Tech Policy Podcast

On February 21, the Supreme Court will hold oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google, the first Section 230 appeal the justices have ever heard. The future of the Internet hangs in the balance. Host Corbin K. Barthold discusses the case, the briefs, and what to watch for at the argument. Correction: As Corbin explains, the petitioners invoke some inapt authorities for the notion that Section 230 borrows the technical, defamation-law definition of the word "publisher." However, the Roommates decision (mentioned at 18:45) is not one of them. (A proper example would have been the Snap decision, discussed later in the episode.)

Liza Lin, a reporter at the Wall Street Journal, is the co-author, with Josh Chin, of Surveillance State: Inside China’s Quest to Launch a New Era of Social Control. She discusses the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to use technology to spur prosperity, quash dissent, and—above all—maintain its grip on power.

Bad tech policy is a bipartisan affair. Lately, though, the right has particularly excelled at it. TechFreedom’s Corbin Barthold and Ari Cohn discuss the GOP’s obsession with supposed “Big Tech censorship,” its performative new “weaponization” subcommittee, its strange quest to turn spammy fundraising emails into a political cause, and more. The episode centers around Corbin’s and Ari’s article at Techdirt, “If You Believe In Free Speech, The GOP’s ‘Weaponization’ Subcommittee Is Not Your Friend,” and Corbin’s article for The Bulwark, “The Republican Project to Break Your Email Account.” The podcast Corbin mentions (8:24) is called Moderated Content. The McSweeney’s piece Ari cites (42:05) is “If I Emailed My Parents Like Democrats Email Me.”

Is screen time—television, smartphones, social media, video games—harming children? Elizabeth Nolan Brown, senior editor at Reason, returns to the show with some good news: probably not! She fills host Corbin Barthold in on the latest research. For more, see Elizabeth’s recent Reason online article 5 New Studies That Challenge Conventional Wisdom About Kids and Tech, as well as her December cover story for Reason magazine, In Defense of Algorithms. The two previous Tech Policy Podcast episodes Corbin mentions are #331: Section 230’s Long Path to SCOTUS and #309: Conspiracy Theories and the Internet.

Malcom Kyeyune is the author of The New Gnostics, an article in the autumn issue of City Journal’s print magazine. In the piece, Malcom examines the new quasi-religions taking shape on the Internet. “It’s hard to overstate,” he writes, “how full” today’s “Internet is with itinerant prophets, holy fools, hustlers, fraudsters, and soothsayers.” In this episode, Malcom tells us why he thinks this is happening. He also discusses the growing divide between workers and the Left, his problems with the “email class,” why he shitposts from an anon account, and more. Follow Malcom’s work at Compact, City Journal, and UnHerd, among other outlets.

The United States is entering a second golden age of space innovation. Can the country’s regulatory infrastructure keep up? For better or worse, the Federal Communications Commission is bidding to fill the void (so to speak). What moves is the FCC making? Is the agency acting within its legal authority? What can it do to help the American space industry succeed? James Dunstan, TechFreedom’s general counsel, joins the show to discuss. For more, see TechFreedom’s recent FCC comments on in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing. Jim’s 2017 testimony before the Senate space subcommittee, mentioned at 7:36, is available here.

Facial recognition technology is a powerful tool. Whatever we do with it—whatever rules we set around its use—we should proceed thoughtfully and cautiously, keeping a close eye on the costs and benefits of deploying it. Jane Bambauer, a law professor at the University of Arizona College of Law, joins the show for just such a thoughtful, cautious, cost-benefit driven discussion, with a focus on the use of facial recognition by law enforcement. For more, see Prof. Bambauer’s recent paper, Facial Recognition as a Less Bad Option, published by the Hoover Institution.

The Supreme Court has never heard a Section 230 case—until now. Earlier this month, the justices agreed to review Gonzalez v. Google, in which the plaintiffs argue that YouTube’s “targeted recommendation” of videos falls outside Section 230 immunity. How did we get Section 230? Why is it important? What would the Internet look like without it? Emma Llansó, director of the Free Expression Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, joins the show to explain how Section 230 came to be, how it has been implemented over the last quarter century, why Congress’s one amendment of it (via FOSTA) was a disaster, and why the upcoming Supreme Court case is so crucial.

Independent federal agencies sit awkwardly in our constitutional structure. When they engage in aggressive overreach, therefore, they should expect to see their actions challenged in court. This episode centers around two such challenges. In Axon v. FTC, a case the Supreme Court will hear this term, the plaintiff challenges the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission’s internal tribunal. And in Consumers’ Research v. FCC, a set of cases currently in the federal courts of appeals, the petitioners challenge the Federal Communications Commission’s power to raise money without congressional oversight. Our guest is Trent McCotter, a partner with Boyden Gray & Associates and the director of the Separation of Powers Clinic at the C. Boyden Gray Center at Antonin Scalia Law School. He and host Corbin Barthold discuss Axon, Consumers’ Research, and the cases’ various implications for the separation of powers.

Will Rinehart is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Growth and Opportunity. In this episode, a wide-ranging discussion of his work, he expands on whether the FDA should declare aging a disease, how to measure broadband access (and best allocate broadband funding), what we can learn from last year’s Facebook blackout, and why we need an abundance agenda. From the nitty-gritty details of policy to big-picture questions about our future, Will is thinking about it all. You can find out more about his various projects, including several he mentioned on the show, at his website.