It’s been waaaay too long since our last space episode! We fix that today, big time. On a new Tech Policy Podcast, Dr. Mekhi Dhesi of Slingshot Aerospace joins @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social to discuss orbital mechanics, rocket science, black holes, the Fermi paradox, and more. tinyurl.com/mvm24yzt

Kagan writing a solo dissent was the only way you'd get me to read all about the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act.

Down the ages, new ways to communicate spark moral panics. With social media and AI, is history repeating itself? On a new podcast, @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social speaks at a @thefireorg.bsky.social Free Speech Future event with Kmele Foster, @nicoperrino.bsky.social, & @cjferguson1111.bsky.social

Lunch in the real world: highly recommendef.

This proposes a licensing scheme, also known as a prior restraint on speech. Those don't usually do well in court because they give the government too much power over what can be said and are presumptively unconstitutional. Thank you for your time. www.nytimes.com/2026/05/04/t...

Oh look. It's that thing @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social warned us about. www.nytimes.com/2026/05/04/t...

This podcast episode opens with @taylorlorenz.bsky.social saying "Give Corbin a chance." Evergreen! 😅 open.spotify.com/episode/23ep...

If AI outputs aren't protected by the First Amendment, the government gains power to dictate what those systems can say. @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social argues that the case for protecting AI speech is about defending your right to encounter ideas the state hasn't approved. hubs.la/Q04dMpjr0

"Attacks on AI speech are attacks on you. They rest on the notion that you cannot be trusted to encounter ideas the state deems dangerous... A robust First Amendment tradition assumes the opposite." -- @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social

Since we had this convo about algorithms four years ago, the debate has evolved—but the First Amendment problems have not! New Tech Policy Podcast “From the Vault”: @daphnek.bsky.social discusses algorithmic amplification w/ @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social and @aricohn.com. tinyurl.com/yj82rvup

From the Red Scare to Brandenburg, history shows that fear makes bad First Amendment law. As AI reshapes how we think and speak, @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social makes the case for holding the line on free expression.

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.

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/?

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.

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.

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.

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

LIVE today: FTC Age Verification Workshop. I'll livestream commentary here, starting at 9 ET/6 PT www.ftc.gov/news-events/...

Relax, they just want the discretion to reward friends and punish enemies. On a new Tech Policy Podcast, Thom Lambert (Mizzou Law) and @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social discuss the Trump II administration’s new right antitrust regulators. podcast.techfreedom.org/episodes/428...

5 year old at bedtime: “You‘re the best dad ever. I hope you never die. But you will.”

Wrote about Rand Paul totally flipping his position on Section 230... because someone was mean to him on the internet. But also, he's blatantly violating the law he himself proposed to make it illegal for gov't employees to demand internet companies remove any content.

You should maybe look at this piece bc it has my thoughts on a hypocritical (possibly theocratic?) FTC commissioner named Mark Meader. But you should definitely look at it bc I convinced @mmasnick.bsky.social to put a picture (!) on top of a Techdirt article. www.techdirt.com/2026/01/20/c...

It is fair to say that @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social and I don't always see eye to eye, but I think he's dead on with this one. open.substack.com/pub/corbinkb...

This is a must-read from friend of the show @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social about the state of the FTC (not great, Bob!) and the hypocritical balls-and-strikes, finger-wagging rhetoric coming from one of its most politicized actors. Go check it out! corbinkbarthold.substack.com/p/can-you-tr...

🚨 SO MUCH STATE TECH POLICY 🚨

Ring in the new year with (what else?) a tech policy podcast. (Ahem, *the* Tech Policy Podcast.) First: Some thoughts from me on the tech + kids moral panic. Then: We revisit an epic 2025 episode on age verification, featuring the great @ericgoldman.bsky.social. podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/n...

🇦🇺: 67% support the new legal ban on all social media for minors under 16 BUT only 29% will actually enforce that for their own kids “Bans for thee and thine, but not for me and mine!”🤦‍♂️

Attention Internet law nerds! The legendary Pamela Samuelson joined me this week to talk about Cox v. Sony -- a SCOTUS case in which Internet access is under threat from rampaging copyright law. It was an honor to have her on the show. Do check it out. podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/4...

New Tech Policy Podcast! @pamelasamuelson.bsky.social (UC Berkeley) and @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social discuss the Supreme Court oral argument in Cox v. Sony, a copyright case that could have major ramifications for the internet. podcast.techfreedom.org/episodes/426...

Two amazing First Amendment litigation spots are open at Protect Democracy. Deadline is December 7th. This is someone's dream job and they may not know about it, so please send to good lawyers you know! protectdemocracy.recruitee.com/o/counsel-fi...

Hey folks: this morning we're launching a monthlong fundraiser for @techdirt.com. Over the last year, we've been steadfast in not self-censoring, not capitulating, not sanewashing bullshit. But that's come at a cost. And we need help: rtb.techdirt.com/products/fri...

In which Mike Masnick and I have a long talk about the state of social media, and Mike still finds a way to wrap things up with a note of optimism.

Crossover time! On a new Tech Policy Podcast, @corbinkbarthold.bsky.social heads over to the @techdirt.com Podcast, hosted by the one and only @mmasnick.bsky.social, for a wide-ranging discussion about the state of social media. podcast.techfreedom.org/episodes/425...