I have been blogging very little, as I have been swamped with a big and exciting work project. As the peak effort on that is now past, I look forward to writing more on Continuations again, as well as taking another turn revising my book The World After Capital. In the meantime, here are some observations on the most recent iteration of the debate around regulating large tech companies generally, the role of Section 230 specifically and how these relate to speech on the Internet. Topics that ...

I have been blogging very little, as I have been swamped with a big and exciting work project. As the peak effort on that is now past, I look forward to writing more on Continuations again, as well as taking another turn revising my book The World After Capital. In the meantime, here are some observations on the most recent iteration of the debate around regulating large tech companies generally, the role of Section 230 specifically and how these relate to speech on the Internet. Topics that ...

The other day I wrote that people praising the speech given by Vice President J.D. Vance at the Paris AI summit are “mistaking jingoism and wishful thinking for true global leadership with a real vision for AI and humanity.” It is of course only fair to ask what true leadership on AI would look like. Here is what I wish he would have said instead: Dear leaders of nations, we gather here in Paris at a moment of unprecedented possibility and peril in human history. We stand at the threshold of ...

The other day I wrote that people praising the speech given by Vice President J.D. Vance at the Paris AI summit are “mistaking jingoism and wishful thinking for true global leadership with a real vision for AI and humanity.” It is of course only fair to ask what true leadership on AI would look like. Here is what I wish he would have said instead: Dear leaders of nations, we gather here in Paris at a moment of unprecedented possibility and peril in human history. We stand at the threshold of ...

My Twitter feed these days is full with back and forth on “cancel culture.” Much of it quickly reduces to bickering with each side assuming the worst possible interpretation of what the other meant or what their motives are. The latest exhibit here is the Harper’s Open Letter and the reactions to it. This is more than a bit annoying as there are some genuinely interesting issues here that are worthy of a more robust debate. Central to this discussion ought to be an analysis of the power of sp...

My Twitter feed these days is full with back and forth on “cancel culture.” Much of it quickly reduces to bickering with each side assuming the worst possible interpretation of what the other meant or what their motives are. The latest exhibit here is the Harper’s Open Letter and the reactions to it. This is more than a bit annoying as there are some genuinely interesting issues here that are worthy of a more robust debate. Central to this discussion ought to be an analysis of the power of sp...

Here we are again in 2019 debating speech online and specifically the case of Facebook. Zuckerberg speaks at Georgetown trying to invoke the civil rights movement and to draw a sharp distinction to China. Warren quickly fires back on Twitter. Pundits everywhere weigh in. And yet hardly anyone gets to the heart of the matter: power. And those who are mostly stuck in industrial age thinking recommending a traditional antitrust approach to limiting power. Here are the two big traps people appear...

Here we are again in 2019 debating speech online and specifically the case of Facebook. Zuckerberg speaks at Georgetown trying to invoke the civil rights movement and to draw a sharp distinction to China. Warren quickly fires back on Twitter. Pundits everywhere weigh in. And yet hardly anyone gets to the heart of the matter: power. And those who are mostly stuck in industrial age thinking recommending a traditional antitrust approach to limiting power. Here are the two big traps people appear...

We have entered a new phase of the discussion on what to do about speech on platforms such as Twitter. On the plus side many more people are engaged. On the minus side the calls to treat Twitter as a traditional publisher are growing (incidentally based on a misunderstanding of what being a publisher implies). Let me start by repeating something I have written before: many of Twitter’s problems are self inflicted. In particular, Twitter has messed up its checkmark system and Twitter has been ...

We have entered a new phase of the discussion on what to do about speech on platforms such as Twitter. On the plus side many more people are engaged. On the minus side the calls to treat Twitter as a traditional publisher are growing (incidentally based on a misunderstanding of what being a publisher implies). Let me start by repeating something I have written before: many of Twitter’s problems are self inflicted. In particular, Twitter has messed up its checkmark system and Twitter has been ...

There is a healthy debate going on now about the role of Twitter, Facebook, and others (Google, Apple, …) with regard to moderating speech on their platforms. Rather than writing something entirely new, I decided to go back and look at what I have written and whether my opinion has changed since then. As I did that I was happy to find that I have had a fairly consistent approach based on who has power. Over the years I have written a lot about keeping the government out of regulating content ...

There is a healthy debate going on now about the role of Twitter, Facebook, and others (Google, Apple, …) with regard to moderating speech on their platforms. Rather than writing something entirely new, I decided to go back and look at what I have written and whether my opinion has changed since then. As I did that I was happy to find that I have had a fairly consistent approach based on who has power. Over the years I have written a lot about keeping the government out of regulating content ...