The Dynamist

Remarkable improvements in artificial intelligence are forcing us to reassess our government, our economy, and ourselves. Boosters see an opportunity to empower individual creators and circumvent sclerotic industry gatekeepers. Many creators are already using AI to hone their craft, test new concepts, and reach new audiences. But skeptics see another possibility: that AI will stifle creativity by strengthening the most powerful corporations. Artists’ work is being used without license to teach AI models. AI platforms have produced works inspired by human creators without attribution. And as the recent writers strike shows, many fear that media companies will use AI to replace human creators altogether.How can we channel AI so that it strengthens individual agency? What are potential artistic and public interest applications of AI, and what policies and incentives do we need to make those applications succeed? In this bonus episode, Laurent Crenshaw (Patreon, FAI board of directors), Sy Damle (Latham & Watkins, fmr. general counsel for the U.S. Copyright Office, Ashkhen Kazaryan (Stand Together), and Patrick Blumenthal (New Frontier Ventures) discuss AI's implications for creators, art, and innovation live from Washington, D.C.

Recently, the Biden Administration announced further restrictions on the types of semiconductors that American companies sell to China. The move is aimed at preventing American AI from benefitting Chinese military applications. While heralded by many as a necessary move to protect U.S. national security, how will the move affect Sino-American relations, and how will China respond? Could China simply “smuggle” the chips to avoid U.S. restrictions, or will the move spur China to race to develop more chips domestically? Could China simply access the computing power it needs through “the cloud?” Evan is joined by Onni Aarne and Erich Grunewald of the Institute for AI Policy and Strategy, which works to reduce risks related to the development & deployment of frontier AI systems. You can read Erich’s report on chip smuggling here.

It's an old trope that nothing gets done in Washington. The city is filled with some of the brightest minds in the country looking to tackle massive challenges, from immigration reform to confronting the threats posed by China. But despite all the discourse, monied interests, lobbyists, and think tanks, so many major issues facing the country see little in the way of action. That raises the question: when America does have major policy success, how did it happen? How, exactly, did energetic civil servants address core issues like AIDS in Africa or developing the COVID-19 vaccine? Evan is joined by Santi Ruiz, Senior Editor at the Institute for Progress and co-creator of Statecraft, a new newsletter & podcast focused on policy entrepreneurship, state capacity, and governance.

Recently FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel announced her intent to bring back net neutrality regulation. It’s hard to believe it’s been six years since the brouhaha over broadband regulation reached a fever pitch. When the Trump FCC repealed the Obama-era rules, the apocalypse was predicted. CNN said it would be “the end of the Internet as we know it.” Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon warned of “digital serfdom.” Underlying the heated public debate has always been a more arcane legal question of how to regulate Internet access—whether through a light touch or a heavier one. And with the Supreme Court taking a closer look at “major questions” to see if federal agencies are acting outside the bounds of the laws passed by Congress, it remains to be seen whether the FCC’s revival of net neutrality will withstand legal muster.Evan is joined by Tom Johnson, former general counsel for the FCC under Chairman Ajit Pai during the Trump administration where he successfully defended the agency’s net neutrality repeal before a federal district court. He is now a partner at the law firm Wiley Rein and co-chair of their appellate practice. He recently discussed his perspective on this issue in an article for Ars Technica.

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.

While it didn’t get the attention of the Edward Snowden leaks, a recent dump of classified information on a video game chat server has been described as one of the worst Western intelligence failures in modern memory. Analysts say the leak could complicate Ukraine’s spring offensive against Russia and expose U.S. assets in the Kremlin, among other potential ramifications. What makes this leak unique is that it doesn’t appear to be driven by ideology or a foreign adversary, but rather the suspect’s desire to impress his online gamer buddies. Is “clout chasing” a growing threat to national security? How can these leaks be prevented and what policies should the U.S. government change or implement in response? Evan is joined by Jon Askonas, Assistant Professor of Politics at Catholic University and a non-resident senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation. Read his piece, co-authored with Stanford Internet Observatory's Renee DiResta, in Foreign Policy on the threat gamers pose to national intelligence and check out his ongoing series in The New Atlantis on the collapse of consensus reality.

Politicians gripe constantly about Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and their ilk. Two years ago, then-CEO of Twitter Jack Dorsey pitched Congress that a lot of their complaints could be solved by his project called “Bluesky,” which aims to decentralize social media. The app is now available on iPhone and Android, and hundreds of thousands of users are trying it out. Can we learn any initial lessons from Bluesky? Are decentralized protocols the silver bullet to the endless debates over content moderation and online censorship? Is it really possible for social media to be “owned” by its users? Evan is joined by Paul Bohm, a distributed systems engineer and founder and CEO of Teleport.XYZ. You can read Paul’s blog post on Bluesky here.

Evan interviews Foundation for American's COO Grace Meyer on Lincoln Network's rebrand to the Foundation for American Innovation. Check out our new website here. And don't forget to follow us on Twitter!

Artificial intelligence is all the rage these days. The large language model ChatGPT reached over 100 million users in record time, and AI is growing more accessible and relevant for everyday consumers. While many are cheering the AI revolution and heralding a brighter future, others are sounding the alarm. Elon Musk has warned AI could spell “civilizational destruction” without proper safety protocols. Is AI moving too fast, or is this the pace of innovation our economy needs? What should policymakers do, if anything, to tackle the challenges posed by AI? Evan is joined by Sam Hammond, Senior Economist at Lincoln Network.“Polluting the agentic commons,” a piece by Sam on what happens when chat agents go viral“Before the Flood,” a piece by Sam on the future of AI

As the headaches for TikTok pile up in Washington, the embattled social media platform and its supporters are arguing that a ban on the app would violate the U.S. Constitution, particularly the First Amendment. TikTok’s critics counter that the national security problems posed by the company's Chinese ownership far outweigh free speech concerns. Which side holds the upper hand, and what can we learn from past court cases involving a pornographic bookstore and a North Carolina law regarding sex offenders on social media? Evan is joined by Joel Thayer, president of Digital Progress Institute.ReferencesJoel’s piece for FedSoc, “Banning TikTok Outright Would Be Constitutional”Dan Lyon’s piece for American Enterprise Institute, “Would a TikTok Ban Be Constitutional?”Statement from the American Civil Lberties Union opposing a TikTok ban

In a prior episode, Gabriela Rodriguez of American Compass argued that the Jones Act, a law aimed at supporting the U.S. ship building should be reformed—not repealed. On The Dynamist’s first ever “rebuttal episode,” Evan is joined by Colin Grabow, a research fellow at the Cato Institute’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies. They discuss why Grabow supports a full repeal of the Jones Act, his response to Rodriguez’s proposed reforms, and what a post-Jones Act world might look like. Cato blog, “More Industrial Policy Won’t Solve the Jones Act’s Many Problems”Op-ed in The Atlantic, “The Obscure Maritime Law That Ruins Your Commute”

Last week, TikTok CEO Shou Chew appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee for a marathon hearing focused on national security and other concerns with the popular social media app. His goal was to assuage lawmakers’ concerns, but, if anything, the app’s future in the United States looks more bleak than ever. But how likely is an outright ban or divestiture from TikTok’s Beijing-based parent company ByteDance? Would these measures truly solve the national security risks? And what are the political and legal implications? Evan is joined by FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr to discuss.References:House Energy and Commerce hearingTwitter thread by Carr responding to Chew’s written testimonyPress conference with Rep. Jamaal Bowman and TikTok creatorsVariety report with analyst predictions on likelihood and timeline of a ban or divestitureVice report on TikTok pushing suicide videos to teenagersThe Hill report on DoJ investigating TikTok over surveillance of journalistsClip of MSNBC analyst advocating a broader approach to Chinese apps

For many, their first thought about blockchain or cryptocurrency has to do with crime, scams, or the infamous meltdown of FTX. But the implications of blockchain technology go far beyond the breathless headlines. Consider data privacy. Governments around the world are increasingly trying to protect the privacy of Internet users, particularly when it comes to so-called “free” services like YouTube and Instagram which are supported by targeted advertising. While governments have struggled to get a grip on user privacy with these services, our guest today says that decentralized tech like cryptocurrency can radically alter how data privacy must be tackled. Luke Hogg is Director of Outreach at Lincoln Network, focusing on the intersection of emerging technologies and public policy. Read his paper on Web 3 and data privacy, co-authored with Antonio García Martínez.

Most people don’t think about global shipping and supply chains until a crisis spotlights these issues—from the hurricanes in Puerto Rico to the COVID-19 pandemic. But while the debate over cargo transport doesn’t often reach the kitchen table, it’s been going on for years in policy circles in Washington, with powerful interests involved on all sides of the debate. It traces back to the 1920 Jones Act, passed in the wake of World War I after German submarines had decimated American commercial ships. While the law was intended to bolster U.S. shipbuilding, has the law failed to achieve its goal? Critics argue it makes shipping more complicated and expensive, raising prices for consumers. Proponents respond that it's essential for national security and preserving domestic shipbuilding capacity. Should the law be repealed, left alone, or reformed? Gabriela Rodriguez, Policy Advisor at American Compass, joins the show to discuss. Follow Gabriela on Twitter here.References: Gabriela’s piece, “The Ghosts of Navies Past: Rebooting the Jones Act for the 21st century”

For years, businesses have been “moving to the cloud.” Instead of relying on servers and hardware located at offices, companies are increasingly using third parties like Microsoft and Oracle for their workplace needs—from analyzing sales data to communicating with coworkers. Congress and regulators are increasingly focused on tech policy issues like digital privacy and the size of Big Tech companies. But one area that gets much less attention is our topic today: cloud software licensing. Has software licensing become too restrictive and anti-competitive? If so, how does that impact consumers and businesses? How should policymakers respond? Evan is joined by Ryan Triplette, Executive Director of the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing. References:Report in FedScoop, “Major government tech contractors use monopolistic vendor-lock to drive revenue, study says”Statement from the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing on a new complaint against Microsoft in Europe

The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the ensuing war put energy policy in the global spotlight. The dependence of European nations like Germany on Russian oil and gas played a significant factor in Putin’s aggression and continues to finance the Kremlin’s war effort. In the U.S., Republicans and Democrats continue to spar over our energy future. Many Democrats want a “Green New Deal,” while Republicans accuse the Biden administration of curtailing domestic oil and gas production. My guest, Alec Stapp, argues that an agenda of energy abundance can solve seemingly intractable fights. He is the co-founder and co-CEO of the Institute for Progress, a non-partisan research and advocacy organization.Read Alec’s recent piece in The Atlantic, “Climate Relief Can’t Wait for Utopia”

There's turmoil at the Federal Trade Commission—the agency charged with protecting consumers and one of two agencies that deal with antitrust issues, such as promoting competition and preventing monopolies. Last week, Republican FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson announced her resignation in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, citing FTC Chairwoman Lina Khan’s alleged disregard for the rule of law and due process. What does this FTC drama mean for the agency’s efforts to rein in Big Tech? Are there broader implications for antitrust policy going forward? Evan is joined by Matt Stoller, Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project. He is also the author of Goliath: The Hundred Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy. You can read his work on his Substack, “BIG” at MattStoller.Substack.com.

Cyber attacks are on the rise, but this will come as no surprise to most Americans. It seems the news is always full of stories about a major data breach or ransomware attack. It's not just your imagination—studies show attacks have risen sharply in the past couple of years. In the wake of a Chinese spy balloon flying over sensitive U.S. military sites, is the issue of cybersecurity ripe for the public attention it deserves? Evan is joined by Shane Tews, non-resident senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and host of the brilliantly-named podcast “Explain to Shane.” They discuss the state of the nation’s cyber hygiene and what companies and governments can be doing differently to secure our data.Verizon report found ransomware attacks rose 13% in 2022, more than the prior five years combinedCheck Point report that global cyber attacks increased 28% in the third quarter of 2022 year over yearForeign Affairs oped by CISA Director Jen Easterly and Assistant Director Eric Goldstein calling for companies to build better cybersecurity into their productsGovernment Accountability Office report on “federal actions urgently needed to protect the nation’s critical infrastructure”

The debate over whether and how to regulate social media has been boiling for years. The Supreme Court may have the final say, but will a ruling address mounting complaints with how these platforms work, from misinformation to censorship? Evan is joined by Richard Reisman, founder of Teleshuttle Corporation, an innovation studio based in New York City. He argues that fixing social media requires a fundamental rethink that moves us past the firehoses and filter bubbles that most Americans experience online. Can social media be more like bars, churches, and clubs where people filter their experiences in the physical world? And what’s the difference between freedom of expression and freedom of impression?“Delegation, Or, The Twenty Nine Words That The Internet Forgot,” by Richard Reisman and Chris Riley in Tech Policy Press“Clubhouse, a Tiny Audio Chat App, Breaks Through,” by Erin Griffith and Taylor Lorenz in New York Times“Free Speech Is Not the Same As Free Reach,” by Renee DiResta in WIREDSmartly Intertwingled, Richard Reisman's blog"Into the Plativerse through Fiddleware," by Richard Reisman

“Environmental, social, and governance,” better known as ESG, has been a major topic of discussion in the business world. Proponents of ESG praise companies for efforts to reduce carbon emissions and make their workplaces more inclusive. Critics have charged that ESG is merely “woke capital,” a way that corporations leverage their power and wealth to advance leftwing policy priorities at the expense of fossil fuels and traditional values. Julius Krein, editor of American Affairs, says it’s a lot more complicated than a simple “left versus right” divide. He argues that Republicans need a better alternative to ESG than “shareholder primacy,” the free-market fundamentalism at odds with rising American populism. Can Republicans find an effective alternative to ESG?Read Krein’s piece in COMPACT, “Why the Right Can’t Beat ESG”Watch Senator Tom Cotton’s exchange with Kroger’s CEO

Is the Internet a force for freedom, or a tool for dictators to oppress their people? The answer largely depends on where you live in the world. For decades, U.S. policymakers have, for the most part, embraced the Internet as a tool to promote democracy. But China, Russia, Iran, and other nations have done the opposite: used the Internet to suppress, surveil, and manipulate people both within and beyond their borders. What is the U.S. doing to promote Internet freedom? Since 2012, the Open Technology Fund has supported projects designed to counter Internet censorship. But is the Fund up to the challenges we face today? And what backlash might the U.S. face by engaging in these activities? Joining Evan to discuss is Dan Lips, Head of Policy at Lincoln Network and former FBI analyst and Homeland Security staffer in Congress. See Dan's white paper on OTF here.ReferencesFreedom House report that shows global Internet freedom has declined for 12 consecutive years.

Note: This episode was recorded prior to the completion of Elon Musk's Twitter takeover. There are few debates in tech policy as heated as the debate over what content or “digital speech” is allowed on the Internet. Proponents of more “content moderation” say it’s really just about taking down posts that create real-world harm. Critics say the term is little more than a euphemism for censorship. With Congress deadlocked on whether and how to regulate social media, state capitols and the courts have begun to fill the void. What do these bills and cases mean for the future of social media and online speech? Will the Supreme Court have the final say? Is there a role for agencies like the Federal Communications Commission? And what impact will Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter have? Evan discussed all that and more with Brendan Carr, the senior Republican commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

If you’re the parent of a teenager, you might lament the hours they spend scrolling through videos on TikTok. But other than being a time suck, it may seem harmless, right? Not according to a growing chorus of policymakers who say, given TikTok’s relationship with the Chinese government, the app needs to be banned, or seriously curtailed, to protect America. So how could cute dances, animal videos, and influencers be a threat to national security? Evan is joined by Geoffrey Cain, Senior Fellow for Critical Emerging Technologies at Lincoln Network and author of The Perfect Police State: An Undercover Odyssey into China's Terrifying Surveillance Dystopia of the Future. They discuss the changing relationship between China and the U.S., the evolving policy debate over TikTok and its parent company ByteDance, and the geopolitical implications of potential U.S. government action against the popular app.

What is dynamism? The dictionary will tell you, “the quality of being characterized by vigorous activity and progress.” But aside from being an SAT word, “dynamism” is an ethos that pervades the technology sector in the U.S., particularly in Silicon Valley. In recent years, has America lost its dynamist edge? Sure, we get a new iPhone every year, but where are the major, disruptive leaps we associate with tech-driven innovation? Evan is joined by Zach Graves, Executive Director at Lincoln Network. They discuss the state of tech and tech policy in the U.S., how the rise of China implicates traditional view of free markets and industrial policy. Can bridging the gap between engineers in tech hubs and policymakers in Washington and state capitols help make America more dynamist?