Tech Policy Press

A misperception has emerged that the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D) does not cover a company’s downstream impacts—but it does, which is significant for technology companies. This confusion stems from language inserted into the CS3D as a political compromise to satisfy companies worried about tracking the impacts of third parties with whom they do business. However, the resulting exclusion only applies to “business partners”, leaving other downstream impacts arising from the use of a company's products and services as in scope. When reviewing how the CS3D applies to their business models and operations, technology companies should assess potential adverse impacts arising from the downstream use of their products and services and make relevant modifications to their business plans, strategies, operations, products, and services to address these impacts. Jason Pielemeier of Global Network Initiative and I demystify in this Tech Policy Press article. #bizhumanrights #cs3d #csddd #csrd

Earlier this year, the #EU enacted the Corporate #Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D). Dunstan Allison-Hope & Jason Pielemeier unpack how the CS3D applies to tech companies, including the downstream impacts arising from their operations.

Maria Luciano writes that the path to efficient digital public infrastructure policies—both in quality and scale—relies on social participation and care. 

For those interested in learning more about covert influence operations on social media platforms, CSET Georgetown’s Josh Goldstein offers four lessons that the Meta Q3 quarterly threat report brings back to the surface.

In this article for Tech Policy Press, Fordham Law Professor Chinmayi Sharma and student Sam Adler '26 argue that the relatively new GovAI Coalition—composed of over 1,200 government members from local, state, and federal agencies united in a mission to promote responsible and purposeful AI—offers a compelling model for how governments can work together to navigate the complex landscape of AI governance.

We have already seen the harms that AI inflicts on vulnerable communities. Using “government efficiency” as an excuse to replace human decision-makers with poorly designed systems will only compound these harms, rendering opaque and uncontestable verdicts that deeply impact people’s lives, write Kevin De Liban and Alice Marwick for Tech Policy Press. https://lnkd.in/gnRwvtsg

India's new Telecommunications Act allows the state to justify intercepting communications for trivial or politically motivated reasons rather than legitimate national security concerns, putting citizens’ privacy and digital rights at risk, write Jyoti Panday and Saumya Jain for Tech Policy Press https://lnkd.in/gRmFeBxw

Tim Bernard is reading a selection of the Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) systemic risk assessments released in late November 2024 in compliance with the Digital Services Act (#DSA). This first installment considers #Facebook and #Instagram reports:

It was really great to chat with Alissa Cooper, Cristina Caffarra, and David Dinielli for the Tech Policy Press podcast about effective remedies in the Google search antitrust case. Google’s search monopoly has paved the way for its dominance in the generative AI market, so effective remedies have to tackle Google’s emerging dominance in generative AI. While I’m excited by the remedies advanced by the DOJ (bold! structural!), I caution how AI is not going to be a magical fix to search competition (nor any other problem facing society today!).

For the Tech Policy Press podcast, the Knight-Georgetown Institute's Alissa Cooper hosted a discussion with experts Cristina Caffarra, Kate Brennan, and David Dinielli on considerations around remedies following a federal court ruling that Google is a monopolist.