Tech Policy Press

The Supreme Court just effectively gutted two key laws for suing tech over human rights abuses, says Tech Justice Law's Madeline Batt. The result in Doe v. Cisco leaves companies and executives "less constrained by liability fears"—and victims with fewer pathways to redress. Read: https://lnkd.in/gUDmuEZv 

As social media age restrictions sweep across the globe, an eye-catching alternative to the Australia-style ‘hard’ ban has begun to gain traction within tech policy and regulatory circles. The notion of a presumptive or conditional ban, whereby social media platforms are banned until and unless they demonstrate that they are safe for children, is appealing. It embraces the political desire for bans, without giving up on the aspiration for safety-by-design. But worryingly, this proposal demands more of online safety regulators than they are today equipped to deliver. In my latest piece for Tech Policy Press, I explain why. 

The presumptive teen social media ban is gaining traction as the only viable alternative to a hard ban. But Owen Bennett argues it's a proposal made for a regulatory world that doesn't yet exist. https://lnkd.in/ekhcx5Ec

The United States government may reject a company's terms. What it may not do, argues Loyola Law's Simona Grossi, is "weaponize the machinery of national security to destroy a business for holding a view on a matter of public importance." https://lnkd.in/eWz8rsr7

The UN's inaugural Global Dialogue on AI Governance convenes in Geneva next week, and the stakes are high: what rights will anchor the future of how the world governs AI? The past several years produced exceptional progress on building AI governance around human rights. But this year's India AI Impact Summit was a missed opportunity: human rights language was largely absent from the New Delhi Declaration, with no accountability mechanisms attached. This matters more than ever as AI increasingly shapes how people access and seek information. Generative AI systems now reach over a billion people globally, and information-seeking is their leading use case. How governments govern the technology will shape what people can say, seek, and know. In this new piece for Tech Policy Press, I argue that freedom of expression must anchor the Dialogue's outputs, and offer three concrete recommendations for what Geneva can achieve. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eaUnAEqk

From 2 August, transparency obligations will become legally binding in the EU. You don't have to develop AI systems to be subject to the AI Act. If you use AI systems professionally to generate or manipulate text, images, audio or video, you may qualify as a "deployer" under Article 50 of the AI Act and become subject to its transparency obligations. Even individuals may, in some circumstances, be required to disclose AI-generated or manipulated content, where it concerns matters of public interest. Earlier this summer, the European Commission published the Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content, a voluntary framework designed to help providers and deployers comply with the new labelling and marking obligations before they take effect. In my article for Tech Policy Press, I examine who the new obligations apply to, what providers and deployers will need to do, how the Code interacts with the Commission's draft guidelines, the main implementation challenges and remaining uncertainties. If you or your organization uses AI to create content, it is important to understand what Article 50 requires and whether these obligations apply to you. #AIAct #AIGovernance #AITransparency #EUlaw #TechPolicy #Deepfakes

My latest at Tech Policy Press: This may be the biggest package of federal children's online safety legislation yet, and it's got further than many other attempts to pass similar laws. Even if it may not have a great chance of becoming law any time soon, it's worth knowing what's in it!

What will determine whether the UN's first Global AI Dialogue is remembered as a turning point—or just another international meeting? In my latest for Tech Policy Press, I argue that success will depend on avoiding three common temptations and focusing instead on what only the UN can uniquely offer: a space for meaningful cooperation on AI governance. https://lnkd.in/ddFgvEmx #AI #AIGovernance #UnitedNations #DigitalGovernance #TechPolicy

AI systems are "at their core, a technology of expression and access to information,” writes Isabelle Anzabi. How governments govern the technology will shape what people can say, seek, and know—and the UN Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva is where Anzabi says the world can get that right. https://lnkd.in/eYVha4if

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧'𝐬 “𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐮𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞’𝐬 𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲” On paper, the goal for the package is to secure the continent’s “ability to act independently in the digital world by developing and controlling key technologies, data, and infrastructure, while reducing reliance on non-EU providers.” In reality, the package tries—and fails—to kill three birds with the same stone: #competitiveness, #sustainability and #sovereignty. While it may partially succeed in capturing some economic gains, it will do so at the cost of exacerbating Europe’s ecological footprint and further entrenching foreign control of its economy. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐁𝐢𝐠 𝐓𝐞𝐜𝐡 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲.  In a blog post published April 30, 2025, Microsoft Vice-Chair and President Brad Smith detailed his company’s European digital commitments. They all fit like hand in glove with the European Commission’s proposed package published over a year later. More in our new op-ed at Tech Policy Press Link in comments