The Dynamist

The White House and the state of Missouri are in a court battle over whether the Biden Administration crossed the line in trying to influence social media companies’ content moderation decisions—from Hunter Biden’s laptop to vaccine skeptics to the origins of COVID-19. The “Twitter Files,” documents released to select journalists by Elon Musk, as well as information unearthed by Missouri’s lawsuit, appear to show that the FBI, CIA, and other agencies either coerced, or heavily encouraged, social media companies to take certain actions.

Many on the right say the Biden Administration violated the First Amendment by essentially co-opting social media companies into censoring speech that the government couldn’t censor itself. But many researchers and activists working on disinformation and misinformation worry that the outcome of this case could squelch legitimate government efforts to communicate with social media companies and combat foreign efforts to influence elections and American political discourse.

So did the Biden Administration cross the line? Did Big Tech companies become “state actors?” Evan is joined by Ben Sperry, Senior Scholar of Innovation Policy at the International Center for Law and Economics and author of a new white paper on regulating misinformation on social media platforms.

Are the citizens of the EU at risk of becoming second-class digital citizens? It’s well known at this point that Europe doesn’t have its own version of Silicon Valley. Many believe that this is in large part due to its digital regulatory approach—the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Markets Act (DMA), and the AI act, among others. While Congress hasn’t passed a federal privacy law in the US, states like California have enacted rules similar to the EU model—at least on paper. Are the consequences of such regulation overstated? Is it possible to have consumer protection without sacrificing innovation? 

Evan discusses with Brian Chau, former mathematician and machine learning engineer and current research fellow at Alliance for the Future. He’s also the author of the widely-read AI Pluralism newsletter. In a recent piece for Pirate Wires, he argues that Europe’s digital regulations are turning EU residents into “second-class digital citizens.”

Are Chinese drones a security threat? Not the kind that drop bombs, but the ones you might see at the beach or a major sporting event—used to take aerial photos and videos. These drones aren’t just for hobbyists. Government agencies in the U.S. use them for policing to fighting wildfires. And they've been buying them for years, predominantly from a Chinese manufacturer named DJI. Since the early 2010s, DJI drones have allowed even a poorly coordinated amateur to shoot video and create high-quality maps, and the company today has a 70 percent global market share. 

So what’s the problem? The company has close ties to China's People’s Liberation Army and has the ability to disable its products from afar. Could America’s reliance on DJI be an economic or cybersecurity risk? Is this just another anti-China “red scare,” an outgrowth of the growing tensions and saber-rattling between the world’s two greatest powers? Evan is joined by Lars Erik Schönander, a policy technologist at the Foundation for American Innovation and author of a new paper for FAI, Securing the Skies: Chinese Drones and U.S. Cybersecurity Risks.

*Correction: Evan misstated the publication of an article discussed on the episode. It was published in Foreign Policy, not Foreign Affairs. 

The European Union has designated six Big Tech companies as "gatekeepers" to the Internet—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, and ByteDance (TikTok's parent company). Experts & pundits are calling this designation under the EU’s Digital Markets Act the most significant action against Big Tech ever taken. As the U.S. Congress continues to avoid significant legislative action, Europe has stepped into the void. Will this be another example of the so-called Brussels effect, where European policy becomes de facto regulation for the entire Western World? How will the companies respond, and what impact will it have on consumers? Joining Evan is FAI Director of Outreach Luke Hogg, whose tech policy research focuses on decentralization and innovation. Read his recent piece on the "Brussels effect" for Pirate Wires here.

It’s been seven years since Pokemon Go introduced augmented reality to the masses and caused a global craze. Since then, consumers have used a slew of applications that alter their reality—from more mundane uses like TikTok filters adding cat ears to someone’s head to more immersive experiences like Meta’s Oculus headset video games. Beyond shopping and gaming, augmented, virtual, and mixed reality software could become an invaluable tool for education. While research shows promise, classrooms have been slow to adopt immersive tech, just as they were slow to adopt PCs in the 80s and 90s. 

Could a research and development strategy that includes government investment help integrate this tech into the classroom? Evan is joined by Juan Londoño, policy analyst at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), where he focuses on augmented and virtual reality. You can read his paper on immersive learning here.

Tension between China and the U.S. is arguably at the highest it has been since President Nixon began normalizing relations decades ago. Yet, despite China’s treatment of ethnic minorities, its crackdown on Hong Kong, and threats against Taiwan, America remains economically entangled with the People’s Republic. How did the U.S. become so dependent on its chief geopolitical rival? What role did American businesses like Boeing and diplomats like Henry Kissinger play in the building of the modern relationship between the two nations? How has Beijing used the economic relationship to advance the Communist Party’s goals? How likely is war between the U.S. and China, and how would that impact trade and foreign investment?

Evan is joined by Isaac Stone Fish, founder and CEO of Strategy Risks. He is also an adjunct professor at NYU's Center for Global Affairs and a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council. He is the author of America Second: How America’s Elites are Making China Stronger.

As the saying goes, “if the service is free, you are the product.” In the social media age, many companies don't compete for our money, but for our time. While many traditional entertainment companies increasingly rely on monthly subscription fees, social media products like TikTok and Instagram are “free,” powered by consumer data used to sell advertising. What platforms compete with each other for our attention? Does watching TV make you less likely to use social media? Or are you just scrolling the small screen while watching the big screen? As policymakers consider the nature of competition and issues involving “Big Tech,” such as data privacy, how should they factor in how much attention consumers pay to different platforms? 

Joining us to discuss all of this is Scott Wallsten, President of the Technology Policy Institute and a PhD economist with broad expertise. His prior roles include stints at the FCC and White House Council of Economic Advisers. Read TPI’s paper on the attention economy here. 

What if your rabbi used ChatGPT to write a sermon? What if you asked a faith-based chat bot to help you with bible study? The proliferation of AI tech is changing every sector, including religion and theology. The mechanized sanctum is no longer theoretical, as the rise of AI in religious spaces poses both unprecedented opportunities and serious ethical challenges. It poses questions around the nature of sentience, personhood, and what constitutes a creator. Can a super-intelligent AI have a soul? And there are also more immediate questions: will certain faiths use AI more effectively to spread their gospel and grow their ranks? Does AI have a religious bent? Should there even be a place for this tech in religious practice at all?

Evan is joined by friend of the podcast Nathan Leamer, CEO of Fixed Gear Strategies, a boutique tech policy consulting firm, and former policy advisor to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

Google is facing legal challenges that could strike at the heart of the company’s advertising business, which accounts for 80 percent of its global sales. The U.S. Department of Justice sued Google for allegedly monopolizing digital advertising technology (ad tech). Across the pond, the European Commission told the Big Tech giant recently its preliminary view that the company distorted competition in ad tech—favoring its own services to the detriment of competitors. The outcomes of these cases could force Google to divest significant portions of its business and potentially transform the tech industry.

Is Google really guilty of the agencies’ claims? And how could proposed legislation in Congress impact the company going forward? Joining Evan is Mark Meador, partner at Kressin Meador, a boutique antitrust law firm. He was formerly Deputy Chief Counsel for Antitrust and Competition Policy for Senator Mike Lee. Prior to that, he was an attorney at both the DoJ and the FTC.

Will artificial intelligence spell the end of humanity? The concept has been implanted in American culture through dystopian phenomena like Terminator and The Matrix, but how real is this possibility? Since the public release of Open AI’s ChatGPT in late 2022, AI doomerism has played a key role in shaping the discourse around this rapidly advancing technology. “Artificial intelligence could lead to extinction,” blares the BBC. “The race to win the AI competition could doom us all,” warns The Japan Times. Some commentators have even said that we may need to bomb data centers to stop or slow AI development.

Is so-called AI “doomerism” simply an outgrowth of AI-related science fiction? Or is there a concerted PR effort to frame the conversation? How does doomerism impact the debate over how/whether to regulate AI, and what positive applications of AI aren’t receiving enough attention?  Evan is joined by Perry Metzger, CEO of a stealth AI startup and founder of Alliance for the Future. You can read his work on his Substack, Diminished Capacity. Evan is also joined by Jon Askonas, a professor of politics at Catholic University and Senior Fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation. He has written broadly on tech and culture for outlets like Foreign Policy and American Affairs, and his work has been discussed at length in the New York Times. 

Can tech companies send data about European Union citizens across the Atlantic? According to a new framework, the answer is yes. Recently, the EU formally adopted a new agreement with the U.S. on data privacy that gives companies the green light to send data back and forth. For years, EU privacy advocates have raised alarms that U.S. intel agencies like the NSA are spying on EU citizens, particularly by tapping the data droves of Big Tech companies like Google and Meta. This framework is the third attempt at a data-sharing framework after past attempts were struck down by a European court after the Edward Snowden revelations revealed U.S. spying practices. Will the third time be the charm?

Evan is joined by Caitlin Fennessy, Vice President and Chief Knowledge Officer at the International Association of Privacy Professionals. Prior to joining the IAPP, Caitlin was the Privacy Shield Director at the U.S. International Trade Administration, where she spent ten years working on international privacy and cross-border data flow policy issues. You can read her work on these issues here.

How much does U.S. regulation really cost Americans and the economy? A new report from FAI found that, in 2022 alone, agencies issued more than more than 3,000 rules, including 265 “significant” ones with an estimated cost of over $117 billion. Some estimates say the totality of federal regulations costs the economy nearly $2 trillion. These rules span everything from healthcare to the environment, but what is the actual effect on our daily lives? 

Some critics of the ever growing bureaucracy (or “Deep State” as President Trump calls it) say Congress has let federal agencies run amok—writing unclear laws that then have to be interpreted and implemented by unelected bureaucrats. Has Congress given too much power to the Executive Branch? Is there a way that Congress can flex its muscles over federal agencies?

Evan is joined by Satya Thallam, Senior Fellow at FAI and former White House and Senate policy advisor, and Dan Lips, Head of Policy at FAI and former national security policy advisor in Congress. Read Satya's recent report on reining in the administrative state. 

The feds, via the SEC, are cracking down on Binance, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in the world, essentially calling it an illegal operation. Prior to his appointment as Biden’s SEC chair, Gary Gensler taught a class on Bitcoin at MIT, which made some crypto enthusiasts think he might be friendly to the industry. But he’s been anything but a friend to crypto. His proponents say he’s taking long overdue action to rein in an industry rife with fraud, scams, and get-rich-quick schemes. Critics worry the SEC’s increasingly aggressive approach will send crypto and blockchain-based innovations overseas, and see the U.S. cede leadership to other nations. 

As the debate rages over how to regulate various crypto coins (are they commodities or securities?), is there a way for the SEC to go after back actors without casting too wide a net? Evan and Luke are joined by Dr. Thomas L. Hogan, a former Chief Economist for the US Senate Banking Committee and now a specialist in crypto and monetary policy with the American Institute for Economic Research. You can check out his work here.

The question has become cliche: Why doesn’t Europe have “Big Tech” companies? Critics of the European Union’s approach to tech regulation say it’s just that—they’ve regulated too much. But proponents of a stronger hand say America’s relative “light-touch” has left consumers unprotected from abuse of their personal and sensitive data. As the EU continues to lead the democratic world in regulating tech, will their standards become the global standard, or will tech firms start splintering their products and user experiences for different markets? Is the impact of European regulation overplayed? Can differences in the continent’s tech sector be better explained by a more conservative investment culture than the risk-taking of Silicon Valley? Evan discusses all that and more with Yael Ossowski, deputy director of Consumer Choice Center, a global consumer advocacy group. Check out his radio show & podcast Consumer Choice Radio here.

With the 2024 election shaping up to be a digital bloodbath, social media platforms like Facebook will continue to be an electoral lightning rod in the United States around the world. Social media executives are under intense scrutiny as disagreements flare over misinformation, foreign interference, bias, free speech, and voter targeting. Now, AI-generated ads are already making their way to voters’ screens at a time when the rules are still being defined. With artificial intelligence poised to play a major role in the U.S. presidential election, how will governments and companies respond?  Joining Evan to discuss is Katie Harbath, founder and CEO of Anchor Change where she advises clients on tech policy issues. Previously she worked at Facebook where she built and led teams responsible for managing elections and working with governments and elected officials to use Facebook and Instagram to connect and engage with constituents. You can subscribe to Katie’s newsletter here and read her work for Bipartisan Policy Center here.

In April, an anonymous TikToker released a song, “Heart on my Sleeve,” that was listened to by millions of people before being taken down by various streaming platforms. The problem? The song wasn’t by the famous artists Drake and The Weeknd. It was generated by artificial intelligence that mimicked their voices. This song and other examples of AI-generated media have sparked a debate among artists, lawmakers, and others about whether and how generative AI should be allowed to learn from copyrighted works. As the U.S. Copyright Office, courts, and Congress look to tackle the issue, is there a way to balance the interests of human creators, AI developers, and consumers? Evan is joined by Daniel Takash, regulatory policy fellow at Niskanen Center, a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. You can read his work on copyright and other topics here.

Recently, Apple CEO Tim Cook traveled to Beijing where he praised China for the country’s “rapid innovation” and celebrated the longstanding and “symbiotic relationship” that his company has had with the People’s Republic. As the U.S. Congress is increasingly examines the business dealings of American companies in China, including through the Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, what can lawmakers learn from Apple’s investments in China—from manufacturing to supply chains. And as tensions continue to rise between the U.S. and China, and Taiwan faces a potential invasion, should Apple be rethinking this relationship? Should the U.S. government intervene? Evan is joined by Geoffrey Cain, Senior Fellow for Critical Emerging Technologies at Foundation for American Innovation and author of The Perfect Police State: An Undercover Odyssey into China's Terrifying Surveillance Dystopia of the Future.

References:

Tim Cook’s comments on Apple in China at the 2017 Fortune Global Forum.

Congress seems to be in a mad rush to regulate artificial intelligence, determined not to repeat what many legislators see as the mistake of letting social media run amok. But while AI-related headlines focus on doomsday scenarios like civilizational destruction and job loss, less attention is paid to the potential for AI to transform how our government operates. It would be an understatement to say our government could use some modernization, but can a Congress so bent on regulating AI also embrace the technology for its own purposes? Joining Evan is Luke Hogg, Director of Outreach at Foundation for American Innovation. You can read his piece in Tech Policy Press, “Artificial Intelligence Could Democratize Government.” And check out other work from FAI scholars on this topic, including this piece by Zach Graves.

Elon Musk has called himself a “free speech absolutist,” but a recent decision to censor certain content on Twitter ahead of an election casts doubt on the validity of that moniker. Musk argues that it’s better to comply with the Turkish government’s requests than see the platform shut off in Turkey entirely. Skeptics say Musk should’ve denied the requests, and, if President Erdoghan shut down Twitter, it would prove he is an authoritarian, which could help inform voters as the head to the polls. What can we learn from this dustup and Twitter’s handling of government requests more broadly? Evan is joined by Nathan Leamer, Executive Director of Digital First Project, a tech policy organization. You can read his chapter in “The Digital Public Square” here.

Almost everyone agrees that an Internet connection is essential for full participation in modern American life. That’s why our government is spending huge sums to build networks in rural areas and help low-income Americans pay their bills or connect for free. As the burden increases on taxpayers, is it time to rethink how we subsidize broadband? Should Big Tech companies like Google, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft help foot the bill for the infrastructure needed to use their services? Or should Americans pay additional fees on their Internet bill to help other Americans get online? What other business models might help pay for infrastructure going forward? 

Evan is joined by Roslyn Layton, Senior Vice President of Strand Consult and visiting researcher at Aalborg University. She is also a nonresident senior fellow at Foundation for American Innovation. You can read her report on broadband cost recovery and her other work at StrandConsult.dk. You can check out the Sandvine report on Internet traffic referenced on the episode here.