An issue that came up during a terrific panel that I participated in last Thursday—organized by the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project—was whether age-verification laws for social-media use infringed on a First Amendment right of either adults or minors to receive speech anonymously.

My co-panelist Clare Morell of the Ethics and Public Policy Center put together an excellent tweet thread summarizing some of her thoughts, including on the anonymous-speech angle. Another co-panelist—Shoshana Weissmann of the R Street Institute—also has a terrific series of blog posts on this particular issue.

Continuing this ongoing Truth on the Market series on anonymous speech, I wanted to respond to some of these ideas, and to argue that the primary First Amendment and public-policy concerns with age-verification laws really aren’t about anonymous speech. Instead, they are about whether such laws place the burden of avoiding harms on the least-cost avoider. Or, in the language of First Amendment jurisprudence, whether they are the least restrictive means to achieve a particular policy end.

Read the full piece here.

I participated yesterday in a webinar panel hosted by the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project. The video was livestreamed at YouTube. Below, I offer my opening remarks, with some links.

Thank you for having me. As mentioned, I’m a senior scholar in innovation policy at the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE). This means I have the institutional responsibility to talk to you today about Ronald Coase and transaction costs. Don’t worry, I’ll define my terms and explain why these things are important. In fact, I think it could help to frame our discussion, before offering my own preliminary thoughts on the debates over a duty of care to protect minors online and online age-verification and parental-consent laws.

Read the full piece here.

ICLE Senior Scholar took part in an online panel hosted by the Federalist Society’s Regulatory Transparency Project regarding recent regulatory and legislative proposals to enact age-verification requirements for access to social media and adult websites. Video of the full panel is embedded below.

We at the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) have written extensively on the intersection of the First Amendment, the regulation of online platforms, and the immunity from liability for user-generated content granted to platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

One of the proposals we put forward was that Section 230 immunity should be conditioned on platforms making reasonable efforts to help potential plaintiffs be able to track down users for illegal conduct. This post is the second in a series on the right to anonymity. In this edition, I will explore the degree to which the First Amendment protects the right to anonymous speech, and whether it forecloses the application of such a statutory duty of care.

Read the full piece here.

What is anonymity? Do we have a right to it? And against what other values should this right be balanced when it comes to government regulation? This blog post will be the first in a series that looks at what anonymity is, why it is important, and what tradeoffs should be considered when applying a right to anonymity in specific contexts.

Read the full piece here.

This Labor Day, America’s labor movement is at the brink of a pivotal moment. Conservatives are now joining liberals in embracing the vital role of labor unions for advancing a worker-centric society—albeit with some crucial reforms in mind.

This comes at a time when workers are feeling apprehensive about their future labor market prospects, especially with recent developments in the field of artificial intelligence. Concurrently, the independent economy—comprised of freelancers, gig workers, and conventional contractors—is revolutionizing how we work and challenging the relevance of traditional, employee-centric labor unions.

Read the full piece here.

Background: Artificial intelligence—or “AI”—is everywhere these days. It powers our smartphones, cars, homes, and entertainment. It helps us diagnose diseases, teach children, and create art. It promises to revolutionize every aspect of our lives, for better or worse. 

But … How should public policy respond to this powerful and rapidly evolving force? How should we ensure that AI serves our interests and values, rather than undermining or subverting them?

Some observers and policymakers fear that AI could pose existential threats to humanity, such as unleashing rogue superintelligences, triggering mass job losses, or sparking global wars. They argue that governments should take a prescriptive approach to AI regulation to preempt speculated threats.

Some argue that we need to impose strict and specific rules on AI development and deployment, before it is too late. In a recent U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman suggested that the United States needs a central regulator for AI. 

However … This approach is likely to be both misguided and counterproductive. Overregulation could stifle innovation and competition, depriving us of the benefits and opportunities that AI offers. It could put some countries at a disadvantage relative to those that pursue AI openly and aggressively. It could also stifle learning from AI and developing better AI.

ADOPT AN ADAPTIVE APPROACH

A more sensible and effective approach to oversight is to pursue an adaptive framework that relies on existing laws and institutions, rather than creating new regulations, agencies, and enforcement mechanisms.

There are already laws, policies, agencies, and courts in place to address actual harms and risks, rather than hypothetical or speculative ones. This is what we’ve done with earlier transformative technologies like biotech, nanotech, and the internet. Each has been regulated by applying existing laws and principles, such as antitrust, torts, contracts, and consumer protection. 

In addition, an adaptive approach would foster international dialogue and cooperation, which have been essential for establishing norms and standards for emerging technologies.

AN ADAPTIVE APPROACH DOES NOT MEAN COMPLACENCY

Pursuing an adaptive approach does not mean that we should be complacent or naive about AI. Where the technology is misused or causes harm, there should be actionable legal consequences. For example, if a real-estate developer intentionally used AI tools to screen out individuals from purchasing homes on the basis of protected characteristics, that should be actionable. If a criminal found a novel way to use ChatGPT to commit fraud, that should be actionable. If generative AI is used to create “deep fakes” that amounts to libel, that should be actionable. But in each of these cases, it is not the AI itself that is the relevant unit of legal analysis, but the actions of criminals and the harms they cause.

Ultimately, it would be fruitless to try to build a regulatory framework that would make it impossible for bad actors to misuse AI. Bad actors will always find ways to misuse tools, and heavy-handed regulatory requirements would chill the development of the very AI tools that could combat misuse.

DON’T NEGLECT THE BENEFITS

If history is any guide, it is likely that AI tools will allow firms and individuals to do more with less, expanding their productivity and improving their incomes.

By freeing capital from easily automated tasks, existing firms and new entrepreneurs could better focus on their core business missions. For example, investments in marketing or HR could be redeployed to R&D. At this point, we have little idea how AI will be used by people and firms. And more importantly, neither do politicians, policymakers, or regulators.

OVER-REGULATION WOULD INCREASE MARKET POWER

Overly burdensome AI regulation would likely hinder the entry and growth of new AI firms. For example, as an established player in the AI market, it should be no surprise that OpenAI’s CEO would favor a strong central regulator that can impose entry barriers on newcomers.  It is well-known in both law and economics that incumbent firms can profit from raising their rivals’ regulatory costs.

This dynamic can create strong strategic incentives for industry incumbents to promote regulation and can lead to a cozy relationship between agencies and incumbent firms in a process known as “regulatory capture.”

CONCLUSION

The key challenge confronting policymakers lies in navigating the dichotomy of mitigating actual risks posed by AI, while simultaneously fostering the substantial benefits it offers. 

To be sure, AI will bring about disruption and may provide a conduit for bad actors, just as technologies like the printing press and the internet have done in the past. This does not, however, merit taking an overly cautious stance that would suppress many of the potential benefits of AI.

Policymakers must eschew dystopian science-fiction narratives and instead base policy on realistic scenarios. Moreover, they should recognize the laws, policies, and agencies that already have enormous authority and power to find and punish those who misuse AI.

For more on this issue, see the International Center for Law & Economics’ (ICLE) response to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s AI Accountability Policy, as well as ICLE’s response to the similar inquiry from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The phrase “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater” is used to signify that we shouldn’t accidentally throw out good things in our efforts to get rid of the bad. As the U.S. Senate again gears up to consider multiple bills intended to protect teens online, they must be aware that substantially increasing the costs of creating teen-friendly platforms could lead online platforms to gate access to their platforms in ways that would exclude teens altogether.

Read the full piece here.

Freedom of enterprise is considered a second-class freedom in Spain, rather than a fundamental right. It is clear that this has been the view not only of successive Spanish governments since the current Constitution was promulgated in 1978, but also of the judges of the Supreme Court of Spain (Tribunal Supremo) and the Constitutional Court of Spain (Tribunal Constitucional). Spanish regulation of unscheduled urban transport services provided by private-hire passenger vehicles (PHVs) perfectly illustrates the former’s interventionist impulses (as part of the close and pernicious relationship between politics and business, in which economic freedoms are used as a bargaining chip) as well as the deference to power shown by the latter.

Read the full piece here.