Building Tomorrow

After the “blue wave” that propelled Democrats to a majority in the US House of Representatives, Paul and Matthew invited tech policy expert Will Rinehart to join them as they suss out the implications for new legislation of emerging tech. While a split Congress often struggles to find bi-partisan agreement on major policy initiatives, there is a growing sense of unease in Congress in regards to internet privacy and social media monopolization.Unfortunately, sometimes the cure can be as bad or even worse than the original problem. Some of the proposed regulations could handicap American tech companies in similar fashion to how new digital copyright and privacy rules have hampered the European digital economy. One of the most worrying trends is a prediction from last year come true, that the hollowing out of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has long protected online platforms from frivolous lawsuits and charges, was so weakened by anti-sex trafficking legislation (SESTA/FOSTA) that Congress will continue to carve out exceptions in other areas.Will Congress need more tech expertise moving forward? What does the new Congress mean for innovation? What Section 230 of the CDA? Are big tech companies traditional monopolies? Do we need more transparency when it comes to big tech companies and what information they gather about us?Further Reading:Comments on Developing the Administration’s Approach to Consumer Privacy, written by Will RinehartTech Expertise in Congress, written by Will RinehartRelated Content:Will EU Copyright Break the Internet, Building Tomorrow PodcastHow the FOSTA Rules Create a “Bootleggers and Baptists” Scenario for the 21st Century, written by Paul MatzkoPractical Problems with Regulating Tech in the Public, written by Will Rinehart Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Tired of voting for a political candidate you don’t particularly like who represents a major political party you don’t particularly like so that another candidate who you dislike a little bit more won’t win office? If so, then ranked choice voting might be the electoral reform for you.Ranked choice voting is a system in which voters don’t just vote for a single candidate for each listed office on their ballot. Instead, they rank all of the candidates running for that seat, 1-2-3 and so on. Then, if no candidate wins a majority of the first place votes, the least successful candidate on the ballot is eliminated and those who preferred them as their 1st choice are then distributed based on their 2nd choice. And so on and so forth until one candidate passes 50%.Paul and Matthew are joined by Peter Van Doren as they discuss the ramifications of Maine changing to ranked choice voting (RCV) for federal elections in 2018, compare it to other alternative voting methods in other countries, and try to predict the ways it could transform American politics by validating third parties.What is the “first-past-the-post” voting style? Does the U.S. voting system have an alienation problem? What is the Hastert Rule? Are third parties largely shoved to the side during U.S. elections?Further Reading:Resources for Ranked-choice Voting, Provided by the State of MaineRanked-choice voting worked in Maine. Now we should use it in presidential races, written by Lawrence LessigRanked-choice voting passes the test in Maine, Boston GlobeRelated Content:Micro-Targeting Voters with Big Data, Building Tomorrow Podcast“Pay No Attention to the Man Who Won’t Stand Behind the Voting Curtain”, written by Jonathan BanksSome Very Good Reasons Not to Vote, written by Aaron Ross Powell and Trevor Burrus  Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you have kids, you know how alluring smartphones and social media can be for a generation raised with (and, at times, seemingly by) the technology. But researchers are starting to worry that engagement with this technology is rewiring peoples’ brains by design. Tech companies have invented mechanisms like the “infinite scroll” and notification systems which trigger chemical releases in the brain, habituating users.But as concerns about these effects grows, companies have responded with new ways of consumer self-regulation. Paul, Aaron, and Will talk about whether government ought to play a role in regulating these technologies or whether private action and education are sufficient. They also discuss “mindfulness” apps meant to ease meditation and promote healthier living.How old were you when you got your first smart phone? How much screen time should toddlers and adolescents be allowed to have? What are feedback loops and how do they influence technology product designers? What is the role of engagement for apps that are ad-driven? Can an app lead to spiritual enlightenment?Further Reading:Does Your Child Have a Digital Addiction, written by Romeo VitelliWhat Screen Addictions and Drug Addictions Have in Common, written by Erik VanceHave Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?, written by Jean TwengeRelated Content:The Completely Insane Consumer Surplus of the Internet, written by Jason KuznickiKiller Drones or Delivery Drones?, Building Tomorrow Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Flying car prototypes are being tested right now, but they exist in a strange legal limbo in the United States. The Federal Aviation Administration has strict rules for the altitudes at which aircraft of various sizes as well as drones are allowed to fly at, but a new category of Vertical Take-Off and Landing aircraft needs a defined airspace before the technology can be rolled out for a mass consumer audience.Brent Skorup, a specialist in tech and communication policy at the Mercatus Center, joins us to describe his proposed plan for how the FAA ought to regulate VTOL airspace. It combines a market-based auction approach with federal oversight.What is the immediate market for flying cars? How do flying cars differ from helicopters? What is a VTOL? How do we stop a monopoly from forming in a market for flying cars? Will congestion be an issue? How should libertarians feel about the role taken by a federal agency in this process? The ultimate question is: Who owns the airspace above us now?Further Reading:Auctioning Airspace, written by Brent SkorupResolved: Cities Should Build for Autonomous Vehicles, written by Brent SkorupYour Flying Car Will Be Here Sooner Than You Think, written by Brent SkorupRelated Content:Transportation, Land Use, and Freedom, Free Thoughts PodcastWhen Will We Get Fully Autonomous Cars?, Building Tomorrow Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

If you live in NYC, Washington DC, or Nashville, TN, Amazon is coming to town. But unlike Santa Claus, Amazon’s new headquarters locations are arriving on a raft of subsidies instead of a sleigh. State and local governments offered billions of dollars in tax rebates and cash grants in order to woo the company.If everything goes according to plan, Amazon HQ2 might generate a budget surplus for DC and NYC, but, as many cities that have courted companies through special tax breaks have found over the years, that is a big “if.” And there are serious questions to be asked about the wisdom of allowing individual companies to have so much power over setting regulatory policy.Are the greater-Arlington residents excited about Amazon? Should they be worrying about this type of gentrification? What does zoning policy affect when a company like Amazon enters your city? Do libertarians think that the way that Amazon handled their HQ2 search is appropriate? Is the Amazon location debate a question of fairness?Further Reading:Incentives to Pander: How Politicians Use Corporate Welfare for Political Gain (Business and Public Policy), written by Nathan M. Jensen and Edmund J. MaleskyAttract Businesses like Amazon with Lean Government, Not Pork, written by Vanessa Brown Calder & Chris EdwardsHow Can New York City and Northern Virginia Prepare for Amazon HQ2?, written by Vanessa Brown CalderWhat Could States and Municipalities Have Done with That Amazon HQ2 Money?, written by Michael Farren and Anne PhilpotRelated Content:The Pursuit, A Podcast Hosted by Tess TerribleHow the Powerful Captured the Economy, Free Thoughts PodcastHow Government Housing Policy Distorts the American Dream, Free Thoughts Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We return to part two of our interview with John Aristotle Phillips, who is the founder of the political prediction market PredictIt. Instead of trading corporate stocks or pork bellies, PredictIt allows you to trade in political futures. Put your own money on the line when it comes to who will win an election or the next time a politician will say something stupid on social media. While it’s partly entertainment, prediction markets also serve an important social function since they have a more reliable track record for predicting events than even the best pundits and pollsters.Finally, we talk with Phillips about his surprising personal biography. Long before his time in political consulting and prediction markets, he was known as the “A-Bomb Kid” for designing a nuclear weapon in his dorm room at Princeton University. How many people do you know who have been 1) the subject of a cover story in Rolling Stone (and not a rock star), 2) the focus of a Congressional hearing, and 3) a candidate for Congress themself all before their mid-20s?What is the best way to predict the outcome of a Democratic or Republican primary campaign? What is PredictIt? How accurate is PredictIt? Why are markets accurate predictors of future events? How is their product better than what polling systems can predict? Should we betting on political events in the first place?Further Reading:PredictIt WebsiteMushroom: The story of the A-bomb kid, written by John Aristotle PhillipsRelated Content:Micro-Targeting Voters with Big Data, Building Tomorrow PodcastOn Belonging to Governments or Markets, written by Trevor BurrusWhat Influences Elections, Free Thoughts Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We’ve all heard the talking heads on cable news declare that this or that election was the year of the “suburban soccer mom voter” or the year for voters who prefer Heineken beer and so on and so forth. Have you ever wondered who decides that these small voter niches have outsized importance in any given election?If so, then you’re in luck! This week, Building Tomorrow interviews John Aristotle Phillips, the founder of the eponymous political campaign consultancy Aristotle. He leverages big data to micro-target voters for politicians from both sides of the aisle. Phillips has also run campaigns overseas, including in Kenya where he was deported for his efforts to unseat the party in power.Why do you need access to all data when you are running for office? What is public record when it comes to campaigning and voting? How much does a campaign rely on data collection? What does Aristotle do? How does Aristotle help candidates who are not members of the mainstream political parties? Should Americans export political campaign consultants to intervene in the politics of other countries?Further Reading:The A-bomb Kid Runs For Congress, written by Maryanne VollersAmerican Consultant Seeking to Detect Polling Fraud for Kenya Opposition Was Deported Ahead of Elections, written by Matina Stevis and Joe ParkinsonAristotle WebsiteRelated Content:Libertarian Perspectives on Voting, written by David S. D’AmatoShould Libertarians Vote?, Free Thoughts PodcastNothing is Secure, Free Thoughts Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are you tired of the usual Black Friday listicles telling you which gifts to buy for your tech-obsessed friends and family? Do you suspect that the authors are really just recycling the same basic gadgets over and over again that seem like something out of an old Sharper Image catalogue?Then we have the show for you! This week, the guys conduct a single-elimination competition for the Ultimate Techmas Gift Championship™ Extravaganza 2018®. It’s a showdown between fancy Fitbits, end-to-end encryption, a new internet, and smart diapers.Further Reading:Bill Clinton Helps Al Gore Create the InternetAlphabet’s Verily has a “smart diaper” design that distinguishes pee from poo, written by Beth MoleIs Your Fitbit Data Safe?, written by James SwannEncrypted Messaging isn’t Magic, written by Lily Hay NewmanRelated Content:I Don’t Think Internet Anonymity Means What You Think It Means, written by Annie EdmundsonProtecting Data Privacy Without Destroying the Internet, written by Roslyn LaytonNothing Is Secure, Free Thoughts Podcast Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Peter Van Doren and Will Duffield join us today to discuss a variety of topics including; designer babies, driverless cars, and “non-slaughter meat”. It may seem as though that these topics are not obviously related, but with any new or emerging technology there is a blowback response from potential users or consumers. In these three very different fields, reactions have been mixed. More importantly, it may be impossible to predict the consequences of fully adopting any of these emerging technologies that seemingly make our lives better off.  Could we get to a point where everyone will be designing their children? What will the future of car-sharing be? How is technology and innovation hindered (or helped) by the culture of adoption? Should we be hesitant to adopt new technologies that we perceive as making our lives better? Further Reading:Safety of Beef Processing Method Is Questioned, written by Michael MossABC TV settles with beef product maker in ‘pink slime’ defamation case, written by Timothy MclaughlinRegulation Magazine Fall 2018Gene Editing Needs to Be Available to Everyone, written by Noah SmithIceland Close to Becoming the First Country Where No Down’s Syndrome Children are Born, written by Dave MacLeanRelated Content:Welcome to the Sharing Economy, Free Thoughts PodcastIn the Economy of the Future, You Won’t Own Your Kitchen, written by Pamela J. HobartRide-Sharing Services Aren’t a Problem, They’re a Solution, written by Aeon Skoble Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The presence of a gender gap in the tech industry is indisputable, but the causes and solutions for the gap are still up for debate. Ashkhen Kazaryan from TechFreedom joins Paul and Matthew to discuss several theories for the origins of the gap, ranging from overt discrimination to the insidious unintended consequences of the invention of the nerd archetype in the 1980s. Ashkhen compares her experience of discrimination in the tech policy world, which has relative gender parity, with the problems in the tech sector, which does not. Finally, the three talk about steps that can be taken to close the gender gap.Is the gender gap the cause of sexual discrimination, or is sexual discrimination the cause of the gender gap? When did gender disparity become apparent in the tech world? How can women finally be heard in the tech world? Why are women clustered in non-executive and non-engineering staff positions at big tech giants like Google & Facebook? How should we encourage more young girls to enter the tech industry?Further Reading:Tech Policy Podcast, produced by Tech FreedomReflecting On One Very, Very Strange Year At Uber, written by Susan FowlerTech Doesn’t Have A Gender Problem, written by Amelia IrvineGirls Who CodeDo Boys Have a Comparative Advantage in Math and Science?, written by Alex TabarrokRelated Content:Emerging Tech, Free Thoughts PodcastThe Psychology of Freedom: How Sexist Language Harms Women, written by Sharon PresleyTwo Faces of Sexism: Exclusion and Exploitation, written by Sarah Skwire Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.