0:00

So Kat, I will admit that I've

0:02

always thought it would be cool to do

0:04

journaling, daily journaling, and keep

0:06

up with all the stuff that I'm doing, and I've never

0:09

actually done it. however,

0:11

I know that Apple. Has a journaling

0:14

app, and if you log in and

0:16

use that journaling app, it gives you various

0:18

prompts to try and inspire you,

0:20

unlike me to actually do some

0:23

daily journaling. So I'm going to ask you one

0:25

of those for the start of today's podcast,

0:27

and that is what's something that made

0:29

you smile today?

0:31

So I know this prompt because

0:33

I know every journaling app on the planet

0:36

because I have unsuccessfully

0:39

attempted to be a journaler for.

0:42

Low so many years and it still doesn't

0:44

work no matter, no matter what. And

0:47

so, you know what I'm gonna say? What's making

0:49

me smile today right now is

0:51

the memories of how many

0:53

times I have tried

0:56

and then failed and tried, like with such heartfelt

0:58

intention. Really. I mean, just

1:00

such deep intention to be

1:03

one of those people that writes and reflects.

1:05

On a daily basis and really, and catalogs

1:08

how my life is going. and

1:10

I, I never make it past maybe

1:12

two weeks, but

1:15

I have, I have one or two weeks of journaling

1:17

every few years going back

1:19

to like the nine, like early nineties.

1:22

well, well, well, well, maybe this will, push you over

1:24

the edge and convince you to finally start

1:26

journaling.

1:27

It turns out there's an app for that. Right. What

1:31

about you? What made you smile today?

1:33

Oh, I think having you on the podcast as our

1:35

guest host today has made me smile, so I

1:37

think we'll have lots of, lots

1:39

of fun discussions.

1:41

I was once described to someone who didn't know

1:43

me but had to meet me. A mutual friend said

1:45

she's brunette and very smiley, and

1:50

that was like all they got and they found me right

1:52

away.

1:53

There we go. There we go. Hello

2:03

and welcome to Control Alt Speech,

2:05

your weekly roundup of the

2:07

major stories about online speech, content

2:09

moderation, and internet regulation.

2:12

Today is March

2:14

6th, 2025, and on this week's

2:16

episode. Which is brought to you

2:18

with financial support from the future of online

2:20

trust and safety fund. We will be

2:22

trying to take a broader look at, well,

2:25

I think everything that's going on in

2:27

the world and what that means

2:29

for the online speech space. as

2:31

you can tell, Ben is away

2:33

this week, and so we have

2:35

our wonderful guest host, Kat

2:38

Duffy, who you have just been introduced to

2:40

as the smiling brunette. She

2:44

is also the senior fellow

2:46

for digital and cyberspace policy

2:49

at the Council on Foreign Relations

2:51

and the CEO of Right

2:53

Stuff Strategies. And so,

2:55

welcome to the podcast. We are very excited

2:58

to have you.

2:59

Thanks, Mike. I'm super excited to be here. Any,

3:01

any afternoon where I get to chat with you is a good one.

3:05

Excellent. So with that sort of happy,

3:07

fun, introduction and, getting

3:09

started, let's, let's dive into

3:11

the darkness.

3:12

Let's move directly into existential doom, shall we?

3:15

Yeah. So we were sort

3:17

of talking about what, what. Things we wanted to talk

3:20

about this week. and we have a bunch of

3:22

stories, but I think there were some, framing

3:24

that we wanted to put on this. I,

3:27

I, I think was the way that we were talking about, because

3:29

both of us in the last week or so,

3:32

have written pieces that sort of try and explore

3:34

the moment we're in and sort of the, broader

3:36

impact of it is that a fair assessment?

3:39

I, no, I think so. I think those of

3:41

us who come from this space, there's a lot of,

3:44

dot connecting that we feel

3:46

is imperative to do right

3:49

now, because we're seeing so many,

3:51

folks who don't. Come from

3:53

the space, maybe not, putting things

3:55

together in quite the way that we've

3:57

seen it play out. And this is where,

4:00

you had sent some, you know, some articles

4:02

and things like that. The, the things that are happening this week,

4:04

and I had also been looking at, some things,

4:06

but yesterday on, you know, on LinkedIn,

4:09

it's your post on.

4:12

Why Tech Dirt basically has

4:14

to be a political blog right now, even if

4:16

it doesn't want to be, that I put

4:18

out on LinkedIn is like, this is my top read of

4:21

the day and I'm willing to bet it will be my top read

4:24

of the week. and so I'm gonna take

4:26

guest host privilege here to

4:28

embarrass you because,

4:31

uh, I actually think it

4:33

was one of the clearest,

4:35

most important and most succinct articulations

4:38

of. This moment and what those

4:40

of us who come from tech and law and policy

4:43

and decades of it have

4:45

learned, that we need to be applying

4:47

Yeah.

4:48

right now to help explain the severity

4:50

of the sort of crisis that we're in and the

4:52

stakes of it. So I think

4:55

that we should start by you

4:57

talking a little bit about what you wrote,

4:59

because it is truly the best articulation I've seen

5:01

to date. Far better I think,

5:04

than mine, which it came from a different lens, but.

5:06

we will get to yours as well, but thank you. That's,

5:08

that's very kind. and so I'll, I'll give

5:10

you just a little bit of the background. I

5:12

think it'll be interesting to sort of talk through kind

5:14

of my thinking on this, which is,

5:17

you know, and, Ben and I have certainly talked

5:19

about on the podcast, stuff that is

5:21

happening, stuff that has been happening ever since the election,

5:23

and obviously ever since the inauguration. And

5:26

how that is impacting

5:28

other stuff, and so I've been writing

5:30

a lot about. What is happening

5:32

with the US government these days? Uh,

5:35

and some of it is Donald Trump

5:37

related, but obviously a lot more of it I think is Elon

5:39

Musk related and sort of the position that he's

5:41

in, which is he is effectively running the government,

5:44

which is problematic. And, and I've had

5:47

a few people I. A lot of people have reached

5:49

out and been very supportive of what I've

5:51

been writing, but a few people have said

5:54

like, well, what, what is Tech

5:56

Dirt now? And we've always been a

5:58

very broad publication. going

6:00

back decades, people have yelled at me, stick to tech

6:03

when I was writing about policy

6:05

issues. and you

6:07

know, the argument has always been that I

6:09

started Tech Dirt many, many years

6:11

ago. with the belief, a very

6:13

optimistic belief in technology

6:17

and its ability to do good in the world. And

6:19

I still have that underlying belief

6:21

in me. But the thing that

6:23

I realized very early on, and

6:25

this does go back to really sort of some of the earliest

6:28

parts of Tech Dirt, was that to

6:30

make that reality, to make the technology

6:32

and the innovation be in a world

6:34

where it can do good and where it can

6:36

create a better world for everyone.

6:39

you need other things you

6:42

need. Structures and institutions

6:44

and framework which they fit, that you,

6:46

you don't have chaos, that you have stability

6:48

and you have understanding and especially

6:51

with the internet the sort of global

6:53

nature of the internet, that have

6:55

to have that sort of global perspective as well,

6:58

and that you want sort of a global stability

7:01

to enable all of the other stuff. I

7:03

would love to just be

7:05

writing about technology. You

7:07

know, now we've never been sort of like

7:09

a gadget blog or like a, you know,

7:12

review this internet service kind

7:14

of blog that was never, that was never a part

7:16

of Tech Dirt. I would love if we could get there,

7:19

I would love if the world were, we're

7:21

so boring and there was nothing

7:23

else going on that I could just say like,

7:26

oh, you know, here's this new AI tool.

7:28

Right. I would love to do that and just, look

7:30

at those things, but we can't

7:33

do that. If we don't have all

7:35

this other stuff in place. And

7:37

so I was sort of thinking about that

7:39

and thinking about people saying, what is sector

7:41

covering now if you're covering all this stuff that is sort

7:43

of US government based and, I just

7:46

put it into this article that basically said, this is

7:48

the story. We can't have those discussions.

7:50

We can't have any of those other things. the

7:53

entire entirety of, the US

7:55

government is being dismantled all

7:57

the other stuff fall. And it's not, it's, it's

7:59

not saying like, well, it is

8:01

partly saying that this is a priority, but

8:03

it's not saying like, we're ignoring these other things.

8:06

We're saying that without

8:08

a stable US government, without

8:10

stable institutions, without a stable

8:12

understanding of. global

8:15

world working together on

8:17

important projects for humanity

8:19

and human rights or whatever other

8:21

stuff doesn't, it doesn't come into being,

8:23

Mm-hmm.

8:24

there are people currently

8:26

who supported this regime and

8:28

still do. And you know, some

8:30

of the, the Doge folks who seem to think

8:33

that the institutions and

8:35

the global infrastructure and all of that

8:37

don't matter and that because

8:40

they're uniquely brilliant.

8:43

This is very much in their own heads you

8:47

have to wipe away the institutions because

8:49

the institutions are holding them back and

8:52

then they, through their unique, lone

8:55

inventor, lone genius

8:58

ability build the better world.

9:00

Mm-hmm.

9:01

And that's not how the world works. And

9:03

so I thought that was just sort of important

9:06

to call out. Then with

9:08

it was the idea that, the folks

9:10

who have been doing the best coverage

9:12

of this, of the moment that we're

9:14

in by far, have been the people

9:17

who have been in the sort of tech, tech policy

9:19

legal worlds.

9:21

Mm-hmm.

9:22

Because we've been watching some of this play

9:24

out, most specifically with

9:26

Twitter, right. and what Elon Musk

9:28

did to Twitter over the last three years. We

9:31

saw this and that's why like the reflection

9:33

and a lot of people pointed this out, I'm certainly not the only

9:35

one to have seen this. Like he is using

9:37

the Twitter playbook, play by play.

9:40

Exactly. Except that when

9:42

he did with Twitter, he owned Twitter.

9:44

Mm-hmm.

9:45

And it was frustrating because I liked Twitter

9:47

and I found it useful back in the day.

9:49

I no longer do, But you know, whatever

9:52

it goes away. Other stuff

9:54

comes up, we can do that. The

9:57

US government is different. One, he doesn't own it.

10:00

Two, he has no, no, authority

10:02

to do this no matter what people say.

10:04

and then three, it's, it's the US government,

10:07

it's, it's not, it's not a social media network.

10:10

and,

10:11

it's absolutely, and it's not. And it's not just

10:13

what's happening, it's not simply the domestic

10:15

ramifications of it, right? It's that the US

10:18

being a functional, trustworthy.

10:21

Country where rule of law is respected

10:23

and democracy is intact, and checks

10:25

and balances exist, that

10:27

is a linchpin to an international

10:30

order in which business can

10:32

thrive and in which innovation can

10:34

occur. And you know, I

10:37

many years, I think in looking at

10:39

the sort of, in particular the kind of rise

10:41

of the tech billionaires. I

10:43

have seen in this sort of increasingly

10:46

libertarian anti,

10:48

it's not even just anti governance, but anti-government

10:51

focus, right? Is that,

10:54

if you're building a company, if you're,

10:56

you know, an investor, if you're private equity, if you're a corporation,

10:59

your incentives are investor risk. They're

11:01

essentially managing for investor risk. Government's

11:04

job is to manage for societal risk,

11:06

Right.

11:07

and managing for investor risk and managing

11:09

for societal risk do not necessarily align

11:12

Right.

11:13

nicely. And so

11:16

the people who get hurt are

11:18

the individual that every day,

11:20

you and me, folks, right? Everyday

11:23

Americans, because you need.

11:26

Government in there, making sure that American

11:28

innovation and American business

11:30

is going to serve both

11:32

American interests, but ideally also

11:34

democratic norms. I think about

11:36

it sometimes as sort

11:38

of an aquifer. That the way

11:41

that we think about democratic principles,

11:43

the way that we think about rule of law, a relative

11:45

lack of a kleptocracy, right?

11:47

There's, you know, some grifts that, you

11:49

know, we can talk about campaign finance all day, but,

11:52

you know, overwhelmingly

11:53

not perfect.

11:55

the system is not perfect, but overwhelmingly,

11:58

other countries can trust, for example, that

12:00

American courts. Will

12:02

operate the way that American courts are supposed to

12:04

operate and other countries can trust

12:06

that America does have checks and

12:09

balances and will have swings and vagaries

12:11

in its political system, but will not

12:13

overnight trash decades,

12:15

if not centuries of political alliances

12:18

and trust. Right.

12:20

They could believe that.

12:21

yeah, and, and suddenly, you know, become

12:23

a hostile actor towards, you know,

12:25

our longstanding partners. Allies.

12:29

And so when you think about this

12:31

sort of, I think of the aquifer

12:33

of democratic norms of rule

12:35

of law, of constitutionality, like

12:37

the political and economic stability

12:39

that is the bedrock. America's

12:42

success in the world. America's geopolitical

12:44

primacy, America's ability to

12:47

bring in talent, America's ability to

12:49

support capital flows, to support innovation.

12:52

All of that is based on

12:54

this aquifer underpinning

12:56

it of our core democratic

12:59

principles. And the more that

13:01

we pump those out.

13:03

Yeah.

13:04

Right. We just, I just feel like they're getting siphoned

13:06

out and just thrown away. The

13:08

more that I, I worry that that bedrock,

13:11

that political and economically stable foundation

13:13

that is getting shakier and shakier and shakier,

13:16

and we're starting to see sinkholes. And

13:18

what I really struggle to understand

13:20

in this moment is the degree to which American

13:23

business in particular, and not

13:25

like, the tech, ad.

13:27

Data harvesting economy, like

13:30

not those global digital platforms, but

13:32

business writ large. I don't understand

13:35

why businesses writ large are

13:37

not standing up much

13:39

more forcefully right

13:41

now and saying, we

13:43

need that bedrock in

13:46

order to continue to survive and

13:48

thrive and this

13:51

degree of instability. is not only

13:53

threatening it, but is, riddled with

13:55

unforced errors that aren't a result

13:57

of strategy, but I would say of

13:59

optics and, vengeance

14:01

and, um, yeah,

14:03

it's, you know, it's a, if this

14:06

is masculine energy, like no thank

14:08

you and I'm not,

14:10

I'm not here for it. Like find me

14:12

some other energy. Uh, right.

14:16

And so. you know, one of the things

14:18

that I had talked about in the article

14:20

that I wrote is how this attack on foreign assistance

14:23

and diplomacy and shrinking

14:25

America's scale in that regard

14:27

is gonna fundamentally hurt our ability

14:29

to deploy AI and be a first mover

14:32

in terms of building AI markets around

14:34

the world. Now, I come from foreign assistance,

14:36

and I come from diplomacy. I come from human

14:38

rights, I come from humanitarian rights. If

14:41

you had ever told me that I would be defending the

14:43

virtues. Of right,

14:45

of the importance of foreign assistance and

14:47

diplomacy because of AI market

14:50

deployment, I would've said, well, there's a lot of

14:52

other reasons that are more important to

14:54

defend it. But not

14:56

withstanding, we have

14:58

just violated agreements

15:02

and undercut trust in

15:04

200 countries. Around

15:07

the world, an enormous range

15:09

of markets we're pulling out of all sorts

15:12

of different elements and components of the international

15:14

order we've pulled out of the World Health

15:16

Organization. Right. and

15:18

so how exactly do you, for

15:20

example, if you're American Pharma, right?

15:22

And you're really trying to work

15:25

on like getting your new vaccine out

15:27

to the world, for example, and America's not

15:29

even a partner in the World Health Organization. What

15:32

does that mean for you and

15:34

what sort of opening does that create for China, which

15:36

is invested dramatically in achieving at

15:39

equal or greater scale

15:41

in terms of its own development model

15:43

and its own diplomatic model?

15:45

China has worked very hard for the last 15

15:48

years to overtake America. On

15:50

that front. And when China

15:52

does go into those markets, it

15:54

doesn't go in only to sell

15:56

a product. It also goes into

15:58

broker influence. And increasingly

16:01

with the us, absent China

16:03

will be able to exert influence that says,

16:05

and you can't buy American products and you can't

16:08

deal with American companies. And,

16:10

and, and, and so we're

16:12

seeding the ground for American

16:14

innovation, that has been laid over

16:16

of decades. Of work in

16:18

such a needless fashion. And I think

16:20

for someone who comes,

16:23

for folks like Elon or even the large global

16:25

digital platforms, because they

16:27

built out so many of their operations,

16:30

global digital, without boots on the ground, without

16:32

having to have local licenses, local markets

16:34

that telcos on the other hand really understand

16:37

the importance of those local relationships,

16:39

right? As do you know, supply chain businesses.

16:41

But I think the global digital platforms

16:44

underestimate. How important

16:46

that underpinning infrastructure is, and

16:48

that trust in American business is,

16:51

that our reach, our scale in

16:53

terms of diplomacy in particular,

16:56

gave the United States. And so this

16:58

to me is something where I, I think this is an incalculable

17:01

loss for American

17:03

entrepreneurs, for investors,

17:05

for multinationals, for

17:07

those who are striving to be. Multinationals,

17:10

their work just got much, much harder.

17:12

Yeah. and, we'll put it in the show notes, but

17:14

your piece was in foreign policy, magazine

17:16

and it's, it's really good. It's really looking at, in

17:18

particular the impact on the AI

17:21

market. of sort of killing off us.

17:23

A ID you know, one of the things,

17:25

this is also frustrating, but,

17:29

but, I mean, you talked about sort of the

17:31

difference between like investor risk and

17:33

societal risk, but I, I think

17:35

the point that both of us are making that is so important

17:37

is that like, if you destroy

17:40

societal risk, that's not good for investors,

17:42

right? and. it's especially not

17:44

good for global, any kind

17:46

of global business, any business that wants to be global.

17:49

And, you know, one of the amazing

17:51

things about the internet, and

17:53

I joke about this, like the first year

17:55

of Tech Dirtt in 1997

17:58

through 1998, again,

18:01

because I'm old, was. Basically

18:04

just stories about like, huh,

18:06

this internet thing, races,

18:08

all sorts of jurisdictional questions

18:10

Mm-hmm.

18:11

because it's this, it's a global thing.

18:13

And unlike, unlike almost

18:15

every other kind of business where like expanding

18:18

globally takes boots on the ground,

18:20

as you said, or, or some sort of effort, to

18:22

go globally with the internet, you were able

18:24

to go global immediately. And

18:27

historically the US

18:29

in particular had been

18:31

a very strong defender of a global

18:33

open internet. the state department,

18:36

for years has been, you know, a big,

18:39

did amazing things that got no credit

18:41

for

18:42

Yep. And across every administration,

18:44

this is a completely bipartisan, including

18:46

the first Trump administration. This has been a completely

18:49

bipartisan, longstanding

18:52

area that the United States has championed a free,

18:55

secure, open, interoperable internet.

18:58

We are the OGs of that concept.

19:01

and certainly like other countries have challenged

19:03

that and China being a big one with, with

19:05

its sort of great firewall and, other countries

19:08

over the last few years. I mean, I think the fracturing

19:10

of the global open internet has been

19:13

a concern, like a major concern.

19:15

But at least historically

19:18

you could sort of rely on the US government to

19:20

at least fight for it. and to, to raise

19:22

the issue of why this was so important. and

19:25

yes, like some of it was, because it helped

19:27

us businesses, right? I mean, so many of

19:29

these businesses that we're talking about are these

19:31

giant US companies, and

19:33

people have concerns about how big they are and how powerful

19:35

they are, and that's, that's reasonable. But,

19:37

what is shocking to me to bring

19:39

this back around is like. How come

19:41

those businesses are, are on board with this?

19:44

do they not realize, I mean, Elon

19:46

Musk I don't think understands anything at this

19:48

point, but does Mark Zuckerberg

19:51

and Jeff Bezos not

19:53

realize that doing this

19:55

undermines the bus? They rely

19:58

on a global internet. They are global

20:00

internet businesses. Do they

20:02

not realize how completely

20:04

dismantling. This substrate,

20:07

bedrock, whatever you wanna call it, that

20:09

it undermines their ability to have

20:12

global internet businesses.

20:13

it feels to me that there has been

20:16

an increasing and rather

20:18

astonishing degree

20:20

of hubris, you

20:24

know, to some degree, if you have. A

20:27

company the size of meta or the size

20:29

of Amazon, or, and I don't wanna put

20:31

Google and Microsoft in these same categories because those are

20:33

much more mature companies. I,

20:35

I would argue they, they have

20:37

come with these issues with greater seriousness

20:39

and maturity. But you know, when

20:42

you look at the Bezoses and you look

20:44

at the Zuck and you look at the Elon's

20:46

and you're looking at what Bezos is doing with the

20:48

Washington Post right now, my gut feeling

20:51

is that they think that they have enough money and enough

20:53

power and enough scale

20:55

Right,

20:55

that they essentially are techno states and

20:57

they can go their own way. I mean, meta was, you know,

20:59

Facebook was trying to lay its own cable,

21:01

right? All around. The Africa so

21:03

that it would just have its own pipelines to go

21:06

over. So they have sort of converted

21:08

themselves in their brains into their own

21:10

techno states, and they're the CEOs of, you

21:12

know, they're the presidents of their own techno states and

21:14

it is their job to essentially

21:17

pursue their company's interests

21:19

and that operates in a vacuum. What

21:21

is really interesting to me is

21:24

the VCs and the major investors

21:27

Who have invested so much in building

21:29

out new companies, right? Trying

21:31

to find new unicorns. Those,

21:34

you know, quote unquote little tech. I mean, little

21:37

tech, billions of dollars, right? But

21:39

all of those companies

21:43

benefit from taxpayer

21:45

dollars going to

21:47

a US global presence that

21:49

promotes. US industry

21:52

promotes US business and helps

21:54

create glide paths for its

21:56

deployment across markets. And

21:58

so to me, I understand sort of why the

22:00

incumbents are, bending

22:02

the knee to the degree that they are. What I don't

22:04

understand is the

22:06

many, many, many other actors where I

22:08

don't really actually see where there are financial incentives.

22:12

Or their power,

22:13

Right.

22:14

is aligned with the current

22:16

state of affairs. I

22:18

just, I don't, I don't get it.

22:20

Yeah, I mean the framing that you hear from them.

22:23

and I unfortunately have spent a

22:25

little too much time paying attention to what they're saying.

22:27

and I regret it every time. But I feel like I need

22:29

to, I, I need

22:31

to understand what they're saying. You know, their

22:34

framing is, I. this is maybe

22:36

gonna sound like a tangent, but I, I sometimes

22:38

wonder if any of these people have ever played chess.

22:40

Right. So, like, I'm not a good

22:42

chess player. my kid is a very good

22:44

chess player, and I sort of stopped once

22:47

he was able to, to beat me consistently. Um,

22:50

and embarrassingly

22:51

Way to, way to way to be a role model Mike way

22:53

yeah.

22:55

way to model as parents, right?

22:57

Just, oh, you got better at me. I'll quit.

22:59

Oh man, there's, there's the internet. You

23:01

can, you can play on chess.com and

23:04

you'll find people who, who are your level.

23:07

'cause I I continued

23:09

to play for a while, but it was, it was when

23:11

it got embarrassing where, where every

23:13

game was basically him

23:16

saying, how did you not see that as

23:18

he destroys me in like five

23:20

moves.

23:21

Yeah.

23:21

Anyways, so I'm not good at chess, and so I'm

23:23

not claiming to be good at chess. But there, you know, the

23:25

most basic concept of how you play chess

23:28

is that you look multiple moves

23:30

ahead, right? and there was a great

23:32

book, which I gave to my son

23:34

when he first started playing chess. which

23:36

is why he's now much better than me. That, the whole

23:39

point of it is, teaching you to look ahead.

23:41

And everybody always says like, oh, like the great chess players

23:43

can look like seven moves ahead, which apparently is garbage.

23:46

Like nobody can actually do that. But this book

23:48

really focused on like learn just

23:50

to look 1.5 moves ahead.

23:52

That was like the whole framing of the book. you're

23:54

not gonna be able to look multiple moves ahead,

23:57

but before you make a move, figure

23:59

out what the response is going to be and

24:02

like, that's it. that's the starting point. This is

24:04

a, basic, Beginner level chess

24:06

book. And the thing that I'm seeing

24:08

with all of these is that none of

24:10

them seem to be able to think what is

24:12

the blowback? what is the response to this?

24:14

and think in a, in a broader way. And

24:16

so the stories that they tell are

24:19

very much, that. regulations

24:22

are holding us back, or antitrust

24:24

laws is holding us back, which is garbage. Like none

24:27

of the, VCs are being held back by antitrust

24:29

law. Uh, you know, maybe at

24:32

the very, very extremes, they could argue

24:34

because of, greater antitrust enforcement,

24:37

the buyers of their, not super

24:39

successful companies are limited.

24:41

You know, I. Meta can't buy

24:43

the company. That didn't become the next meta.

24:46

Google can't buy whatever. but you

24:48

know, that is a minor thing. In

24:50

the big scheme of things, these VCs are always

24:52

going for, they want their companies to become

24:54

the next meta or the next Google or whatever,

24:57

but they seem to think that like. Wiping

24:59

out all regulations will help make

25:01

that possible. And I understand the sort of

25:04

libertarian mindset, you know, sort

25:06

of anti-regulation stuff and like, my

25:08

role on this podcast Ben is here

25:11

is normally to be the guy pushing back on

25:13

bad regulations. will

25:15

speak out about bad regulations, but

25:18

that doesn't mean that like you

25:20

want no regulations at all. Like

25:22

there are important regulations and there are

25:24

important infrastructure. Like I view it

25:26

as infrastructure that give you the rules

25:29

of the road that explain to you how these things

25:31

work. And they seem to have taken

25:33

this idea that was like, especially

25:35

in like the cryptocurrency space

25:38

and in the AI space. and

25:40

like there were some politicians who I think went

25:42

overboard on both of those and said like,

25:44

well, have to like prevent

25:47

anything bad from happening. and I think

25:49

a lot of that was an overreaction

25:51

to, I. felt that they didn't

25:53

do enough with social media. Social

25:56

media went bad and became

25:58

evil or however they wanna put it. And

26:00

so now we have to be much more proactive.

26:03

the new round of technology

26:05

needs to have like strong regulatory

26:08

safeguards in place from the very beginning. and

26:10

I, I understand that, that, you know, I

26:12

don't think that makes sense because I think. It

26:14

helps to understand you learn how the technologies

26:16

work and you learn where the problems are if

26:18

you allow them to, to be created, but like recognizing

26:21

that you should go about it thoughtfully is

26:24

important and. A bunch of these

26:26

VC guys were just like, no. Anyone

26:28

trying to tell us any sort of regulatory approach

26:31

or even thinking about will this harm

26:33

people? You know, will this

26:35

cause other problems? Like we shouldn't even

26:37

have to think about any of that and

26:39

therefore, we're just gonna take a stance

26:41

that allows us to do anything. And

26:43

at best, they think that with a

26:46

sort of Trump and, sort

26:48

of running the White House, that.

26:50

They can just push any, any sort of regulatory

26:53

oversight that might come their way out

26:55

of the way and, you know, just build

26:57

Right. But again, that just ignores all

27:00

of the important other stuff that we've been talking about.

27:02

Well, it's also, it's always interesting to

27:04

me the degree to which people talk about regulation

27:07

as a proxy for constraint, as

27:09

if all that governance can do

27:11

is to limit or to constrain as opposed

27:13

to empower. You know, when you look at the CHIPS

27:15

Act for example. you know, I think

27:17

most people would argue that is, that is regulation

27:20

or legislation, I should say that. Is

27:23

incredible for a lot of American business

27:25

and would really support American innovation

27:27

and would help the supply chain and will fuel,

27:30

you know, billions of dollars more money into research.

27:32

you know, again, then that's part of the ecosystem

27:34

that we've talked about, which then, builds both

27:36

talent and expertise that can get piped

27:39

into the private sector and fuel the innovation

27:41

economy. And so, this

27:43

idea that somehow

27:46

governing is antithetical

27:48

to progress. I would

27:50

argue that all creative processes

27:53

are served by some boundaries

27:58

you waste less time. There's more.

28:00

Yeah.

28:00

Efficacy. Right? Like taking, taking

28:02

away the societal impacts. Taking away

28:05

the risks. I do think it's,

28:07

fair to note that America is a

28:09

very weird duck because

28:11

of federalism. So you

28:13

like the fact that we have states rights and federal

28:15

rights, that is a very distinct

28:18

aspect of the US that

28:20

I think we tend to gloss over

28:23

a little more than we should. Taking

28:25

that away, let's just imagine.

28:28

How much easier it would be to build

28:30

a business if the United States

28:32

had had strong regulation

28:35

in place for decades around cybersecurity

28:38

and cybersecurity controls? Think

28:41

about, I mean, I think we hit 8.3 trillion

28:43

in ransomware last year.

28:45

Think about the amount of money that

28:48

our companies are spending patching.

28:51

Looking for VMs, trying to do cybersecurity

28:54

defense, you know, trying to bury

28:56

ransomware attacks, trying to

28:59

prevent phish, like there's so many,

29:01

you know, updating routers, not

29:03

knowing, which hardware or or

29:05

software is gonna be safe enough,

29:08

not truly being able to balance their risks.

29:10

Boards still don't fully understand how

29:12

to take on cybersecurity

29:15

risks, right? When they're thinking about broader

29:17

risk assessment. We would have

29:19

so much less wasted money and time

29:21

and so much less accumulated risk

29:24

had we had stronger cybersecurity protections

29:26

over the years that could serve as a baseline.

29:29

And so this is where, you know, you see this in aviation,

29:32

you see it in car safety. I mean, we

29:34

have a global financial system because

29:36

banks are probably the most regulated industry

29:39

on the planet. And banks

29:41

came together with governments, everyone

29:43

agreed like, you know, we're not super into money

29:45

laundering. we don't love it. It doesn't serve our

29:47

collective interests. And so now we

29:49

have a pretty effective and pretty

29:52

robust system that

29:54

operates across global financial markets

29:56

to counter. Money laundering. Does it prevent

29:58

all money laundering? No, of course not. Right.

30:01

But does it significantly

30:03

increase the amount of effort and time

30:05

and expertise required to

30:08

do it? It does. And does it significantly

30:10

increase the accountability? right,

30:12

or the punishment if you have engaged in it? It

30:14

does. It also improves your ability to have,

30:17

extradition. Agreements,

30:19

law enforcement, cooperation,

30:21

data sharing, right? All

30:23

of these other things that are consistent discussions

30:26

within the tech space, like

30:28

banks have been navigating that forever

30:31

and they work pretty much all over the

30:33

world

30:33

Yeah,

30:34

like.

30:34

though I, I mean, I'll revert to my,

30:36

my usual role and push back a little bit on

30:39

this, which is that also though, like. Banks

30:41

are not particularly innovative these days. Right?

30:44

No, no, no. Absolutely not.

30:46

And so there is like, this is part of the trade-offs

30:48

that we're thinking about in these things,

30:51

but you, you know, there is this middle ground,

30:53

right? And,

30:54

Well, this exactly I, this is like with crypto,

30:56

I think this is a very, I take

30:59

and respect the point from a lot of

31:01

people who are procr,

31:03

Yeah.

31:04

that it opens up a new world

31:07

of possibility, and it releases

31:09

entrenchment over different financial markets

31:12

and models. but also those

31:14

believers, the ones that I can engage with the

31:16

most heartily are also the ones who are the first

31:19

to acknowledge that you need.

31:21

Some controls, some agreement,

31:24

right? Some understanding if people are going

31:26

to rely on that technology and build on

31:29

top of it. And so it is this, there's this healthy

31:31

middle ground. I don't think it's a neither or

31:34

I think it's a yes and

31:35

Right. Yeah. And I mean, again, it's like

31:38

the internet exists because of the government

31:40

in the first place. Right.

31:41

yeah,

31:42

and there are. Kinds

31:44

as does ai.

31:45

Yes. Right. And, and there are all kinds

31:48

of regulations and, and subs that help

31:50

create that groundwork. And I would argue for example,

31:52

because I'm like the biggest section

31:55

two 30 fanboy, that there is

31:57

like, you know, I'm a big supporter

31:59

of section two 30. That is a regulation, but

32:01

that created the framework

32:03

for how. Internet companies

32:05

could moderate and could do trust

32:07

and safety and do so without facing lawsuits

32:10

for everything that they did. So you had

32:12

this sort of government regulation that,

32:14

set the, playing field and made it level

32:17

and made it so that you could have competition

32:19

and you could have experimentation. but

32:21

that takes some level of forethought.

32:24

Well, and, and also, and I, and then

32:26

I would counter that by saying like, yes.

32:28

And can you imagine how different

32:30

the attention economy would look if

32:32

we had had a federal data privacy law early

32:35

on,

32:35

Yeah.

32:36

right? Like, and had not had an entire

32:39

economy that was based on data harvesting and then

32:41

consequently engagement.

32:42

Yeah. Though though, again, I

32:44

like to, to be clear, like this is really, really difficult

32:47

stuff. I do think if we got a data

32:49

privacy law in like, let's

32:51

say 2004, it probably would've

32:53

been a terrible law because, we

32:56

wouldn't have even realized what it was that, like,

32:59

how to put in place the sort of proper regulations

33:01

for that. And so that's, that is

33:03

This is so, it's, it's so hard. Yeah.

33:05

No, I totally agree with you on the, the way

33:07

that. Deliberative governance,

33:10

deliberative and informed governance, and

33:12

the speed at which technology moves

33:15

like those two things are somewhat antithetical

33:17

Yeah. Right. I mean, this is, this

33:19

was like another point that I, I, other people

33:21

have raised, this is not a unique to me

33:24

viewpoint, which is like the way that the tech

33:26

world thinks is like I. Launch

33:28

and iterate and you're sort of continually iterating

33:30

and you launch and you realize there are bugs and you realize

33:32

things are gonna go wrong and break government

33:34

doesn't work that way. Now that is

33:37

apparently some of the way that Elon Musk

33:39

is thinking about government because he's just breaking

33:41

stuff and like, we'll patch it later

33:43

right,

33:44

without realizing like, you can't quite

33:46

do that for some of the

33:48

stuff that you're trying to do. But I understand

33:51

where that mindset is coming from because that is the tech

33:53

mindset. It's

33:54

yeah. But when you cut off the, you know, when you cut off

33:56

a Twitter corporate card? Versus

33:58

when you cover, when you cut off the corporate.

34:00

Cards of, of people who have to pay

34:03

for dry ice to keep

34:05

cooling specimens

34:07

that are, you know, key to

34:09

decades of scientific research. The

34:12

impacts of that decision are wildly

34:14

different. I don't particularly

34:16

care if anyone's corporate card at Twitter or

34:18

X gets cut off. Like,

34:21

I can, I can roll with whatever those ramifications

34:24

are. and so I, I think just to

34:26

go back to the, broader point in

34:28

terms of looking at the bigger picture,

34:31

this narrative that we're hearing come out

34:33

of the administration that is so, so, so anti

34:36

governance and regulation is also

34:38

very malaligned with where the rest

34:40

of the world sits. Uh,

34:44

and so, you know, you see this,

34:46

there was an article that we were talking about, you know, this

34:48

week that came out around. The criminal

34:50

rings that have been, you know, extorting

34:53

teenage boys who have then committed suicide,

34:55

but also these criminal gangs that

34:57

have been trafficking folks, you know,

34:59

they've been being held in Thailand and

35:01

Myanmar. There's been an outpost in Ecuador.

35:04

there is a real thirst within the international

35:06

community for normative consensus

35:09

on some of these issues. Right.

35:11

you saw this with The real uptick

35:13

on the UN Cyber Crime Convention,

35:16

which I think frankly the first

35:18

Trump administration was very wise to nip in the

35:20

bud. And then the Biden administration is

35:23

the one that took that on, because

35:25

it had been posited by Russia

35:28

and they were attempting to make sure

35:30

that Russia didn't run the table there. I know where they

35:33

were coming from, but what we ended up with is

35:35

a convention that doesn't actually serve business

35:37

or. Really do much to prevent

35:40

cyber crime.

35:41

can, can just, just for our listeners

35:43

who haven't followed, I've written about it

35:45

a few times and there there's some other writeups, but

35:47

can you just really quickly summarize what the

35:49

UN cyber crime, treaty is?

35:51

Are you suggesting that not everyone is paying attention

35:54

to UN treaties?

35:55

it is, it is possible. Uh,

35:57

so if, if we just had like a, the, the quick,

36:00

version of what it is, because it is really

36:02

important and it has sort of flown under the radar,

36:04

unfortunately. and it is very serious,

36:07

and I do not, I still do not understand

36:09

why the Biden administration went for it, but just

36:11

give a quick, quick summation of it.

36:13

Yeah, I would say this is, um, the

36:16

cyber crime. Convention

36:18

was, it's very law enforcement

36:20

driven. And the idea was essentially

36:23

that you need to be able to

36:25

have a treaty that allows countries to work

36:27

with each other on, battling

36:29

cyber crime. So battling ransomware,

36:31

battling fraud, right? Uh,

36:33

and that would include data agreements, extradition

36:36

agreements. All of these things sound

36:38

sort of like, they make sense. but the.

36:40

terms that are in there are very fuzzy

36:43

and they expose, in particular a lot of American

36:45

companies and a lot of American multinationals

36:47

to a really insane

36:49

amount of risk. And so in 25

36:51

years of doing tech policy, I have never seen,

36:54

such a unlikely

36:56

assortment of individuals

36:59

and companies who were against this particular

37:01

convention. Like when, when Maria Resa

37:03

and Meta agree on the same thing. That's

37:06

a sign, right? and so you

37:08

had literally, you

37:09

And just really, really quickly, again, for people

37:11

who don't know Maria ssa as a journalist in

37:13

the Philippines, who has been a, a huge

37:16

critic

37:16

huge critic

37:17

of meta. But anyways,

37:19

And of beta. But, so anyway,

37:21

It's rare in the United Nations

37:23

for a treaty to move quickly. This

37:26

happened in just a couple of years, which

37:28

again, for the United Nations is like warp speed.

37:30

It, it's very much on the pathway to getting

37:33

adopted. It's going to significantly

37:35

increase a lot of risk for American

37:37

businesses. America will never ratify it, but

37:39

lots of countries where American businesses have offices

37:41

will, and especially

37:44

in the age of ai, it creates a lot of risks

37:46

for people like AI researchers and

37:48

AI safety mechanisms, that

37:51

I think weren't foreseen in the drafting

37:53

of it. What's been really interesting,

37:56

About that convention though, is

37:58

that it's really coming from

38:00

this thirst that so many different

38:02

governments have to be able to deal

38:05

with cyber crime. Like there is uniform

38:08

consensus across governments

38:10

that this is not something that is healthy

38:12

or that most governments want to

38:14

support. and so there is a lot

38:16

that we could be leaning into

38:18

And yet,

38:20

And yet, instead, what we're doing is,

38:22

burning trust and burning

38:24

bridges with nations all over the world. And

38:26

you can agree or disagree that the United Nations

38:29

is like where things happen. But

38:31

for the G 77 or for like the lower

38:33

and middle income countries, in particular,

38:36

the United Nations is very much the place

38:38

where they feel like they have a voice.

38:40

Right.

38:41

and because it is to some degree, it's, you know, you're

38:43

whipping votes, right? And it's a vote count.

38:46

One of the things that China has leveraged particularly

38:48

well, over the past many years,

38:51

and Russia has to some degree, but China

38:53

in particular, has really

38:55

done a great job of building up its

38:57

alliances and its strength inside

38:59

that institution. And where you tend to see

39:01

American businesses kind of. Poo-pooing

39:04

the UN as it gets super slow and it doesn't

39:06

achieve anything and it's not important. I

39:08

think what that perspective misses is that

39:10

the UN is an incredibly easy space to co-opt

39:13

if you are strategic and if you are thoughtful

39:15

and intentional about doing so. And

39:17

so, we ignore it at our peril, not

39:19

because of what it can achieve, but

39:22

because of what can be achieved through

39:24

it by other actors who

39:26

are not acting in alignment with American interest.

39:28

And, and there have been a lot of efforts to do

39:31

so, I mean, beyond the cyber crime treaty, there

39:33

was, there were efforts, you know, a few

39:35

years ago through the ITU to effectively

39:37

sort of take over governance of

39:39

the internet in a process that was

39:41

really led by China and Russia as

39:43

well.

39:44

and you're seeing it now. I mean, there's,

39:46

there's something called WSIs, uh,

39:49

which is happening this summer. everyone

39:51

have fun with that acronym. Uh,

39:54

but essentially this is a global

39:56

gathering where, you know, historically you

39:58

sort of set. The standards for the

40:00

next 10 years of internet and internet

40:02

governance. And I can tell you that right

40:05

now, the United States and most

40:07

of the, you know, most of the democracies, most of the countries

40:09

that champion a true interoperable internet,

40:11

they're nowhere to be seen, right? They're too busy

40:13

dealing with everything that's, happening

40:16

with this administration. And so

40:18

they are not coming in with a strategy. Meanwhile, China

40:20

is very much. Driving a

40:22

strategy with the G 77

40:25

to show up in force and

40:27

in a way that risks a

40:29

much more splintered internet and internet

40:31

where the way that we've thought

40:33

about having a digital footprint,

40:36

is catastrophically undermined, and

40:38

people are not paying attention to that at all.

40:40

And so it's, we, we ignore these

40:42

things at our peril because of,

40:44

I think because we've gotten complacent. Frankly,

40:47

and we forget how hard the United States

40:49

worked to protect that for

40:52

decades as a top priority

40:54

in foreign policy.

40:56

speaking of which we're shift gears a little

40:58

bit, but it is kind of the same story in

41:00

a slightly different way. One of the other

41:02

things that you, pointed out was that

41:05

Jim Jordan, who Ben and Sis

41:07

is my best friend, has

41:10

sent subpoenas to a bunch of

41:12

the tech companies specifically

41:15

about their communications with

41:17

foreign countries regarding. Content

41:20

moderation on their services. Talking

41:22

about the eu, the uk, Brazil,

41:25

Australia, and have sent these

41:27

subpoenas to basically

41:29

all the, well, all the big

41:31

companies and a few small companies. So there's

41:33

Google, Amazon, apple Meta,

41:35

Microsoft, X also,

41:38

which is interesting, TikTok, and

41:40

then also Rumble, which is the,

41:42

um. YouTube for maga basically

41:44

if, if

41:45

Surprisingly not to truth social.

41:47

surprisingly not to truth social,

41:49

yeah, I wonder, I wonder why, um.

41:52

So basically demanding, making

41:55

a bunch of claims which are obvious nonsense,

41:57

claiming that Jim Jordan himself,

42:00

proved that the US

42:02

government and the Biden administration pressured

42:05

the companies into, taking down

42:07

conservative speech, which I keep

42:10

repeating it like this. Went to the Supreme

42:12

Court last year, and Amy Coney Barrett

42:14

wrote. Over and over again, there is no

42:17

evidence. You have no evidence

42:19

to support. This

42:20

not only did she write that, she wrote a footnote

42:23

that was so scathing

42:27

that every single, you know, all of us

42:29

with law degrees were like, oh my God, this is

42:31

like my nightmare. That somebody

42:33

that a Supreme Court justice would write a footnote

42:36

like that about, like, that's like you wake

42:38

up in sweats in law school fearing

42:41

that something like that would happen. It was,

42:42

I don't even remember the, the exact photo. Was this

42:44

the, like the lack of candor or there was something along

42:47

those lines right there. I forget the

42:49

was basic. It was basically the footnote that was

42:51

essentially like, normally

42:53

we wouldn't question appellate decisions unless

42:55

it's like such an

42:57

Right, right, right.

42:58

Like oversight. That in fact, no,

43:01

like this is indepen.

43:02

so he's now sent subpoenas and, and basically

43:05

said, companies have to share the,

43:07

communications and basically like, you

43:09

have to prove that you, stood

43:12

up against these censorship

43:14

demands. Is the way, it's framed.

43:17

And it'll be interesting to see,

43:20

like in the subpoenas, he, highlights

43:22

of course, X as being like the gold standard,

43:24

which is garbage. and just,

43:27

disconnected from reality, but then

43:29

also uses Zuckerberg's,

43:32

Spinelessness in making

43:34

claims now that Yes. Oh, the Biden

43:36

administration was too tough on him. that,

43:38

okay, those guys are standing up to them now

43:41

and you have to prove to Jim

43:43

Jordan now how these other companies are

43:45

supposedly standing up to, foreign attacks

43:48

on speech. And so this is kind

43:50

of mind blowing in its own way. The

43:52

fact that a. US official

43:55

thinks that, they can get the communications

43:58

between foreign governments related

44:00

to content moderation stuff, and

44:02

that it's framed in this way that is, again, just

44:04

completely disconnected from reality.

44:06

No, it's, I mean, you know why Oh, y oh, why did

44:08

he ever leave Ohio? I

44:11

mean, this is, uh, I

44:14

say as a mid-westerner, um,

44:16

it was really funny to me in the sort of press release

44:18

from the committee. There was a phrase,

44:21

you know, X has pushed back against lawless

44:23

judicial orders in Brazil and Australia

44:25

mandating global content takedowns. Now

44:28

you can absolutely

44:31

have a debate about whether

44:34

Brazil or Australia

44:36

have the right that a company

44:39

is required essentially to do a global

44:41

content takedown based on any one. Jurisdiction.

44:44

That is a completely fair discussion

44:47

to have. Right. But the idea

44:49

that they're lawless, judicial orders, you, you

44:51

can't have a law

44:53

Right.

44:54

like,

44:55

by definition,

44:56

just because you don't like the law doesn't make

44:58

it lawless. Right. And

45:00

so, you know, one of the things that I find really concerning

45:03

about this as well is also looking

45:05

at what happened with the information research

45:07

space and looking at. How

45:10

Jim Jordan in particular and his

45:12

committee have sort of weaponized their

45:14

subpoena powers in order to force

45:16

discovery, and essentially escalate

45:19

harassment. There is a very McCarthy

45:21

era

45:22

Oh yeah.

45:22

vibe to

45:23

is, he is the, the, the modern

45:25

McCarthy, right? I mean.

45:27

and this is something again where, you know,

45:29

you would hope, you know, the companies historically,

45:32

I, I can't speak as much For Amazon,

45:34

or Rumble. but at least

45:36

for, you know, for Meta, for Microsoft,

45:39

for Alphabet, I mean, I served on the board of a,

45:41

you know, a multi-stakeholder initiative called the Global Network Initiative

45:43

for five years, which is all about voluntary

45:46

principles. and I have reviewed

45:48

hundreds, if not thousands of pages of confidential

45:50

reports in, independent audits, going

45:52

through how the companies have responded

45:55

to. take down requests,

45:57

data requests from different governments

46:00

and historically where, you know, these companies

46:02

have complied with the voluntary principles and these companies

46:04

have said, meta very famously

46:07

agreed to censor more information in

46:09

Vietnam, and in its public statements,

46:11

explained that the Vietnamese government was either gonna

46:13

kick them out or they had to agree to censor more

46:16

content. And so meta agreed to censor more

46:18

content because they thought that. At

46:20

a net level, free expression

46:22

in the country would be served by them being a

46:24

platform in the country, rather

46:26

than not being in the country at

46:28

all. Now, also, it's a revenue generating

46:30

market for them. So, you know, there's that, but

46:33

that idea of like, well, at a net

46:36

level, free expression will be protected.

46:39

That's really where the discourse used to sit

46:42

And that's, that's an interesting place for the discourse

46:44

to sit. Like what is,

46:45

that's an important discussion, right? And I think it's,

46:47

it's a principled one. This,

46:50

you know, as you know, I like, I know you

46:52

had Renee dur Resta on recently, and I think

46:54

the way that Renee has talked about the memification of

46:56

free speech is such a, great

46:58

description of what has happened with this concept

47:01

and this slogan. And so we've ceased to be able

47:03

to have a principled. Debate about this,

47:06

that's based in either the first amendment or in,

47:08

article 19 from a human rights lens.

47:10

And instead we're having a, political

47:14

theatrics conversation that isn't

47:16

at all about free speech, but about

47:18

your power to control

47:21

that speech, which you don't like. And

47:23

there was also something about, the extent

47:26

to which the Biden Harris administration aided

47:28

or abetted. know, these efforts,

47:30

again, you know, this and the, like, may

47:33

I redirect everybody to the

47:35

jawboning executive order that the Trump

47:37

administration pushed out like well before

47:40

Biden. these companies are not neophytes,

47:44

you know, who are, who are being abused.

47:46

many of them have incredibly sophisticated

47:49

legal teams. They have incredibly sophisticated

47:51

processes. they're not fussed

47:54

by any particular country's

47:56

official, yelling at them,

47:58

Right. and a lot of them have, built

48:00

up, tremendous, skills and,

48:02

experience in pushing back on

48:04

countries that are doing things. You know, and

48:07

there are interesting conversations to be had about

48:09

how do you deal with that? And obviously like global takedowns,

48:12

like I've supported, companies pushing back

48:14

on global takedowns,

48:15

and interesting conversations too around like,

48:17

there's so much focus right now on the DSA, right?

48:20

And the DSA is also kind of being. In

48:22

foreign affairs is becoming a, point

48:24

of real tension in transatlantic relations

48:27

and where it used to be a point of tension

48:29

between the companies and Europe. It is

48:31

now a point of tension between the American government and

48:33

the eu, which is a new, issue

48:36

or a heightened issue, I should say now. And

48:38

what's interesting to me is that, again, the DSA is

48:41

really leveraging the, political.

48:44

Trojan Horse of the free speech, arguments

48:47

and debates like those have become

48:49

a hook

48:50

Yes.

48:51

that people are landing on when

48:53

in, fact, again, if you were looking at this from a principled

48:55

stance in terms of risks to American industry,

48:57

arguably the, DMA, the Digital Markets

48:59

Act is, going to be far more impactful than

49:01

the Digital Services Act. Would be, but

49:03

the Digital Services Act is a lot easier to sort

49:05

of package, and to put into

49:08

this free speech

49:10

container, which is actually

49:12

now being used to hold all

49:14

sorts of other fights and power

49:17

dynamics under the auspices

49:19

of a foundational rate.

49:20

Yeah. Alright. I think

49:22

on that happy note, I

49:26

think we can wrap this one up. you

49:28

know, this is a little bit of a different episode than we normally

49:30

do. We did, touch on a bunch of stories and we'll have, links in

49:32

the show notes, but I think we did

49:34

think it was important to understand the

49:37

framework in which we normally are thinking about

49:39

online speech and online regulations

49:42

and trust and safety in all of that is.

49:45

We're entering a different world, and it's important

49:47

to understand that world and how that matters.

49:49

And so I think this conversation was really useful

49:51

and at least for me, hopefully for

49:54

our listeners as well in, in

49:56

thinking through all of that. So, Kat, thank you so much

49:58

for stepping into Ben's shoes. you

50:00

didn't bring the British accent, but, uh, a

50:03

lot, a lot of, a lot of insight.

50:06

I did not, I won't, I won't sound if I,

50:08

if I could only have one, I would sound so much smarter,

50:10

you know.

50:10

There we go. That, that's the trick. The

50:12

British accent always helps. But, but, but thank

50:14

you so much for joining us and, thanks for a really interesting

50:17

conversation. And, uh, Ben will

50:19

be back next week and, we'll have another

50:21

one of these. So

50:22

Well, thanks for having me. I hope you go find other things

50:24

to smile about today.

50:26

There we go. All right.

50:27

All right. Have a good one.

50:32

Thanks for listening to Ctrl-Alt-Speech.

50:34

Subscribe now to get our weekly episodes

50:37

as soon as they're released. If your

50:39

company or organization is interested in sponsoring

50:41

the podcast, contact us by visiting

50:43

ctrlaltspeech.Com. That's

50:46

C T R L Alt Speech. com.

50:49

This podcast is produced with financial support

50:51

from the Future of Online Trust and Safety Fund,

50:54

a fiscally sponsored multi donor fund

50:56

at Global Impact that supports charitable

50:58

activities to build a more robust, capable,

51:00

and inclusive trust and safety ecosystem.