Thierer: First Amendment acted as a deregulatory sledgehammer for early internet
Adam Thierer · a16z Podcast | Making the Case for Permissionless Innovation · Jan 2, 2019 · at 21:42
Adam Thierer, research fellow at the Mercatus Center, discusses how speech protections historically allowed tech companies to defeat federal regulations in court.
0:00 / 0:09exact quote · 9.2s
▶ Watch the full episode on YouTube → 720p mp4 · rendered on demand · StarZero watermark
“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.”
quote is from the automated transcript, cleaned for reading: filler sounds and stutters are removed, nothing is rephrased. names can be misheard (the analysis reads context, assessments check outside sources). how →
More from Adam Thierer
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: 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: 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…”