TIP's November Newsletter: The US Election one.
Inside: It's about time we talk about the US Election and Tech, our online roundtable, alongside your regular member news, events, and papers.
Hey TIPers,
Well. This newsletter is going to be a biggen.
Trump 2.0 is going to the White House, and speculation is rife. One reason I’ve delayed the newsletter this month is due to the huge amount of news and conjecture composed takes regarding the future Presidency to sift through and what it means for tech. So, I wanted to let the dust settle on that one and bring you what we do best: accurate summaries of the events and debates in tech policy.
Another reason for the delay is that this is the second draft of the newsletter. I first wrote a draft of this newsletter on the 4th November. I was probably a little too trusting in the polls favourable to Harris and a little too critical of those predicting a Trump win. So, I started writing this early preparing for a Harris win by a quick analysis of her tech policy announcements. What a waste of time that turned out to be.
We’re also brining you our regular members news and research, jobs, and more! We’re also letting you know of our round-table on the 16th December, so make sure you sign up to that.
So as normal, grab yourself a warm beverage, sit back, and enjoy this months news!
Best wishes,
Liam
If you’re reading this and not a member of TIP, make sure to sign up through the PSA’s website. It helps with our funding, and we can keep you up to date with all our events, news, and more!
TIP News: Online Panel: AI Regulation in Practice: Compliance and Governance in the EU and UK
Date: 18 December 2024
Time: 2:00 pm to 3:30 pm BST / 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm CET
Online: Zoom (link will be provided upon free registration to the event on Ticket Tailor)
Free: But sign-up is required (link here)
We are delighted to invite you to an engaging online panel discussion on "AI Regulation in Practice: Compliance and Governance in the EU and UK." As the EU and UK continue to shape their regulatory frameworks for artificial intelligence, understanding how these regulations work in practice is essential for policymakers, businesses, and civil society.
In this panel, we will explore the evolving landscape of AI regulation, focusing specifically on the implementation timeline and compliance requirements of the EU AI Act, which aims to establish a harmonized framework for the safe and trustworthy use of AI across Europe. The discussion will also touch on the ongoing debates surrounding the UK's AI Bill, which seeks to craft an AI regulatory approach distinct from the EU while balancing innovation and governance.
This event will bring together leading experts to explore the challenges and opportunities of implementing AI regulation, focusing on compliance procedures and effective governance practices across Europe and the UK.
Panellists:
Connor Dunlop - European Public Policy Lead, Ada Lovelace Institute (UK)
Tekla Emborg - EU Fellow, Future of Life Institute
Francesca Fanucci - Senior Legal Advisor, ECNL | European Center for Not-For-Profit Law Stichting (NL)
Inga Ulnicane – Research Fellow, University of Birmingham
Chair and moderator: Giulia Sandri, Scientific Advisor & Research fellow, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
Let’s talk about the US election then.
The Road Not Taken: What would a Harris Presidency have looked like?
While everyone is undoubtedly focused on what’s to come, I think it’s important to take a quick look at what we didn’t get. When it comes to tech policy, Trump and Harris (in her presumptive continuation of Biden’s policies) had more in common than you’d expect. Both promised to be tough on China – with expanded tariffs on Chinese tech imports such as EVs, and enhanced security to protect U.S innovation and research from being stolen by Chinese tech. It’s also unlikely she would have sought to back track on law introduced which effectively forces the Chinese-owned TikTok to shut down or sell-up in the United States.
But her relationship with the big names in tech couldn’t have been more different. In the past, Harris had developed a cordial relationship with big tech. In her role as California’s Attorney General, she formed deep ties to Silicon Valley, seeking to work with corporations rather than welding the regulatory stick, and refrained from targeting companies like Meta and Google with direct legal action. Simultaneously she seemed willing to hold them to account in public. Although that being said, as part of the Biden administration, we have seen Harris more supportive of harsher enforcement against monopolistic practices, so maybe she would have used the stick more than the carrot. We’ll never know.
When thinking about a Harris administration agenda, we should start with her role as VP: Harris was a leading voice bringing together Anthropic, Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI to discuss AI safety standards and stricter guidelines. Effectively seeking to work with big tech as corporations to lead policy and regulation. We would have also seen her set her agenda on increasing inclusivity, data protection, net neutrality, and broadband access – probably being lead heavily by polling which suggests that most of the US public wanting more regulation on big tech.
Trump certainly won’t have the same relationship with big tech. As a politician, he likes interpersonal relationships with trusted people who he can get along with. Which explains Musk in some ways. However his relationship with Elon Musk might be somewhat off-putting to names like Zuckerberg, who famously had online beef and even sought to organise a wrestling match. So, in comparison we’re going to probably see Trump working interpersonally with select big names, rather than with corporations.
On the regulation front, Trump has already stated his plans to repeal Biden’s Executive Orders on AI, which he claims hinders AI innovation, and instead take an approach rooted in free speech in support of emerging technologies. We will, however, assume that’s Musk’s version of free speech.
So, what we would have certainly had with Harris was an agenda which shapes AI oversight working with the tech giants as corporations. In comparison, with Trump less regulation and more interpersonal relationships. Both would have shown a tougher relationship with China when it comes to tech innovation and research.
Probably time to approach the Musk in the room…
Elon Musk is now very much in The Room Where It Happens. Now this isn’t the first time a CEO or media figure has jumped into politics. Steve Bannon went from investment banking to Breitbart, and into Trump 1.0’s inner circle. But what is new and interesting to us is Musk’s connections to tech. So, I guess we should talk about that.
I was on a call last week with journalists discussing what they thought a second Trump presidency would look like. It was under the Chatham House rule, so I’m not going to be naming names, but it ranged from economic policy, Ukraine, tech policy and diplomacy. What was really fascinating was this perception amongst journalists of so-called ‘Trump whisperers’. These are people within Trump’s inner circle who have real influence with the returning President.
This results in something odd happening. People trying to influence Trump are attempting to do so through Musk – making him one of many gatekeepers. We have already seen this with Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, who is already good friends with Musk seemingly going through Musk first. So we may see him being influential on the diplomatic level. But it also means we should keep an eye out for who we see Elon talking to, or obvious attempts to gain favour.
We also have Musk’s new position as head of, DOGE, or Department of Governmental Efficiency, the new department set up to “slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures and restructure federal agencies”. What that means in practice, what powers the department will have, or how it will operate is still yet to be disclosed. But this was a bit of a shock to the previously mentioned journalists – who stated how they expected Elon to stay outside the official system to avoid scrutiny, but remain an important advisor. In addition, rules regarding conflicts of interest may now curtail Musk – although he’ll certainly be one to push the boundaries of that particular set of rules. What this means for government? It’s been stated that if you look at his past business ventures, if anyone can radically shake up government, it’s Elon Musk. In the past that means dissolving bureaucracy, demanding more from his staff, and disruption. How that would look for a government though… I’ll leave that to your imagination.
There’s also what this might mean for Musk’s business ventures, especially those with business with government through contracts: SpaceX and Starlink being notable examples. As part of his role, he gets to keep control of them, and may even use his political position and influence to capitalise on those links. That could mean government contracts to roll out Starlink in areas with low and slow internet access, less regulation for his Tesla cars, or more satellite projects.
Let’s hope the military don’t start ordering The Boring Company’s Not a Flamethrower…
Was it Musk Wot Won It?
In a separate blog for this newsletter, I ask another question: How influential was Musk’s support to the Trump campaign? I argue that there’s probably not enough data yet, but some early indications…
So what about Trump and Tech policy?
Now this is an area I’m not going to speak about in detail, because plenty have already beaten us to the chase. We really like this run down of the 6 key areas by TechPolicyPress. But most of the attention so far has been on AI. article by Villasenor and Turner highlights the impact Trump will have during a pivotal moment of AI development. They argue Trump will seek to relax rules on American AI development while seeking to curtail those abroad through export restrictions. This is broadly agreed with across the majority of analysis I’ve seen so far. Including this one by Global Policy Watch, and TechPolicyPress who is particularly pessimistic about what this could mean for public harms.
Although it’s hard to really guess what is going to happen – tech can change a lot in four years.
Your TIP News
TIP member highlights & Publications
We’re delighted to see our members being so busy on the publishing front this month! Here’s a few that have been sent in to us:
Mihailescu, M. (2024) ‘Meme-Ing Waves: unpacking political narratives in the Romanian context’. Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25739638.2024.2426330
Gaughan, C. (2024) ‘Estimating Ideal Points of British MPs Through Their Social Media Followership’. BJPIR. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123424000450
Courtney Radish would like to share their two recently published pieces: ‘AI Needs Us More Than We Need It’ in the Washington Monthly and ‘Dismantling AI Data Monopolies Before it’s Too Late’ in TechPolicyPress.
Gulia Sandri has two new papers she’d like to share:
(Digital) Intra-party democracy in Nai, A., Grömping, M., & Wirz, D. (Eds). Elgar Encyclopedia of Political Communication.
Artificial Intelligence for the Internal Democracy of Political Parties, in Minds and Machines.
And if you’re not fed up with me by now, you can hear me speak to BBC Radio Leeds about the migration from X to Bsky!
Tech Bytes
Researcher Data Access Under the DSA: Lessons from TikTok's API Issues During the 2024 European Elections. TechPolicyPress
Big Tech’s Hotbeds of Employee Activism Quiet After Trump’s Victory. New York Times
A new era dawns. America’s tech bros now strut their stuff in the corridors of power. The Guardian
Jobs & Opportunities
Call for papers & Grants
Calls for papers are now open for the International Public Policy Association 7th International Conference on Public Policy. Grace Piddington (University of Bristol) and Susan Oman (University of Sheffield) will be co-chairing a panel exploring Digital Public Policy and its role in shaping governance and society. Submit a paper to join the panel virtually or in Chiang Mai!
More details can be found here
Data Access Consultation
As you may be aware, Ofcom has recently launched a consultation on researchers' access to online service (social media) data.
With a deadline for submissions of 5pm on 17th January 2025, we are looking to mobilise and support a range of researchers and organisations in making submissions. To support that activity, Kate Dommett, Amy Orben and Gina Neff are asking those intending to (or interested in) submitting evidence to this call to join a mailing list. Our intention is to circulate some guidance in December to support individual and group submissions, and to engage those interested in formulating guidance and recommendations.
If you would like to sign up for this information, please indicate your interest by adding your details to this Google sheet. Please also share this sign up far and wide to help spread awareness.
Events/Conferences/Funding
CFP, International Public Policy Association 7th International Conference on Public Policy. Panel on exploring Digital Public Policy and its role in shaping governance and society. Submit a paper to join the panel virtually or in Chiang Mai! More details can be found here
CFP, Presentations & Posters: Participatory AI Research Symposium - Paris, Feb 2025
Call for Proposals: AI Accountability Grants (European AI Fund)
Jobs
Senior Policy Advisor - AI Policy & Governance (Tony Blair Institute for Global Change)
Research Associate: Digital Technology, Trust and Electoral Regulation (University of Sheffield)
That’s all for this months newsletter. As always if you have any questions, comments, or something to add to the newsletter, please do get in touch!