Amazing episode. @mchangama.bsky.social makes his triumphant debut, and @jkosseff.bsky.social his glorious return.
I pepper them with hard questions about the future of free speech, and they do nothing but shine. Don't miss it.
How do we reverse the global free speech recession?
On a new Tech Policy Podcast, @mchangama.bsky.social and @jkosseff.bsky.social discuss their fantastic new book, The Future of Free Speech.
techfreedom.simplecast.com/episodes/434...
We need to get back to authentic, artisan, organic, Brooklyn farmers market Bluesky. All code written out by hand in a journal.
As someone who went through conversion talk therapy I'd kindly like to show Mark to the nearest cliff's edge
let's make this bitch so disappointed he leaves the site. fuck him
Mark out here thinks that my parents abusing, raping, and killing me in the process of "their talking" is fine because freeze peach or some liberal shit
Mark, "really abuse" is gonna be all your known for now. Your epitaph.
FYI: I am going to stop summarizing Supreme Court decisions on here as they come down. One comment has been plucked out of context of all my reporting, misread, and used as the basis of a mean-spirited pile-on. I am not going to subject myself to this. If this was your goal, then congratulations.
I have experienced similar pile-ons when my summary of a court's holding was mistaken for my personal view on the matter.
This insistence on stripping a post of context then imputing bad faith is making BlueSky unusable for legal reporting. Today's incident shows that the problem is getting worse.
So, the thought occurred to me when reflecting on how little I now use FB (maybe a quick skim 1/week) and how little I used to use Twitter (a few minutes a day, tops) as compared to Bluesky (I'm writing this, ain't I?) is that Bluesky has a truly "addictive" algorithm. 1/?
Sorry, I'll make sure to put some facts in next time.
When we look back at the death of the open and free global internet, the legislative and judicial developments of 2026 will play a starring role.
Aww, I'm blushing! Thank you so much on all fronts.
Lots of fights still to come.
(Worst. Victory. Lap. Ever. 😂)
You deserve your victory lap. People were freaking out thinking Moody v. NetChoice would come out wrong, and I was never too worried. But since then ... well ...
The Meta ruling is bad, no matter how much you dislike Meta or how much New Mexico tries to pretend this is about "product design"
This is an attempt to get around Section 230 (and 1A) protections, hold platforms liable for user speech, implement universal age verification, and end encrypted DMs
Eighteen months ago, this would have sounded a little hyperbolic. Today, it's very hard to argue with any of it.
Cox v. Sony is out! An ISP is not liable for copyright claims if it “merely provid[es] a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights.”
For expert analysis, check out our episode on the oral argument with @pamelasamuelson.bsky.social.
Literal lol.
2/ The case has little to do with whether you like AI, and a lot to do with how scared you should be of letting the government control what AI says.
I threw a ton into this thing, and I hope my law nerds will read it all!
techfreedom.org/wp-content/u...
TechFreedom. AI + 1A: Why the First Amendment Protects Artificial Intelligence. Corbin K. Barthold. March 2026.
1/ Are AI outputs free speech under the First Amendment? Yes.
Polling on AI is ... bad. Meanwhile, I'm like Butters in South Park, unironically marveling at how awesome it is.
So maybe I'm just asking for a ratio, but I wrote a big paper arguing that AI outputs deserve First Amendment protection.
New Tech Policy podcast!
Host @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social speaks at State of the Net with @joellthayer.bsky.social (Digital Progress Institute), @ashkhen.bsky.social (@futurefreespeech.org) and Luke Hogg (FAI). They discuss how the First Amendment should work in a world of algorithms and AI.
Oh snap, this is used to great effect in Station Eleven. Didn't know that's what I was hearing.
When you gaze at the night sky, do you wistfully ask why there isn't an entire podcast episode taking down Justice Barrett's weird and annoyingly influential concurrence in Moody v. NetChoice?
Your wait is over.
Algorithms don’t just fall from the sky.
On a new Tech Policy Podcast, host @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social deconstructs Justice Barrett’s surprisingly influential concurrence in Moody v. NetChoice. Or: Why the First Amendment protects algorithms—and AI.
podcast.techfreedom.org/episodes/431...
It’s not a war you fucking idiots. It’s an exchange of violence between two polities to impose a political outcome through conflict.
As I have said, you can throw a dart at an historical calendar (or at least one going back to the 1868 decision in R. v. Hicklin) and wherever it hits you will find grievous (and sincere) concern over the harmful effects of a communications medium over young people.
& the argument is always "but this medium is really different because unlike the previous ones it is ____" [psychologically manipulative (jazz, heavy metal), uniquely interactive (video games), designed to appeal specifically to children (comic books), habit-forming (comic books, video games), etc.]
A common refrain I've heard from (often well-meaning) people is that they agree that Section 230 is important, but they'd like to reform it so it doesn't apply to algorithmically recommended content. I think that's a bad idea and finally wrote a long thing explaining why.
Sharing this *excellent* explainer by @lawfaremedia.org 's Isabel Arroyo on the current stage of digital age assurance definitions and laws.
Bookmark it, it's a fabulous resource:
www.lawfaremedia.org/article/to-r...
I’m teaching child safety cases to my class today, and it’s super hard to distill down key points in the deluge. But maybe I’ll just start by quoting @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social.
What does meaningful work look like in a world of genius machines?
On a new Tech Policy Podcast, Brent Orrell (AEI) and @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social explore and debate how AI will disrupt the job market.
podcast.techfreedom.org/episodes/429...
“‘having lawyers get up and give speech contests in front of a jury’ is one of the worst ways he can imagine of settling the scientific disputes about social media and its effects on mental health.” — @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social
www.theatlantic.com/technology/2...
Nothing says "there will be no technical glitches with age verification so need to worry about privacy!" like the guy from the age verification trade association being surprised when each new slide he shows starts playing music while a small dog yaps incessantly in the background