Podcasts about yale information society project

Today- Friday, January 17, 2025 - the US Supreme Court delivered its order upholding the constitutionality of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, a law passed by Congress and signed by President Joe Biden in April 2024. The Court found that the Act, which effectively bans TikTok in the US unless its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, sells it, does not violate the First Amendment rights of TikTok, its users, or creators.The decision clears the way for a ban to go into effect on January 19, 2025. Late this evening, TikTok issued a statement saying that “Unless the Biden Administration immediately provides a definitive statement to satisfy the most critical service providers assuring non-enforcement, unfortunately TikTok will be forced to go dark on January 19.” The White House had previously announced it would not enforce the ban before President Biden leaves office on Monday. Unless Biden takes action, this may set President-elect Donald Trump up to somehow come to TikTok's rescue. To learn more about the ruling and what may happen next, Justin Hendrix  spoke to Kate Klonick, an associate professor of law at St. John's University and a fellow at Brookings, Harvard's Berkman Klein Center, and the Yale Information Society Project. The conversation also touches on recent moves by Meta's founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, to ingratiate himself to the incoming Trump administration.

We are back with our next fellow highlight episode. Class 4 Fellow Meri Baghdasaryan sits down with Ashkhen Kazaryan, a tech policy expert and a former Foundry Fellow.  Ashkhen manages policy projects related to free speech, content moderation, surveillance reform, and the intersection of constitutional rights and technology. Currently, she is a Senior Fellow at Stand Together on the Free Speech and Peace team. She leads the development and execution of Stand Together's strategy to defend free speech online and to promote a culture of pluralism. Prior to that, she was a Content Policy Manager on the Content Regulation team at Meta. She covered content policy for North and Latin America, as well as leading on policy for Section 230. Before joining Meta, she was the Director of Civil Liberties at TechFreedom where she managed coalition-building and hosted The Tech Policy Podcast. Ashkhen is regularly featured as an expert commentator in news outlets, including CNBC, BBC, FOX DC, Newsy, Politico, Axios, The Information, Protocol, The Washington Examiner, and others. Meri and Ashkhen chat about how Ashkhen's educational and cultural background impacted her journey into tech policy. They discuss the tech policy issues that are top of mind for Ashkhen. She also covers finding your path in the field of tech law and policy and the importance of building community.  You can connect with Ashkhen on LinkedIn and Twitter.  Check out the Foundry on Instagram, Twitter, or LinkedIn and subscribe to our newsletter! If you'd like to support the show, donate to the Foundry here or reach out to us at foundrypodcasts@ilpfoundry.us. Thanks for listening, and stay tuned for our next episode! Additional Resources and Reading: Podcasts: The Tech Policy Podcast Moderated Content University Centers: Stanford Internet Observatory Berkeley Tech Policy Initiative Yale Information Society Project Harvard Berkman Klein Center Cornell Tech Policy Institute New York University Engelberg Center on Innovation Law and Policy UC Boulder Silicon Flatirons Georgetown Center on Privacy and Technology Columbia University Knight First Amendment Institute George Washington University Law School Ethical Tech Initiative American University Center for Security, Innovation and New Technology UPenn Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition Think Tanks: ACLU Center for Democracy and Technology Public Knowledge New America Open Technology Institute TechFreedom R Street Chamber of Progress NetChoice CCIA Cases to read about: Gonzalez v. Google Twitter v. Taamneh Netchoice CCIA v Moody Netchoice CCCIA v Paxton DISCLAIMER: Meri engages with the Foundry voluntarily and in her personal capacities. The views and opinions expressed on air do not reflect on the organizations Meri  is affiliated with.

The One Take Show is honoured to host Mr Aradhya Sethia. Aradhya Sethia is a PhD Candidate and Cambridge International Scholar at the University of Cambridge, where he is studying the role and regulation of political parties and party systems in modern constitutional states. Aradhya is a supervisor in constitutional law and Human Rights Law at Cambridge and an Executive Director of the Cambridge Pro Bono Project. He has previously taught at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Before joining Cambridge, Aradhya was a Bonavero Institute Summer Fellow at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law and read for MPhil at the University of Oxford. In 2018, Aradhya completed LL.M. at Yale Law School as an Inlaks Scholar served as a resident fellow at Yale Information Society Project, an articles editor of the Yale Journal of International Law, and a member of the Lowenstein International Human Rights Project. Subsequently, he was a visiting scholar and Yale Fox International Fellow at the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies, Melbourne Law School. He received the 2019 Indian Law Review Best Article Prize for his article 'Where's the Party?: Towards a Constitutional Biography of Political Parties'. He has previously assisted Justice D.Y. Chandrachud (the Supreme Court of India), Justice S. Ravindra Bhat (High Court of Delhi), and the Attorney General for India. He has also assisted with the drafting of the Law Commission of India reports on electoral reforms. He received his BA LLB from the National Law School of India University, India (NLSIU) as the Best Outgoing Student (2017), and won three gold medals including H.M. Seervai Medal in Constitutional Law. At NLSIU, Aradhya served as the Joint Convener of the Legal Services Clinic, editor-in-chief of the Indian Journal of Law and Technology, and editor of the National Law School of India Review. Aradhya has authored columns for Dainik Bhaskar, Dainik Jagaran, Indian Express, and The Hindu, and has appeared on various public forums to discuss his research and insights on political and constitutional developments in India. The One Take Show Podcast, Law, Logic and life, where we discuss the various developments in the field of Law and Policy, discuss the success stories and mentorship, take career advice, talk logic and ethics, discuss cinema and art, and have a lot of fun!

Dr. Kate Darling is a leading expert in Robot Ethics. She’s a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab, where she investigates social robotics and conducts experimental studies on human-robot interaction. Kate explores the emotional connection between people and life-like machines, seeking to influence technology design and policy direction. Her writing and research anticipate difficult questions that lawmakers, engineers, and the wider public will need to address as human-robot relationships evolve in the coming decades. Forever interested in how technology intersects with society, Kate has a background in law & economics and intellectual property. She has researched economic incentives in copyright and patent systems and has taken a role as intellectual property expert at multiple academic and private institutions. She currently serves as intellectual property policy advisor to the director of the MIT Media Lab. Her passion for technology and robots has led her to interdisciplinary fields. After co-teaching a robot ethics course at Harvard Law School with Professor Lawrence Lessig, she began to work at the intersection of law and robotics, with a focus on legal and social issues. Kate is a former Fellow at the Harvard Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society and the Yale Information Society Project, and is also an affiliate at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Kate’s work has been featured in Vogue, The New Yorker, The Guardian, BBC, NPR, PBS, The Boston Globe, Forbes, CBC, WIRED, Boston Magazine, The Atlantic, Slate, Die Zeit, The Japan Times, and more. She was a contributing writer to Robohub and IEEE Spectrum and currently speaks and holds workshops covering some of the more interesting developments in the world of robotics, and where we might find ourselves in the future. Kate graduated from law school with honors and holds a doctorate of sciences from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zurich) and an honorary doctorate of sciences from Middlebury College. In 2017, the American Bar Association honored her legal work with the Mark T. Banner award in Intellectual Property. She is the caretaker for several domestic robots, including her Pleos Yochai, Peter, and Mr. Spaghetti. She tweets as @grok_

In this episode of DevNews, we cover companies rescinding job offers after they have been accepted. Then we speak with Nikolas Guggenberger, executive director of the Yale Information Society Project, about Justice Clarence Thomas arguing for categorizing some digital platforms as utilities and why this is a huge deal for the tech world. Finally, we chat with Jason Scott, co-founder of Archive Team, about their efforts to archive Yahoo Answers which is shutting down after 16 years. Show Links TwilioQuest (sponsor) DevDiscuss (sponsor) DevNews (sponsor) Ambassador Labs (sponsor) Rudderstack (sponsor) New Relic (sponsor) Blind: Rescind Justice Clarence Thomas' Argument For Regulating Some Digital Platforms As Utilities Yahoo Answers to shut down May 4, 2021 Archive Team ArchiveTeam Warrior

In this episode, we talk about companies rescinding job offers after they have been accepted. Then we speak with Nikolas Guggenberger, executive director of the Yale Information Society Project, about Justice Clarence Thomas arguing for categorizing some digital platforms as utilities and why this is a huge deal for the tech world. Finally, we chat with Jason Scott, co-founder of Archive Team, about their efforts to archive Yahoo Answers which is shutting down after 16 years. Show Notes DevDiscuss (sponsor) CodeNewbie (sponsor) Scout APM (sponsor) RudderStack (sponsor) Blind: Rescind Justice Clarence Thomas' Argument For Regulating Some Digital Platforms As Utilities Yahoo Answers to shut down May 4, 2021 Archive Team ArchiveTeam Warrior

In this episode, Tiffany C. Li, Visiting Clinical Assistant Professor at Boston University School of Law and a fellow at the Yale Information Society Project, discusses her article "Privacy in Pandemic: Law, Technology, and Public Health in the Covid-19 Crisis." Li begins by identifying the many ways in which the current pandemic implicates privacy law, from testing and contract tracing to distance learning. She discusses the ways in which the law protects privacy and the ways in which many privacy values aren't fully realized. She explains why AI and other automated approaches may introduce bias issues. And she reflects on why privacy is essential to public health. Li is on Twitter at @tiffanycli.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Jacob Victor, Assistant Professor of Law at Albany Law School and Affiliated Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project, discusses his article "Utility-Expanding Fair Use," which will be published in the Minnesota Law Review. Victor begins by explaining what "utility-expanding" fair use is and how it differs from other kinds of "transformative" fair use. He reflects on when and why courts tend to find that utility-expanding uses are fair, and observes that the fair use doctrine might not always be the best solution. He suggests that compulsory licensing may offer an alternative method of encouraging utility-expanding uses of copyrighted works, better suited to some circumstances. Victor is on Twitter at @jacobmvictor.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Associate Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Moderating content in a polarized political climate while also respecting the value of free speech is a challenge still vexing social media companies. Thomas Kadri of the Yale Information Society Project comments. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Andrew Selbst, a Postdoctoral Scholar at Data & Society Research Institute and Visiting Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project, discusses his article "The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines" (co-authored with Solon Barocas, Assistant Professor in the Department of Information Science at Cornell University), which will appear in the Fordham Law Review. Selbst begins by framing the promise and peril of algorithmic decisionmaking. Among other things, he explains how algorithmic decisionmaking works and describes the current debate over how to regulate it. In particular, he notes that many regulatory proposals focus on requiring the explanations of how an algorithm works. But he and Barocas argue that regulators should also require justifications for the construction of those algorithms, and propose some ways in which those justifications could be provided.Keywords: algorithmic accountability, explanations, law and technology, machine learning, big data, privacy, discrimination See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode, Thomas Kadri, a Ph.D. candidate at Yale Law School and resident fellow at the Yale Information Society Project, discusses his new paper "Drawing Trump Naked: Curbing the Right of Publicity to Protect Portraits of Real People." Kadri explains the history of the right of publicity and its relation to the right of privacy. He then discusses the various justifications offered for the right of publicity, and the tensions between the right of publicity and the right of free speech. In particular, he considers the right of publicity in relation to artistic speech, as well as "hard cases" like revenge porn and "deep fakes." You can follow Kadri on Twitter at @thomaskadri.Keywords: online speech, private platforms, internet platforms, internet intermediaries, free speech, constitutional law, First Amendment, private governance, tort law, defamation, privacy law See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Nadine Strossen's new book, HATE, dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about "hate speech vs. free speech," showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony.U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm, but government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy. Likewise, current politicians have attacked Black Lives Matter protests as "hate speech.""Hate speech" censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, Strossen shows that "hate speech" laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion; predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers.Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism.Nadine Strossen is professor of constitutional law at New York Law School and the first woman national President of the American Civil Liberties Union, where she served from 1991 through 2008. A frequent speaker on constitutional and civil liberties issues, her media appearances include 60 Minutes, CBS Sunday Morning, Today, Good Morning America, and The Daily Show.Strossen will be in conversation with Danielle Citron & Dwight Ellis.Danielle Keats Citron is the Morton & Sophia Macht Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law where she teaches and writes about information privacy, free expression, and civil rights. Professor Citron is an internationally recognized information privacy expert and the author of the book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace (Harvard University Press) and more than 25 law review articles.  Professor Citron is an Affiliate Scholar at the Stanford Center on Internet and Society, Affiliate Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project, and Senior Fellow at the Future of Privacy, a privacy think tank. Professor Citron has advised federal and state legislators, law enforcement, and international lawmakers on privacy and free speech issues. Professor Citron works closely with tech companies on issues involving online safety and privacy. She serves on Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council and has presented her research at Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. In addition, Professor Citron is the Chair the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Board of Directors. She is a member of the American Law Institute and serves as an adviser to the American Law Institute’s Restatement Third Information Privacy Principles Project.An experienced media professional in advancing social equity initiatives and strategies in the realms of government, business and education, Dwight Ellis is in his 11th year as full-time Lecturer in the Communications department of Bowie State University in Maryland and occasional consultant to the U.S. Department of State. Prior to his 25 years as vice president with the National Association of Broadcasters, he served as staff chief to Congresswoman Cardiss Collins (D-IL). A graduate of George Mason University Law School, Ellis’s professional record includes many affiliations, accomplishments, publications and recognitions.Writers LIVE programs are supported in part by The Miss Howard Hubbard Adult Programming Fund.Recorded On: Tuesday, May 8, 2018

Nadine Strossen's new book, HATE, dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about "hate speech vs. free speech," showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony.U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm, but government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy. Likewise, current politicians have attacked Black Lives Matter protests as "hate speech.""Hate speech" censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, Strossen shows that "hate speech" laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion; predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers.Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism.Nadine Strossen is professor of constitutional law at New York Law School and the first woman national President of the American Civil Liberties Union, where she served from 1991 through 2008. A frequent speaker on constitutional and civil liberties issues, her media appearances include 60 Minutes, CBS Sunday Morning, Today, Good Morning America, and The Daily Show.Strossen will be in conversation with Danielle Citron & Dwight Ellis.Danielle Keats Citron is the Morton & Sophia Macht Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law where she teaches and writes about information privacy, free expression, and civil rights. Professor Citron is an internationally recognized information privacy expert and the author of the book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace (Harvard University Press) and more than 25 law review articles.  Professor Citron is an Affiliate Scholar at the Stanford Center on Internet and Society, Affiliate Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project, and Senior Fellow at the Future of Privacy, a privacy think tank. Professor Citron has advised federal and state legislators, law enforcement, and international lawmakers on privacy and free speech issues. Professor Citron works closely with tech companies on issues involving online safety and privacy. She serves on Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council and has presented her research at Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. In addition, Professor Citron is the Chair the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Board of Directors. She is a member of the American Law Institute and serves as an adviser to the American Law Institute’s Restatement Third Information Privacy Principles Project.An experienced media professional in advancing social equity initiatives and strategies in the realms of government, business and education, Dwight Ellis is in his 11th year as full-time Lecturer in the Communications department of Bowie State University in Maryland and occasional consultant to the U.S. Department of State. Prior to his 25 years as vice president with the National Association of Broadcasters, he served as staff chief to Congresswoman Cardiss Collins (D-IL). A graduate of George Mason University Law School, Ellis’s professional record includes many affiliations, accomplishments, publications and recognitions.Writers LIVE programs are supported in part by The Miss Howard Hubbard Adult Programming Fund.

  Bio Danielle Keats Citron (@daniellecitron) is the Morton & Sophia Macht Professor of Law at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law where she teaches and writes about information privacy, free expression, and civil rights and was the recipient of the 2005 “Teacher of the Year” award. Professor Citron is an internationally recognized information privacy expert. Her book Hate Crimes in Cyberspace (Harvard University Press 2014) explored the phenomenon of cyber stalking and how law and companies can and should tackle online abuse consistent with our commitment to free speech. The editors of Cosmopolitan included her book in “20 Best Moments for Women in 2014.” Professor Citron has published more than 20 law review articles appearing in California Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Harvard Law Review Forum, Boston University Law Review, Fordham Law Review, George Washington Law Review, Minnesota Law Review, Notre Dame Law Review, Texas Law Review, Washington University Law Review, Southern California Law Review, Washington & Lee Law Review, Wake Forest Law Review, Washington Law Review, UC Davis Law Review, among other journals. Her opinion pieces have appeared in media outlets, such as The New York Times, The Atlantic, Slate, Time, CNN, The Guardian, New Scientist, ars technica, and New York Daily News. In 2015, the United Kingdom's Prospect Magazine named Professor Citron one of the “Top 50 World Thinkers;” the Daily Record named her one of the “Top 50 Most Influential Marylanders.” Professor Citron is an Affiliate Scholar at the Stanford Center on Internet and Society, Affiliate Fellow at the Yale Information Society Project, and Senior Fellow at the Future of Privacy, a privacy think tank. She is a technology contributor for Forbes. Professor Citron has advised federal and state legislators, law enforcement, and international lawmakers on privacy issues. She has testified at congressional briefings on the First Amendment implications of laws regulating cyber stalking, sexual violence, and nonconsensual pornography. From 2014 to December 2016, Professor Citron advised California Attorney General Kamala Harris (elected to the U.S. Senate in 2016) on privacy issues. She served as a member of AG Harris's Task Force to Combat Cyber Exploitation and Violence Against Women. In 2011, Professor Citron testified about online hate speech before the Inter-Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism at the House of Commons. Professor Citron works closely with tech companies on issues involving online safety and privacy. She serves on Twitter's Trust and Safety Council and has presented her research at Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft. In addition, Professor Citron is an advisor to civil liberties and privacy organizations. She is the Chair the Electronic Privacy Information Center's Board of Directors. Professor Citron is on the Advisory Board of Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, Without My Consent, Future of Privacy, Teach Privacy, SurvJustice, and the International Association of Privacy Professionals Privacy Bar. She is a member of the American Law Institute and serves as an adviser to the American Law Institute's Restatement Third Information Privacy Principles Project. Professor Citron has presented her research at federal agencies, meetings of the National Association of Attorneys General, the National Holocaust Museum, Wikimedia Foundation, the Anti-Defamation League, major universities, and think tanks. Professor Citron has been quoted in hundreds of news stories including in The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Wired,USA Today, HBO's John Oliver Show, HBO's Vice News, Time, Newsweek, New Yorker, New York Magazine, Cosmopolitan, Barron's, Financial Times, The Guardian, Vice News, and BBC. She is a frequent guest on National Public Radio shows, including All Things Considered, WHYY's Radio Times, WNYC's Public Radio International, Minnesota Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Radio, WYPR's Midday with Dan Rodricks, WAMU's The Diane Rehm Show, and Chicago Public Radio. Resources Hate Crimes in Cyberspace by Danielle Keas Citron (Harvard University Press, 2014) Constitutional Coup: Privatization's Threat to the American Republic by Jon D. Michaels (Harvard University Press, 2017) University of Maryland Carey School of Law News Roundup DOJ sues to block AT&T/Tribune Merger The Department of Justice has sued to block AT&T's proposed $85 billion acquisition of Times Warner. The complaint states that the merger would violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act. It refers to AT&T's objection to Comcast's previous acquisition of NBC/Universal, back in 2011, which was also a so-called vertical merger. AT&T argued that a "standard bargaining model" could have been used to show the harmful effect the merger would have had on pricing. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, it will be the first time a vertical merger case has reached the Court since 1972, in the Ford-Autolite case. The Trump administration has been vocal about opposing the AT&T/Time Warner merger and the president himself has railed repeatedly on Twitter about CNN's coverage of his administration. AT&T says it would not rule out using the judicial process in order to obtain correspondence between the White House and the DOJ which would help illustrate that the DOJ's lawsuit is politically motivated. Brian Fung reports in the Washington Post. FCC rolls back media regulations, Lifeline, cracks down on robocalls In its monthly meeting last week, the Federal Communications Commission killed long-standing media ownership rules, including the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership rule which, since 1975, had prevented the owner of a  tv station from owning  a newspaper in the same market. The Commission also eliminated the so-called eight-voices test, which required at least eight independently owned TV stations to remain in the market before any entity could own two stations in the market. Critics say the rules were cancelled simply to pave the way for Sinclair Broadcasting, which has proposed to acquire Tribune Media for $4 billion. Two high-ranking Democrats--Frank Pallone and Elijah Cummings--are calling for an investigation into Ajit Pai's relationship with Sinclair. The Commission also restricted Lifeline support--that's the $9.25 per month subsidy for qualified customers who use it to help pay their internet bill. It restricted that support on tribal lands. The Commission is also seeking comment on a proposed plan to cap Lifeline expenditures. The Commission also voted unanimously to crack down on robocallers by giving phone companies more authority to block annoying phone calls from marketers who play a pre-recorded message when you answer the phone. Also at the November meeting, the Commission voted to expand broadcasters' ability to experiment with the Next Generation Broadcast Standard, which will enable closer targeting of viewers for advertising. The Commission also adopted several other rules and proposed rules ostensibly geared toward stimulating broadband infrastructure investment and deployment. In December, FCC Chair Ajit Pai is expected to overturn the net neutrality rules passed during the Obama administration. Wall Street Journal: Comcast seeks to acquire 201st Century Fox Comcast has joined a long list of companies, including Verizon, that are seeking to buy 21st Century Fox, according to the Wall Street Journal. Fox is looking to sell off everything except its news and sports assets. Verizon and Disney also also rumored to be potential suitors. Federal Elections Commission opens rulemaking on political ads The Federal Elections Commission put out a rulemaking for public comment on revisions to the political ad disclosure rules to apply them to internet companies. The rulemaking follows allegations of Russian efforts to sway the election in favor of Donald Trump by placing ads and sponsored content on on Facebook and Twitter. China's supercomputers surpass the U.S. The U.S. has dropped to second place, behind China, in its total number of super computers. The U.S. has 144 compared to China's 202. The number of China's supercomputers rose by 43 over just the last 6 months, compared to a drop in the U.S. by 25.

We are being told a simple story about the future of work: if a machine can record and imitate what you do, you will be replaced by it. Christened a “fourth industrial revolution,” a narrative of mass unemployment is now gripping policymakers. It envisions human workers rendered superfluous by ever-more-powerful software, robots, and predictive analytics. Substituting robots for workers may seem like an impossibly grandiose ambition. But its main problem is not impracticality—rather, it is not nearly grand enough. It is a vision of society built on a narrow consumerism. We don’t exist simply to be served. We want to serve others, to make a contribution, and to find some meaning in our daily activities. Another approach is possible—indeed, plausible. It is a future of robots and software complementing work, to make it better. I call technology that improves workers’ skills and opportunities “humane automation,” to be distinguished from other forms of technical advance that are indifferent to—or undermine—workers’ skills and wages. Fortunately, forms of humane automation are already taking root in many fields. As consumers and citizens, we can encourage this more inclusive and sustainable path. Enlightened policymakers and professionals can also re-channel the flow of commerce to respect, rather than replace, human initiative. Frank Pasquale, JD, MPhil is an expert on the law and policy of big data, predictive analytics, artificial intelligence, and algorithms. He has advised government and business leaders on the health care, internet, and finance industries, including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, the Federal Trade Commission, the Council of Institutional Investors, the Capitol Forum, and the European Commission. He has spoken on his book, The Black Box Society (Harvard University Press, 2015) at academic and policy venues around the world, including law, computer science, humanities, and social science departments. His work has recently been translated into Chinese, French, German, Korean, Hungarian, and Serbian, and he is routinely quoted in global media outlets. He has been recognised as one of the ten most-cited health law scholars in the United States. His current book project is tentatively titled Laws of Robotics: Revitalizing the Professions in an Era of Automation (under contract to Harvard University Press). He is a currently a Visiting Fellow on the Technology and Democracy Project in CRASSH , an affiliate fellow at the Yale Information Society Project, and a fellow at the New Economy Law Center. He has served as a visiting fellow at Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy.

Kate Darling is a leading expert in robot ethics. She’s a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab, where she investigates social robotics and conducts experimental studies on human-robot interaction. Kate is also a fellow at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society and the Yale Information Society Project, and is an affiliate at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. She explores the emotional connection between people and life-like machines, seeking to influence technology design and public policy. Her writing and research anticipate difficult questions that lawmakers, engineers, and the wider public will need to address as human-robot relationships evolve in the coming decades. Kate has a background in law & economics and intellectual property. Twitter: @grok_

In this episode of the Making Sense podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Kate Darling about the ethical concerns surrounding our increasing use of robots and other autonomous systems. Kate Darling is a leading expert in robot ethics. She’s a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Media Lab, where she investigates social robotics and conducts experimental studies on human-robot interaction. Kate is also a fellow at the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society and the Yale Information Society Project, and is an affiliate at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. She explores the emotional connection between people and life-like machines, seeking to influence technology design and public policy. Her writing and research anticipate difficult questions that lawmakers, engineers, and the wider public will need to address as human-robot relationships evolve in the coming decades. Kate has a background in law & economics and intellectual property.   You can support the Making Sense podcast and receive subscriber-only content at samharris.org/subscribe.

A talk show on KZSU-FM, Stanford, 90.1 FM, hosted by Center for Internet & Society Resident Fellow David S. Levine. The show includes guests and focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored. This week, David interviews Derek Khanna of the Yale Information Society Project on copyright reform, jailbreaking cell phones and CISPA. For more information, please go to http://hearsayculture.com.