). "Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task." arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.08872. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08872 Marrinan, C. (2025). "Data Center Boom Risks Health of Already Vulnerable Communities." Tech Policy Press.com. June 12, 2025. https://www.techpolicy.press/data-center-boom-risks-health-of-already-vulnerable-communities/ NASA. (2024). "Defining Artificial Intelligence." Accessed November 17, 2025. https://www.nasa.gov/what-is-artificial-intelligence/ Notre Dame Learning. (2025). "AI Overview and Definitions." Accessed November 17, 2025. http://learning.nd.edu/resource-library/ai-overview-and-definitions/ Pataranutaporn, P., Karny, S., Archiwaranguprok, C., et al. (2025). "My Boyfriend is AI: A Computational Analysis of Human-AI Companionship in Reddit's AI Community." arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.11391.https://arxiv.org/pdf/2509.11391 Sonka, J. (2025). "The AI data center boom is coming for Kentucky. What will lawmakers do about it?" Kentucky Public Radio. December 9, 2025. https://www.lpm.org/news/2025-12-09/the-ai-data-center-boom-is-coming-for-kentucky-what-will-lawmakers-do-about-it Stryker, C. (n.d.) "What are LLMs?" IBM.com. Accessed November 17, 2025. https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/large-language-models Tabuchi, H. (2025). "Elon Musk's A.I. Company Faces Lawsuit Over Gas-Burning Turbines." New York Times. June 17, 2025. www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/climate/naacp-musk-xai-supercomputer-lawsuit.html/ United Nations (UN). (2025). "AI has an environmental problem. Here's what the world can do about that." UN Environmental Programme. November 13, 2025. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/ai-has-environmental-problem-heres-what-world-can-do-about

AI hype is everywhere, and the CEOs of many tech firms are promising that the tech will soon eclipse human intelligence. The trillions in investment towards this goal and the massive deployment of capital and the human and natural resources it purchases both requires this kind of hype and causes it to compound. Today's guests are studying this phenomenon from a variety of perspectives, building out a line of inquiry they call "Hype Studies." It's the subject of an occasional series of contributions to Tech Policy Press. Guests include:Jascha Bareis, a postdoctoral political scientist at the University of Fribourg;Andreu Belsunces Gonçalves, a sociologist of design and technology pursuing a PhD at the Tecnopolítica unit of the Open University of Catalonia;Marché Arends, a South African independent investigative journalist.

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.

This week marks the second DSA and Platform Regulation conference in Amsterdam, where experts will convene to consider the Digital Services Act (DSA) two years after it entered full effect across the European Union. Over that period, the law has been tested by national elections, geopolitical tensions, high-profile enforcement actions, and the rapid rise of generative AI. It has become both a benchmark for platform accountability and a political lightning rod.Ahead of the conference, Tech Policy Press senior editor Ramsha Jahangir spoke with members of the DSA Observatory, which is organizing the conference, to take stock. What have these first years of enforcement clarified? Where does opacity remain? And what does it mean to conduct DSA research in today's political climate? Guests include:John Albert, associate researcher, DSA Observatory.Paddy Leerssen, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam and part of the DSA Observatory.Magdelena Jozwiak, associate researcher at the DSA Observatory.

"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.

2026 is poised to be another landmark year for the child online safety debate in the United States.In recent years, states have passed dozens of bills aimed at expanding protections for kids as they navigate risks on social media platforms, AI chatbots and other pools, with more likely on the way. Lawmakers in Washington, meanwhile, are considering a flurry of proposals that could set a national standard on the issue. But many of these efforts are facing legal limbo as industry and some digital rights groups allege they violate constitutional rights and trample on privacy.Tech Policy Press senior editor Cristiano Lima-Strong spoke to three experts tracking the issue to assess the current policy landscape in the United States and how it may shift in 2026, particularly as state legislators continue to take up the cause:Amina Fazlullah is head of tech policy advocacy at Common Sense Media, a group that advocates for child online safety measures. She previously served as a tech policy fellow for Mozilla and as director of policy at the Benton Foundation.Joel Thayer is president of the Digital Progress Institute, a think tank that advocates for age verification policies. He previously clerked for Federal Trade Commission official Maureen Ohlhausen and served as policy counsel for the tech trade group The App Association.Kate Ruane is the director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for digital rights. She previously served as lead public policy specialist for the Wikimedia Foundation and as senior legislative counsel for the ACLU.

From February 15, 2023: The Jan. 6 committee's final report on the insurrection is over 800 pages, including the footnotes. But there's still new information coming out about the committee's findings and its work.Last week, we brought you an interview with Dean Jackson, one of the staffers who worked on the Jan. 6 committee's investigation into the role of social media in the insurrection. Today, we're featuring a conversation with Jacob Glick, who served as investigative counsel on the committee and is currently a policy counsel at Georgetown's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. His work in the Jan. 6 investigation focused on social media and far-right extremism. Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic spoke with Jacob about what the investigation showed him about the forces that led to Jan. 6, how he understands the threat still posed by extremism, and what it was like interviewing Twitter whistleblowers and members of far-right groups who stormed the Capitol.You can read Jacob's essay with Mary McCord on countering extremism here in Just Security and listen to an interview with Jacob and his Jan. 6 committee colleagues here at Tech Policy Press.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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 Thursday, US President Donald Trump invited reporters into the Oval Office to watch him sign an executive order intended to limit state regulation of artificial intelligence. Trump said AI is a strategic priority for the United States, and that there must be a central source of approval for the companies that develop it.  Today's guest is Olivier Sylvain, a professor of law at Fordham Law School and a senior policy research fellow at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.  He's the author of "Why Trump's AI EO Will be DOA in Court," a perspective published on Tech Policy Press.

This week, the European Commission unveiled a sweeping plan to overhaul how the EU enforces its digital and privacy rules as part of a ‘Digital Omnibus,' aiming to ease compliance burdens and speed up implementation of the bloc's landmark laws. Branded as a “simplification” initiative, the omnibus proposal touches core areas of EU tech regulation — notably the AI Act and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).The Commission argues that this update is necessary to ensure practical implementation of the laws, but civil society organizations see the proposed reform as the “biggest rollback of digital fundamental rights in EU history.”At the same time, leaders are talking loudly about digital sovereignty — including at last week's summit in Berlin. But with the Omnibus appearing to weaken protections and tilt power toward large tech firms, what kind of sovereignty is actually being built?Tech Policy Press associate editor Ramsha Jahangir spoke to two experts to understand what the EU is trying to achieve:Leevi Saari, EU Policy Fellow at AI Now InstituteJulia Smakman, Senior Researcher at the Ada Lovelace Institute

Grokipedia, the AI-powered encyclopedia launched by Elon Musk's xAI last month, promises to be an ideological alternative to Wikipedia. But the tool doesn't just have a different political flavor, argues Ryan McGrady, senior fellow at the Initiative for Digital Public Infrastructure at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.He recently wrote, for Tech Policy Press, that Grokipedia takes a more top-down approach to knowledge, one that harks back to less democratized eras.

Grokipedia, the AI-powered encyclopedia launched by Elon Musk's xAI last month, promises to be an ideological alternative to Wikipedia. But the tool doesn't just have a different political flavor, argues Ryan McGrady, senior fellow at the Initiative for Digital Public Infrastructure at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.He recently wrote, for Tech Policy Press, that Grokipedia takes a more top-down approach to knowledge, one that harks back to less democratized eras.

To discuss the past, present and future of information integrity work, Tech Policy Press contributing editor Dean Jackson spoke to American University Center for Security, Innovation and New Technology (CSINT) nonresident fellow Adam Fivenson and assistant professor and CSINT director Samantha Bradshaw.

In the latest episode in her special podcast series, Through to Thriving, Tech Policy Press fellow Anika Collier Navaroli talks about protecting privacy with Chris Gilliard. Gilliard is co-director of the Critical Internet Studies Institute and the author of Luxury Surveillance, a forthcoming book from MIT Press.

For her special series of podcasts, Through to Thriving, Tech Policy Press fellow Anika Collier Navaroli spoke to artist Mimi Ọnụọha, whose work "questions and exposes the contradictory logics of technological progress." The discussion ranged across changing trends in nomenclature of data and artificial intelligence, the role of art in bearing witness to authoritarianism, the interventions and projects that Ọnụọha has created about the datafication of society, and why artists and policy practitioners should work more closely together to build a more just and equitable future.

It's been three years since Europe's Digital Services Act (DSA) came into effect, a sweeping set of rules meant to hold online platforms accountable for how they moderate content and protect users. One component of the law allows users to challenge online platform content moderation decisions through independent, certified bodies rather than judicial proceedings. Under Article 21 of the DSA, these “Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement“ bodies are intended to play a crucial role in resolving disputes over moderation decisions, whether it's about content takedowns, demonetization, account suspensions, or even decisions to leave flagged content online.One such out-of-court dispute settlement body is called Appeals Centre Europe. It was established last year as an independent entity with a grant from the Oversight Board Trust, which administers Oversight Board, the content moderation 'supreme court' created and funded by Meta. Appeals Centre Europe has released a new transparency report, and the numbers are striking: of the 1,500 disputes the Centre has ruled on, over three-quarters of the platforms' original decisions were overturned, either because they were incorrect, or because the platform didn't provide the content for review at all.Tech Policy Press associate editor Ramsha Jahangir spoke to two experts to unpack what the early wave of disputes tells us about how the system is working, and how platforms are applying their own rules:Thomas Hughes is the CEO of Appeals Center EuropePaddy Leerssen is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam and part of the DSA Observatory, which monitors the implementation of the DSA.

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.

With two new bills headed to the desk of Governor Governor Gavin Newsom (D), California could soon pass the most significant guardrails for AI companions in the nation, sparking a lobbying brawl between consumer advocates and tech industry groups.In a recent report for Tech Policy Press, associate editor Cristiano Lima-Strong detailed how groups are pouring tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars into the lobbying fight, which has gained steam amid mounting scrutiny of the products. Tech Policy Press CEO and Editor Justin Hendrix spoke to Cristiano about the findings, and what the state's legislative battle could mean for AI regulation in the United States. This reporting was supported by a grant from the Tarbell Center for AI Journalism.

​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

For today's episode, Lawfare Contributing Editor Renée DiResta interviews Joan Barata, Visiting Professor at the Catholic University of Porto; Laís Martins, journalist at The Intercept Brazil and Fellow at Tech Policy Press; and James Görgen, adviser to Brazil's Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade, and Services, to discuss the dramatic intersection of tech policy and geopolitical pressure unfolding in Brazil. They discuss the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro for his role in the January 8 insurrection, the legal battles surrounding social media regulation and platform liability, the influence of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, and the controversy sparked by U.S. sanctions and tariffs. Together, they examine whether the intersection of tech and geopolitics in Brazil is an outlier—or a preview of what's coming for democracies worldwide.Read more on this topic from this episode's guests:“Trump's Attack on Brazil's Sovereignty May Backfire on US Tech Firms,” by Laís Martins“Trump's New Brazil Tariffs Aren't About Trade, and They're Not About Free Speech,” by Laís Martins“Brazil's Supreme Court Overturns Platform Liability Rules—Now Comes the Challenge of What's Next,” by Laís Martins“Regulating Online Platforms Beyond the Marco Civil in Brazil: The Controversial ‘Fake News Bill,'”by Joan Barata“JOTA: Dilemmas of Platform Regulation in Brazil,” by Joan BarataTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the latest episode in her series of podcast discussions, Through to Thriving, Tech Policy Press fellow Anika Collier Navaroli spoke to Vaishnavi J, founder and principal of Vyanams Strategies (VYS), a trust and safety advisory firm focusing on youth safety, and a former safety leader at Meta, Twitter, and Google. Anika and Vaishnavi discussed a range of issues on the theme of how to center the views and needs of young people in trust and safety and tech policy development. They considered the importance of protecting the human rights of children, the debates around recent age assurance and age verification regulations, the trade-offs between safety and privacy, and the implications of what Vaishnavi called an “asymmetry” of knowledge across the tech policy community.

Last year, Colorado signed a first-of-its-kind artificial intelligence measure into law. The Colorado AI Act would require developers of high-risk AI systems to take reasonable steps to prevent harms to consumers, such as algorithmic discrimination, including by conducting impact assessments on their tools.But last week, the state kicked off a special session where lawmakers held frenzied negotiations over whether to expand or dilute its protections. The chapter unfolded amid fierce lobbying by industry groups and consumer advocates. Ultimately, the state legislature punted on amending the law but agreed to delay its implementation from February to June of next year. The move likely tees up another round of contentious talks over one of the nation's most sprawling AI statues.This week, Tech Policy Press associate editor Cristiano Lima-Strong spoke to two local reporters who have been closely tracking the saga for the Colorado Sun: political reporter and editor Jesse Paul and politics and policy reporter Taylor Dolven.

As we've been thinking and writing about the intersection of democracy and technology, especially burgeoning AI technology, we always come back to the core issues of user control and user freedom. Recently, Chris Riley of the Data Transfer Initiative wrote an excellent piece for Tech Policy Press about the need for data portability in personal AI tools. This week, he joins the podcast to discuss why we need to control personal AI data so personal AI cannot control us. Tech Policy Press article: https://www.techpolicy.press/we-need-to-control-personal-ai-data-so-personal-ai-cannot-control-us/

In the latest installment in her series of podcasts called Through to Thriving, Tech Policy Press fellow Anika Collier Navoroli speaks with Dr. Jasmine McNealy, an attorney, critical public interest technologist, and professor in the Department of Media Production, Management, and Technology at the University of Florida;, and Naomi Nix, a staff writer for The Washington Post, where she reports on technology and social media companies. They discuss how they found themselves on the path through journalism and into a focus on tech and tech policy, the distinctions between truth and facts and whether there has ever been such a thing as a singular truth, how communities of color have historically seen and filled the gaps in mainstream media coverage, the rise of news influencers, and how journalists can regain the trust of the public.

Through To Thriving is a a special series of podcast episodes hosted by Tech Policy Press fellow Anika Collier Navaroli. With her guests, Anika is imagining futures beyond our current moment. For this episode, she spoke with Nora Benavidez, senior counsel and director of digital justice and civil rights at the nonprofit Free Press. Anika and Nora discussed the past and present state of platform accountability advocacy, the steps of building a campaign, the possibility of forming a creative agency to support advocates, and what to make of so called “woke AI.”This episode and conversation about advocating for change is dedicated to the memory and life of our former colleague and tech accountability researcher and advocate Brandi Collins-Dexter.

Lawfare Contributing Editor Renée DiResta sits down with Daphne Keller, Director of the Program on Platform Regulation at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Center; Dean Jackson, Contributing Editor at Tech Policy Press and fellow at American University's Center for Security, Innovation, and New Technology; and Joan Barata, Senior Legal Fellow at The Future of Free Speech Project at Vanderbilt University and fellow at Stanford's Program on Platform Regulation, to make European tech regulation interesting. They discuss the European Union's Disinformation Code of Practice and its transition, on July 1, from voluntary framework co-authored by Big Tech, to legally binding obligation under the Digital Services Act (DSA). This sounds like a niche bureaucratic change—but it's provided a news hook for the Trump Administration and its allies in far-right parties across Europe to allege once again that they are being suppressed by Big Tech, and that this transition portends the end of free speech on the internet.Does it? No. But what do the Code and the DSA actually do? It's worth understanding the nuances of these regulations and how they may impact transparency, accountability, and free expression. The group discusses topics including Senator Marco Rubio's recent visa ban policy aimed at “foreign censors,” Romania's annulled election, and whether European regulation risks overreach or fails to go far enough.For more on this topic:Hate Speech: Comparing the US and EU ApproachesThe European Commission's Approach to DSA Systemic Risk is Concerning for Freedom of ExpressionThe Far Right's War on Content Moderation Comes to Europe Regulation or Repression? How the Right Hijacked the DSA DebateLawful but Awful? Control over Legal Speech by Platforms, Governments, and Internet UsersThe Rise of the Compliant Speech PlatformThree Questions Prompted by Rubio's Threatened Visa Restrictions on ‘Foreign Nationals Who Censor Americans'Will the DSA Save Democracy? The Test of the Recent Presidential Election in RomaniaTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Cristiano Lima-Strong, associate editor at Tech Policy Press, offers analysis of the Federal Trade Commission's antitrust case against Meta, where they will argue that the social media giant maintained a monopoly after it bought Instagram and WhatsApp.

The Federal Trade Commission will argue that the social media giant Meta, formerly Facebook, maintained a monopoly after it bought Instagram and WhatsApp.On Today's Show:Cristiano Lima-Strong, associate editor at Tech Policy Press, offers analysis of the FTC's antitrust case.

From February 15, 2023: The Jan. 6 committee's final report on the insurrection is over 800 pages, including the footnotes. But there's still new information coming out about the committee's findings and its work.Last week, we brought you an interview with Dean Jackson, one of the staffers who worked on the Jan. 6 committee's investigation into the role of social media in the insurrection. Today, we're featuring a conversation with Jacob Glick, who served as investigative counsel on the committee and is currently a policy counsel at Georgetown's Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. His work in the Jan. 6 investigation focused on social media and far-right extremism. Lawfare senior editor Quinta Jurecic spoke with Jacob about what the investigation showed him about the forces that led to Jan. 6, how he understands the threat still posed by extremism, and what it was like interviewing Twitter whistleblowers and members of far-right groups who stormed the Capitol.You can read Jacob's Lawfare article here, his essay with Mary McCord on countering extremism here in Just Security, and an interview with him and his Jan. 6 committee colleagues here at Tech Policy Press.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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.