“The idea that artificial intelligence could usher in a ‘post-money’ world — and that such a world would also render firms obsolete — rests on a misunderstanding of what firms are and why they exist. Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the highly implausible premise that money would disappear beneath an AI/robotics explosion of superabundance, it does not follow that firms would disappear with it. Firms are not artifacts or by-products of monetary exchange; they are organizational responses to coordination problems, uncertainty, and the costs of markets.” (04/29/26)
Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
by Rory Mir
“If you want to overthrow Big Tech, you’ll need Section 230. The paradigm shift being built with the Open Social Web can put communities back in control of social media infrastructure, and finally end our dependency on enshitified corporate giants. But while these incumbents can overcome multimillion-dollar lawsuits, the small host revolution could be picked off one by one without the protections offered by 230.” (04/28/26)
“A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit from the Justice Department seeking information on Arizona voters, another defeat in the Trump administration’s nationwide push for voter data. U.S. District Judge Susan Brnovich sided with Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, finding that Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960 doesn’t grant the Justice Department the power to demand that Arizona produce its statewide voter registration list. … The ruling marks the Justice Department’s sixth loss in lawsuits seeking state-level voter data, following similar rulings in California, Oregon, Michigan, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.” (04/28/26)
“Because politicians win by working their base into a lather, there currently exist within American politics no incentives to be wrong with decency. Every opponent must be an enemy, every disagreement a threat. I helped in my small way to create that mess; I’m resolved to help in a similarly small way to fix it. This doesn’t mean no longer speaking to what I believe to be good policy even on questions where bad policy is non-catastrophic to our republic. It does mean not strategically catastrophizing them, and not vilifying their adherents. … the only way to get incentives pushing back in that right direction is for enough people to decide they don’t care about differences on policy when those differences do not radically reshape the world.” (04/28/26)
Source: Rutherford Institute
by John & Nisha Whitehead
“In the wake of the reported assassination attempt on President Trump, the Trump administration has wasted no time advancing a dangerous narrative: that criticism of the president — especially criticism labeling him authoritarian or fascist — is not just wrong, but responsible for violence. The implication is as chilling as it is unconstitutional: if you criticize the government too harshly, you may be to blame for what happens next. Taken to its logical conclusion, the government’s argument is this: criticism fuels anger, and anger leads to violence against the Trump administration. Which means the solution, in the government’s eyes, is simple: silence the criticism — but only when it is leveled at the Trump administration.” (04/28/26)
Source: Los Angeles Times
by Alex Padilla & Brian Lemek
“More than 158 million Americans cast a ballot in the 2024 election, and nearly one in three did so by mail. Nothing about that should be controversial because voting by mail is safe, secure and deeply rooted in American history. On March 31, just days after casting his own ballot by mail in a Florida special election, President Trump signed an executive order attacking vote by mail and absentee voting nationwide. … Immediately after Trump’s executive order was announced, more than 20 states and multiple organizations challenged it in court. They are right to do so, and we believe these states will prevail for the same reason the courts rejected the president’s earlier attempts to seize authority over our elections. Because the Constitution is clear: States and Congress set the rules for federal elections — not the president.” (04/28/26)
