-
2 months ago | 
a16z.com | Matt Perault |Chris Dixon |Olivia Moore |Justine Moore
Governments have long regulated technology based on how it’s used, not how it’s made. No single law regulates how computers are built, for instance, but if a person uses a computer to commit a crime, or a company uses a computer to harm a consumer, then the perpetrator is held liable.
-
Sep 25, 2024 | 
lawfaremedia.org | Matt Perault
More than two years before the public release of ChatGPT, one of us wrote an article in this publication (based on a longer law review article) about the extensive literature showing that humans exhibit a strong bias against algorithms.
-
Sep 10, 2024 | 
lawfaremedia.org | Matt Perault
“The sky has not fallen,” said Justice Samuel Alito in June’s Moody v. NetChoice concurring opinion, describing the impact of the European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA). But is he right? Policy debates often focus on predictions of impact: If a proposed law is enacted, what will the effect be? As Justice Alito’s comment demonstrates, legal actors frequently frame these predictions in absolutes: The sky will, or will not, fall. Short of disaster, he suggests, a law is perfectly adequate.
-
Sep 6, 2024 | 
lawfaremedia.org | Matt Perault |Jen Patja
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
It’s been a busy week in the world of social media and technology platforms. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent an odd letter to the House Judiciary Committee apparently disclaiming some of his company’s past content moderation efforts. Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France on a wide range of charges involving an investigation into the misuse of his platform.
-
Sep 3, 2024 | 
lawfaremedia.org | Matt Perault
The Federal Bureau of Investigation leads the world in jawboning governance. While law enforcement agencies may not be known for transparency or self-governance, the FBI now stands alone among federal agencies in publicly communicating self-imposed rules on its communications with tech platforms. In guidance posted on the FBI’s website on Aug. 1, the bureau outlined its approach to communicating with social media platforms about content they host.
-
Aug 26, 2024 | 
newsbreak.com | Matt Perault
By signing up for our newsletter, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy PolicyIt’s essential to note our commitment to transparency: Our Terms of Use acknowledge that our services may not always be error-free, and our Community Standards emphasize our discretion in enforcing policies.
-
Aug 26, 2024 | 
promarket.org | Matt Perault
Matt Perault writes that there is little indication that Big Tech investments in artificial intelligence startups are harming competition. In fact, the opposite is likely true. Antitrust regulators should instead focus their attention on the real threat to AI competition: rules and regulations that will make it harder for startups that to compete with large tech companies.
-
Jul 23, 2024 | 
lawfaremedia.org | Matt Perault |Alexander Macgillivray |Jen Patja
Alan Rozenshtein, Associate Professor at the University of Minnesota Law School and Senior Editor at Lawfare, and Matt Perault, the Director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, sat down with Alexander Macgillivray, known to all as "amac," who was the former Principle Deputy Chief Technology Officer of the United States in the Biden Administration and General Counsel at Twitter.
-
Jun 28, 2024 | 
lawfaremedia.org | Daniel Byman |Benjamin Wittes |Kate Klonick |Matt Perault
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
On June 26, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Murthy v. Missouri—the “jawboning” case, concerning a First Amendment challenge to the government practice of pressuring social media companies to moderate content on their platforms. But instead of providing a clear answer one way or the other, the Court tossed out the case on standing. What now?
-
Jun 26, 2024 | 
lawfaremedia.org | Matt Perault
“We begin—and end—with standing,” writes Justice Amy Coney Barrett in today’s Supreme Court decision in Murthy v. Missouri . This outcome is not surprising given the weak factual record in the case, but beginning and ending with standing means the Court declined to provide new guidance on when government speech qualifies as unconstitutional jawboning—that is, the practice of government officials pressuring social media companies to moderate content on their platforms.
