Tech Policy Podcast

Many legislators and policymakers want to ban TikTok from the United States. They claim that the wildly popular social media platform endangers American national security. Although the critics are making a lot of noise, their argument for a ban is surprisingly shaky. What concrete threat does TikTok pose? What First Amendment obstacles stand in the way of a ban? TechFreedom’s Corbin Barthold and Ari Cohn discuss.

What does China’s rise as a tech power mean for American national security? Jimmy Quinn, a writer for National Review, joins the show to discuss. He and Corbin debate the merits of a TikTok ban, consider the new House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, and explore other aspects of the recent uptick in Sino-American competition. For more, follow Jimmy’s work at National Review Online. Also, check out Tech Policy Podcast #337: China and Domestic Surveillance.

Correction: At 17:30, Corbin refers to “Senator Warren.” For once, he did not, in fact, mean to criticize Senator Elizabeth Warren. His intended target was Senator Mark Warner.

State governments are passing laws that seek to protect kids from social media. But maybe what we really need is to protect kids—and the Internet—from the government. Mike Masnick, founder and editor of Techdirt, joins the show to discuss California’s AB 2273, Utah’s SB 152 and HB 311, and the wider hysteria over minors and social media use. For more, see Mike’s recent article, “As The Social Media Moral Panic Continues, People Keep Highlighting How Much Value It Actually Provides.”

The Federal Trade Commission is making a lot of headlines. Much of that news revolves around the agency’s notable antitrust cases—such as its efforts to block Meta’s purchase of Within, to break up Facebook and Instagram, and to block Microsoft’s purchase of Activision. How aggressive is the FTC’s approach? What is its plan? Our guest is Bilal Sayyed, senior competition counsel at TechFreedom. He explains where the agency’s antitrust policy breaks new ground—and where it does not.

Three major Internet speech disputes are at, or barreling toward, the Supreme Court. In Gonzalez v. Google, the justices will consider the scope of Section 230. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, they will decide whether a company can be compelled to design a website against its will. And if they grant review (as expected) in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, the justices will rule on whether large social media platforms have a First Amendment right to editorial discretion. How do these cases fit together? Your humble host, Corbin Barthold, Internet Policy Counsel at TechFreedom, tries to figure it out.

Thanks to advancing technology, the police can now easily and cheaply monitor public spaces and identify, profile, and track individuals. Can the Fourth Amendment protect us from sweeping government digital surveillance? Nathan Wessler, a deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, joins the show to discuss. For more, check out the ACLU’s cert. petition in Moore v. United States, which argues that the police need a warrant to conduct 24/7 camera surveillance outside a home.

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.