The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Free Speech Unmuted: Does the First Amendment Protect Supposedly "Addictive" Algorithms?, with Matthew Lawrence
Can the government regulate social media features because they are "addictive"? Jane Bambauer and I talk with Emory Law professor Matthew Lawrence about whether features like infinite scroll, personalized feeds, "near-miss" reward patterns, and dopamine-driven engagement tactics are comparable to gambling or even drug addiction—and whether that means the government can step in. The conversation digs into current lawsuits, whether there's a constitutionally significant difference between content and design, how addiction is defined in law and neuroscience, and what First Amendment limits exist when regulating digital platforms. A smart, fast-moving discussion for anyone curious about the future of free speech, tech regulation, and the psychology behind our screens.
Our past episodes:
- Defamation Law in the Age of AI with Lyrissa Lidsky
- From Brandenburg to Britain: Rethinking Free Speech in the Digital Era with Eric Heinze
- A Conversation with FIRE's Greg Lukianoff
- Free Speech Unmuted: President Trump's Executive Order on Flag Desecration
- Free Speech and Doxing
- The Supreme Court Rules on Protecting Kids from Sexually Themed Speech Online
- Free Speech, Public School Students, and "There Are Only Two Genders"
- Can AI Companies Be Sued for What AI Says?
- Harvard vs. Trump: Free Speech and Government Grants
- Trump's War on Big Law
- Can Non-Citizens Be Deported For Their Speech?
- Freedom of the Press, with Floyd Abrams
- Free Speech, Private Power, and Private Employees
- Court Upholds TikTok Divestiture Law
- Free Speech in European (and Other) Democracies, with Prof. Jacob Mchangama
- Protests, Public Pressure Campaigns, Tort Law, and the First Amendment
- Misinformation: Past, Present, and Future
- I Know It When I See It: Free Speech and Obscenity Laws
- Speech and Violence
- Emergency Podcast: The Supreme Court's Social Media Cases
- Internet Policy and Free Speech: A Conversation with Rep. Ro Khanna
- Free Speech, TikTok (and Bills of Attainder!), with Prof. Alan Rozenshtein
- The 1st Amendment on Campus with Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky
- Free Speech On Campus
- AI and Free Speech
- Free Speech, Government Persuasion, and Government Coercion
- Deplatformed: The Supreme Court Hears Social Media Oral Arguments
- Book Bans – or Are They?
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
I've noticed that any time somebody wants to violate the 1st amendment, they just "adjectivize" speech. Hate speech, addictive speech...
Algorithms need not be executed by computer. For well over a century (and arguably a lot longer) far and away the most problematic and destructive population-manipulative algorithm is promise bullshit to get elected so your waggle fingers can make you wealthy.
This is the algorithm that needs capital punishment, and not the subject matter of the OP.
I mean, if stopping the common yokel from being ripped off by the wealthy and powerful is actually one's concern.
... and those who comment excessively on trivial points of law... .
The 1st amendment has a life of its own becoming an equal of God.
Infinite scroll ? Oh ... right , articles which have links to references where they too have links to references where those too have links to references and still more links to references.
Addiction only applies to opiates !!!
And politics! At least satisfying your addiction to opiates doesn't drag down everyone else. And a drug addict knows he has a problem. Unlike the politics addict, at least the opiate addict doesn't start tackling his neighbors and forcing things down their throats...with the approval of his own conscience.
It does seem that the standard would be intermediate scrutiny because it's viewpoint neutral. So the question would be whether it is closely tailored to an important government interest. I suspect it would be an important interest. The question would be one of tailoring. This suggests some regulation is valid.