Matthias J. Becker on the Launch of Digital Hate Review

The study of how hate is expressed in digital media and its relationship to offline harassment and violence is a growing field that touches public policy, content moderation and platform policy, AI governance, and a variety of other topics at the intersection of technology and public discourse. This week, a new journal called the Digital Hate Review launched to give a new home to research and discourse on these issues. To learn more, Justin Hendrix spoke to its editor-in-chief, Matthias J. Becker, who has spent 15 years tracking how hate speech evolves online.

Amid a frenzy of headlines about AI safety and just two weeks out from a planned meeting of US President Donald Trump and China’s President Xi Jinping, Justin Hendrix moderated a discussion around the question, what does AI governance actually demand right now? Convened by the the Institute for America, China, and the Future of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C., the discussion included Amba Kak from the AI Now Institute, Kat Duffy from the Council on Foreign Relations, Miro Plueckebaum from the Oxford Martin AI Governance Initiative, and Jack Shanahan from SAIS ACF and the Center for a New American Security.

Just ahead of the start of the new school year, districts across the United States are issuing new policies on the use of artificial intelligence applications in classrooms. Last Wednesday, New York City effectively banned most student facing AI in all K-8th grade classes while allowing a limited set of approved tools to be used for high schoolers for the upcoming school year. And on the same day, Los Angeles school officials announced the district was placing a one-year moratorium on generative AI for all of its estimated 378,000 students.To learn more about these announcements and the politics driving them, Justin Hendrix spoke to two individuals who covered these matters for Tech Policy Press this summer: Tech Policy Press fellow Chris Mills Rodrigo and audio reporter Laura Karpas, who interned at Tech Policy Press this summer and is currently a graduate student at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY.

Tech Policy Press fellow Jake Laperruque, who is also the Deputy Director of Center for Democracy and Technology’s Security and Surveillance Project, spoke to Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) about the  the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and ongoing efforts to reform it.

State legislatures across the United States are actively developing new laws on a range of issues related to artificial intelligence. In Virginia, that process is informed by an entity established by the Virginia General Assembly called the Joint Commission on Technology and Science. To learn more about the Joint Commission and some of its recent work on AI chatbots, Justin Hendrix spoke to its chief policy analyst, Dr. Kira Allmann.

How can human rights and social justice advocates and investigators protect their data and technology infrastructure in an age of rising authoritarianism in the United States and abroad? Earlier this month, a coalition of human rights, justice, and data organizations launched the Technology Freedom Cooperative, a project designed to help nonprofit organizations protect evidence, reduce their dependence on big tech platforms, and "build independent capacity to work with large language models." Justin Hendrix spoke to two of its members, Maheen Khan, director of technology at the Invisible Institute, and Patrick Ball, director of research at HRDAG.

Days into a bellwether trial brought by four states, Meta reached a settlement with a bipartisan coalition of state attorneys general to resolve their claims, agreeing to pay up to ~$17 billion and to make a series of teen-safety changes to Instagram and Facebook. The day after the settlement was announced, Tech Policy Press convened a live podcasting recording with to assess the settlement and its implications. Expert guests included:Alissa Cooper, Executive Director of the Knight-Georgetown Institute (KGI)Meetali Jain, Executive Director of Tech Justice Law (TJL)Matthew B. Lawrence, Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law

This month, in partnership with Type Investigations, MIT Technology Review published a feature titled “How ideas of a vast censorship network moved from the online fringe to Trump policy.” It considers the emergence and impact of the narrative that revolves around the idea of the “censorship industrial complex,” and how a network of aligned right wing actors collaborate to build that narrative. It also details the impact on civil society groups and independent technology researchers who have been targeted with lawsuits, investigations, visa restrictions, and various forms of harassment for their work.This week, Justin Hendrix spoke to two of the authors of the piece about what they learned reporting it, and where the story might go next: Eileen Guo, MIT Technology Review senior reporter for features and investigations, and open source investigative reporter Gisela Perez de Acha.

Headed into the US midterm elections season, the information environment continues to evolve. Millions of people now use AI chatbots, both to retrieve information about elections and to create it. Last week, the Brennan Center for Justice put out an expert brief tackling the question, “Does AI Fight or Fuel Election Disinformation?” Justin Hendrix spoke to one of its authors, Lawrence Norden, vice president of the Elections and Government Program at the Brennan Center.

The midterm election cycle is heating up in the United States, and there are important elections set to take place soon in Brazil, Israel, Sweden, and beyond. AI will be a factor in these elections, offering a new set of tools and techniques for campaigns to try to reach voters. Laura Karpas looked into one new technique that campaigns may try this cycle—focus groups among panels of synthetic voters. She spoke to one researcher who has considered the question of when and how such simulated evidence can be used in campaign research, and another who wonders what the implications may be for the complex interaction between political leaders and public opinion.