Jan 2, 2019 · 22m · a16z
a16z Podcast | Making the Case for Permissionless Innovation
0:00 / 0:00
▶ Watch on YouTube →
gold bands on the timeline = statements, start to end. Hover to read, click to jump. CC turns on captions
In this episode of the a16z podcast, host Sonal Chokshi and guest Adam Thierer explore permissionless innovation and its critical role in technological progress. They analyze how light-touch policy fosters economic growth, while offering strategies to navigate technopanics and heavy regulation across emerging sectors like biotech, AR/VR, and cryptocurrency.
How this conversation actually went
Every chapter scored 0–10 on four independent dynamics. Hover any point for the reasoning behind the score. The host holds 19.8% of the talking time here. How this is scored →
The host as informed peer 5.2 Guest teaching 3.4 Guest disagreement 0.6 The host pushing back 2.4
speaking balance: gold is the host, purple is the guest (3 minute bins)
Sharpest disagreement ▶ 12:35 Warning innovators on regulatory arbitrage
The guest offers his strongest reframe, cautioning tech innovators against playing the global regulatory exit card too casually when negotiating with domestic US policymakers.
Hardest push from the host ▶ 16:03 Challenging guest on platform responsibility for safetyThe host rejects a purely hands-off regulatory framework, drawing on her experience with online harassment to argue tech companies must take responsibility for building safety mechanisms upfront.
Biggest teaching moment ▶ 4:45 EU vs US internet regulation experimentThe guest educates the host on how heavy-handed European privacy directives hindered tech entrepreneurship compared to the US framework, challenging the host to name major EU web companies.
The host holds their own ▶ 20:55 Identifying First Amendment limits in privacy policyThe host demonstrates advanced legal policy insight by explaining how modern privacy regulation lacks the First Amendment constitutional protections that previously shielded digital platforms.
the scores for every segment, with the reasoning behind each
| Chapter | Topic | The host as informed peer | Guest teaching | Guest disagreement | The host pushing back | Why |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precautionary Principle versus Technological Freedom | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | The host pushes the guest on whether technological freedom comes at the cost of public safety and existing regulations. The guest explains his five categories of regulatory risk and defines the core thesis of permissionless innovation versus the precautionary principle. | |
| Real-World Policy Case: US vs. Europe Internet Growth | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2 | The host demonstrates domain expertise by referencing an op-ed on drone regulation she previously edited with the guest at Wired. The guest breaks down the comparative history of internet policy in the US versus Europe and explains how existing common law handles emerging tech. | |
| Regulatory Arbitrage and 23andMe Case Study | 5 | 4 | 1 | 4 | The host brings up recent research papers and pushes back on the guest's framework, arguing that companies should proactively take responsibility for user safety and platform abuse. The guest explains how regulatory arbitrage works with companies like 23andMe and how soft-law frameworks are applied. | |
| Emerging Tech Clashes: Healthcare, AR/VR, and Crypto | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | The host shows familiarity with policy history by referencing CALEA and 1990s cryptography debates during a discussion on Bitcoin and encryption. The guest outlines upcoming regulatory friction points in mobile healthcare, 3D printing, AR/VR, and crypto. | |
| Privacy Battles Without First Amendment Protection | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2 | The host delivers a strong analytical point noting that privacy battles lack the First Amendment constitutional backing that protected earlier internet speech battles. The guest strongly agrees, framing the First Amendment as a historical deregulatory sledgehammer in tech policy. |
Statements from this episode (14)
Thierer: US internet dominance was driven by permissionless innovation
“We've embraced this idea of this general freedom to experiment, ah, and even sometimes fail, which is really makes America unique in the world in this regard. We've led the way with the internet for this reason, in my opinion.”
Thierer: Tech policy default should allow innovation until catastrophic risk is proven
“The whole point of my book and the idea of permissionless innovation more generally is that the benefit of the doubt should be with the idea of innovation allowed as our policy default. And until such a time as the other crowd can make a compelling case, That …”
Thierer: Regulating for hypothetical worst-case scenarios prevents best-case outcomes
“If we spend all of our time living in fear of hypothetical worst-case scenarios and basing public policy upon them, then best-case scenarios can never come about.”
Thierer: European regulation prevented the growth of major internet companies
“Europe took a very heavy-handed, top-down approach to the data directives and privacy rules that made it almost impossible for innovators to really take hold there or really get any investment. And what, as a result, it's hard today to even name a major innova…”
Thierer: Clinton administration's light-touch policy drove the US internet revolution
“It happened because in the United States, we had a clear bipartisan vision for the internet Mostly driven by the Clinton administration, who first commercialized the internet for open development, and then secondly came out with a framework for global electron…”
Tech innovators should avoid federal agencies starting with an 'F'
“So what technology innovators need to understand is that their job is going to be a lot easier if they don't have to deal with an agency with an F at the beginning of it. So whether it's the Food and Drug Administration, or the Federal Communications Commissio…”
Thierer: Regulators primarily want tech founders to listen to their concerns
“For the most part, policymakers and regulators, they just want to be heard. They want to have their concerns heard. They want to know that you're doing something to address these things in some fashion.”
Thierer: Common law and torts adequately govern new tech without preemptive regulations
“Now luckily there are ways to address these problems. Sometimes they're already on the books in other forms outside of regulation. So if we could relax the rules, it wouldn't mean the end of all law. We would still have contract law and property law and torts …”
Thierer: FDA Restricted 23andMe While the UK Welcomed the Service
“That's clearly been the case with 23 and me, which of course our Food and Drug Administration famously went after the innovators there for their genetic testing service. But over in the UK, they were welcomed with open arms by the government who said, come on …”
Thierer: Global Innovation Arbitrage Will Drive Tech Companies Abroad
“So in a world where technology can move in the same way that capital did before it, to wherever you find the most open, hospitable environment, you're going to expect to see more of that in coming years.”
Thierer: California proposed bills to ban Gmail in 2004
“Oh yeah, there were bills here in California that would have banned Gmail because it was unthinkable that we would target ads based on what was in your emails.”
Thierer: Immersive technology will face major backlash over psychological distraction
“Of course, Google Glass has subsided as a technology now, but that technology is still with us in other ways, and we're going to witness, I think, a lot of concern about the issues raised by a world of immersive technologies, including sort of psychological co…”
Thierer: First Amendment acted as a deregulatory sledgehammer for early internet
“The First Amendment became If you will, a deregulatory sledgehammer that you could take agencies to court for almost anything they did with the internet, and you could win. You could beat regulatory proposals.”
Thierer: First Amendment would block European-style 'right to be forgotten' laws
“If someone in the States tried to do something like the Europeans are doing with right to be forgotten, we could beat that back with the First Amendment in the US. We could say, no way it doesn't jive with our First Amendment.”