Originally published at Dallas Morning News.

On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment’s protection of Americans’ free speech online in a landmark decision. NetChoice won against two unconstitutional laws passed in Florida and our own state of Texas. The Texas legislation in question would have given the government control over how social media platforms moderate content posted on their sites. This is wrong.

As with any other private businesses, social media companies should determine what is appropriate for their platforms without government overreach. Allowing the government to alter online speech is a violation of our First Amendment rights — plain and simple.

Fortunately, the opinions of the justices supported just that. Their decision in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice to send the cases back to the lower courts for consideration further reaffirms the importance of free expression, especially online.

As a proud Texan, I am reassured that the court recognizes the government should not be involved in content moderation on platforms.
The ruling in favor of NetChoice is a win for Texas and the future of our digital era, ensuring our state remains a beacon of free expression for all Americans.

Originally published at Sen. Rand Paul's office website.

​WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, joined by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-WY) and Congressman Dan Bishop (R-NC-08), introduced the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act. This bill will prohibit federal employees and contractors from using their positions to direct online platforms to censor First Amendment protected speech, reinforcing our collective commitment to safeguarding the constitutional rights of all American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a streamlined iteration of the Free Speech Protection Act, tailored to address the standing issues highlighted in Murthy v. Missouri.

“Americans are a free people, and we do not take infringements upon our liberties lightly. Our Founding Fathers enshrined the First Amendment to protect our God-given right to free expression, recognizing its fundamental importance to a free society,” said Dr. Paul. “With the Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act, we will strip away the barriers preventing judicial review of coercive government tactics that silence dissenting voices and ensure that no government official or contractor can undermine the First Amendment rights of Americans. We must confront and dismantle this censorship apparatus to protect our fundamental right to free speech.”

“I have repeatedly said that the government cannot do by proxy what it is prohibited from doing directly. This is exactly what happened with the Biden Administration pressuring social media companies to suppress the free speech of American citizens. The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act will not only ensure future litigants would have standing, but also would also apply to the plaintiffs in Murthy,” said Rep. Hageman. “Our forefathers ratified the First Amendment recognizing that government actors would always seek to control public discourse in order to protect their own power structure. No one has a monopoly on truth, and the Biden administration and federal agencies are not entitled to declare that American’s speech is ‘mis-information,’ ‘dis-information,’ or ‘mal-information’ and silence the message, especially when you consider how much accurate and truthful information was squelched during Covid-19 and the 2020 election. We will continue to fight to protect our First Amendment rights.” 

“Americans have a God-given right to free expression, and the constant attacks on the First Amendment from government bureaucrats make safeguarding that right all the more important. Malicious actors within government should never be allowed to silence and censor Americans, and Americans targeted by the Censorship Industrial Complex deserve their day in court. This legislation will ensure just that by removing barriers for judicial review and cracking down on those who aim to trample on the First Amendment,” said Rep. Bishop.

The bill would:

1. Empower individuals to sue government officials who coerce online platforms into censoring constitutionally protected speech.
2. Apply to past First Amendment violations and establish a presumption of liability for any government official attempting to pressure platforms into censorship, thereby overcoming the causality issue identified by the Supreme Court in Murthy.
3. Provide a vital mechanism for all Americans to protect their constitutional rights and challenge government overreach. It ensures that government officials are held accountable for any attempts to infringe upon our fundamental right to free speech.

Additional support:
“In the covid era, the federal government systematically suppressed legal online speech that contradicted its policy priorities, including criticism of covid misinformation spread by the government on topics like immunity, school closures, mask and covid vaccine effectiveness, vaccine injuries, and vaccine mandates. Given the recent failure of the Supreme Court to protect Americans against this threat to free speech rights, it is vital for Congress to act to secure the First Amendment. I am pleased that Sen. Paul has authored such a bill which will prohibit Federal employees and contractors from censoring legal speech. I encourage all law makers to support the bill,” said Jay Bhatthacharya MD, PhD., Stanford University and plaintiff in Murthy v. Missouri.

“Rights that cannot be vindicated in court are not rights at all. By closing the courthouse doors to Americans who are victimized by government censorship campaigns, Murthy invites the government to violate First Amendment rights at will—so long as it does so indirectly, utilizing numerous government agencies, rather than directly or through a single agency. Murthy essentially gives the government a blueprint on how to censor American citizens. This legislation says, ‘not so fast’,” said Bradley A. Smith, Chairman and Founder, Institute for Free Speech.

“As we inch closer to a crucial election in November, Congress should act swiftly to stop government censorship by proxy and protect Americans’ access to information. By restricting federal employees and contractors from encouraging platforms to suppress speech directly or indirectly, this bill is an important step in the right direction. Heritage Action applauds Sen. Paul for fighting government overreach and the weaponization of censorship on Big Tech platforms,” said Ryan Walker, Executive Vice President, Heritage Action.

“Let the people sue government officials who are working on the taxpayer dime to censor everyday Americans. Senator Paul is valiantly defending our Constitutional free speech rights. This bill is a no-brainer,” said L. Brent Bozell III, Founder and President, Media Research Center.

“Senator Rand Paul has introduced legislation allowing citizens to sue the federal government for censoring their speech, protecting First Amendment rights. For too long, federal entities have violated free speech using government power and funds. This bill ensures courts cannot dismiss these cases on standing grounds, preventing constitutional abuses. Senator Paul’s initiative is a crucial step in safeguarding free speech, a cornerstone of our free society,” said George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

“The Supreme Court’s failure to decide the Murthy v. Missouri case on the grounds that Missouri did not have standing in their attempt to protect their citizens against unconstitutional government censorship was a travesty. Senator Rand Paul’s introduction of legislation to provide states standing to sue on censorship cases would provide perhaps the only vehicle for broadly protecting free speech rights from the federal government coercing and suggesting censorship via corporate social media proxies. Americans for Limited Government proudly supports the Rand Paul legislation,” said Richard Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government.
​
“Senator Rand Paul has long been a champion of free speech and individual liberty, and this is on full display today with his legislation that will help preserve our freedoms that some in the federal government too often are trying to destroy,” said Vance Ginn, President of Ginn Economic Consulting and Former Chief Economist of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“As social media has grown to allow Americans more free and unfettered speech online, there have been highly motivated efforts by government officials to limit speech online using both direct and indirect forms of coercion. This is a direct challenge to the spirit and future strength of the First Amendment. The Consumer Choice Center strongly supports Sen. Paul’s “Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act” as a vehicle to end unconstitutional jawboning and hold public officials accountable when they aim to suppress public discourse and free expression online,” said Yael Ossowski, Deputy Director, Consumer Choice Center.

“The Standing to Challenge Government Censorship Act is a necessary corrective to the Supreme Court ruling that current law does not provide standing to victims of government-directed censorship to get their day in court. Congress should pass it quickly to allow citizens to appropriately defend their First Amendment rights,” said Phil Kerpen, President, American Commitment.

“No government should have the ability to control American free speech online or censor us from speaking. NetChoice applauds Sen. Paul for taking this important step to defend the First Amendment from government officials that abuse their power by trying to suppress open and free dialogue online. Sen. Paul’s bill makes it clear that Americans have the right to challenge the government for jawboning in court. NetChoice looks forward to working with Sen. Paul and the U.S. Senate to get this issue right so that Americans and businesses are protected from government interference when exercising their constitutionally-protected speech,” said Carl Szabo,Vice President & General Counsel, NetChoice.

“The recent decision in Murthy v. Missouri seemed to give government officials free rein to push social media companies to censor speech they dislike. Sen. Paul is stepping up to fix this by ensuring citizens have standing to sue when they do this. Free speech makes a comeback,” said Jim Hanson, Executive Director, America Matters.

Background:
On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Murthy v. Missouri, a landmark First Amendment case, that the plaintiffs did not have standing to seek an injunction against government officials who attempted to pressure platforms into censoring speech related to COVID-19. The court’s decision hinged on the plaintiffs seeking an injunction against future censorship, rather than compensation for past violations of their First Amendment rights. However, the plaintiffs would not have been able to seek compensation, even if they wanted to, as the Supreme Court has consistently refused to acknowledge a cause of action allowing individuals to seek compensation from federal officials for past First Amendment violations.

Like countless other Americans, Dr. Paul was also targeted by the pervasive censorship regime during the pandemic. In 2021, Dr. Paul posted a video on YouTube to educate the public about the potentially harmful consequences of relying on ineffective cloth masks to prevent the transmission of COVID-19. YouTube took down his video and suspended his account for a week. This blatant suppression of dissenting views led him to announce that he was quitting the platform and would henceforth post his content on Rumble.com. 

You can read the bill HERE. 

Organized by R Street Institute. 

“Parents know best for their kids. Not politicians, bureaucrats, CEOs, or anyone else. Sure, many parenting don’t make the ‘correct’ choices, as I make many mistakes, but government one-size-fits-none policies will make the situation much worse.”
—Vance Ginn, former Chief Economist for the White House Office of Management & Budget under President Donald Trump.

Originally published at The Center Square.

The recent surge of bills attempting to rein in social media outrage in Florida and across America has sparked debate over the role of government in regulating them.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis vetoed an initial bill banning minors on social media. In his veto message, he said, “Protecting children from harms associated with social media is important, as is supporting parents’ rights and maintaining the ability of adults to engage in anonymous speech.”

We should empower parents to determine what's best for their children on social media, or otherwise. This will work better than putting politicians and government bureaucrats in charge, which is what these types of bills do. These bills are likely unconstitutional, as they violate the First Amendment.

Furthermore, excessive government regulation of social media stifles innovation and entrepreneurship in the digital space, especially small businesses.

By imposing burdensome restrictions on online platforms, we risk hindering the development of new technologies and services that could benefit families. A more pragmatic approach fosters competition in the marketplace, allowing consumers to choose the platforms that best align with their values and preferences.

These regulations would hurt many start-up firms as they won’t have the resources to hire as many lawyers to jump through the hoops imposed on them that larger, incumbent companies can afford. They would also need to pay third-party verification systems that cost thousands of dollars, making it more challenging to start a business, as noted in a recent report by Engine.

Gov. DeSantis has been a vocal advocate for parental empowerment, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability from social media companies. His initial pushback of government overreach of social media should be championed rather than resorting to bans for questionable reasons, as social media isn’t the culprit for bad parenting or bad legislation.

In light of ongoing NetChoice cases at the Supreme Court, where the organization has fought against state-level regulations deemed infringing on free speech and commerce, we should uphold free speech in the digital age. By joining parents in advocating for greater transparency and accountability by social media companies where applicable, we can champion the interests of Americans and assert state sovereignty.

​Rather than relying on government mandates and regulations, we should foster a culture of parental responsibility and provide families with the resources they need to navigate the digital landscape safely.

If politicians and bureaucrats take over these responsibilities, it will lead to less incentive for parents to be engaged with their kids and what they’re doing online. This would be a terrible path forward as the government has already made bad situations worse regarding safety-net handouts, a monopoly government school system, and more.

Let’s stick with a proven approach that supports parents and social media providers rather than a top-down, likely unconstitutional one.

www.chronicle-tribune.com/opinion/could-social-media-regulation-stifle-our-future/article_1dd66cd8-5e61-5e04-ac82-e9c56b12d166.htmlOriginally published at the Tribune. 

​This is the season of controversial big-government actions by Republicans and Democrats.

They too often want to direct people’s actions toward how politicians see fit, through policies dealing with industrial support, climate change, and labor markets.

One concern is regulating social media.

​From the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of Texas and Florida’s social media laws to Utah and other states unveiling social media rules for the digital world, parental rights and capitalism are at a pivotal moment. The policy choices we are making now on these issues will impact the brightest spot in the American economy.

As economist Thomas Sowell correctly noted, there are no solutions, only trade-offs. This is a reason why it is crucial for Americans to grasp the trade-offs of social media regulation before politicians and bureaucrats take action.

Utah’s ”Social Media Regulation Act” serves as a cautionary tale of government overreach with severe trade-offs. While the road to online safety is paved with good intentions, as we all want the best for minors (and everyone), we must evaluate policies by their real-world results.

Utah’s law mandates minors under 18 must obtain a guardian’s permission to create social media accounts. If they proceed, the guardian gains full access to the minor’s account, with default curfew settings between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m.

Additionally, minors cannot receive unapproved direct messages, and their accounts are blocked from appearing in search results.

While there is mixed evidence suggesting a relationship between excessive social media usage and declining mental health, a recent study from Gallup reveals that parents have an even more prominent role than social media when it comes to well-being:

“The strength of the relationship between an adolescent and their parent is much more closely related to their mental health than their social media habits. When teens report having a strong, loving relationship with their parents or caretakers, their level of social media use no longer predicts mental health problems.”

Even if the mental health studies are correct, Utah’s law may not help teens most in need.

Implementing government regulations always comes with a cost, and in this case, the very thing this policy intends to help could be harmed as a result. Parenting could be taken from parents and given to social media companies and government bureaucrats.

​Another trade-off looms: Will children growing up with restricted access to social media be disadvantaged compared to their counterparts in states and countries without such restrictions? Social media plays a key role, not just socially, but also professionally. The effect of limited exposure to these platforms remains uncertain.

Beyond concerns about parental rights and career challenges, bills like these can seriously disrupt free markets and the prosperity we’ve seen them bring. Instead of restrictions, states and the federal government should focus on education. Indeed, many states are considering such digital literacy laws, following in Florida’s footsteps.

On the free speech side of social media regulations, the bills in Texas and Florida aimed to prevent social media companies from selectively influencing digital expression.

The Texas law was challenged in court and upheld; the Florida law was challenged and struck down. Now, these laws will be considered by the Supreme Court, and the outcome will have a big impact on the social media ecosystem.

Although it’s frustrating for social media companies to potentially influence users by removing, promoting, or de-ranking specific content besides pornography, they are within their rights to do so. Content moderation practices, whether strict or open, bring a great opportunity for competition.

For example, platforms like Rumble emerged in response to concerns that the big social media companies were unfairly moderating their content and attracting millions of users.

This exemplifies the essence of free enterprise — problems inspire innovation, and competition drives improvement, allowing for diversification. But if social media companies in these states are compelled to adhere to the restrictive regulations, it will deter new startups and stifle growth.

The social media landscape is evolving rapidly, and regulations like these demand careful consideration. While the safety of minors online is paramount, for our kids and yours, it’s crucial to strike a balance that preserves parental rights, encourages innovation, protects free speech, and safeguards individual freedoms.

As we navigate this digital age, let’s remember that effective solutions should empower parents, consumers, and promote competition, not hinder progress with more government. These are the things that have provided the greatest human flourishing in free-market capitalism.

Re: “Protecting kids on social media — Texas House’s proposed age limit is a step forward,” Thursday editorial.

While some connect social media use with teen depression and suicides, evidence is unclear. The Economist noted, “If social media were the sole or main cause of rising levels of suicide or self-harm — rather than just one part of a complex problem — country-level data would probably show signs of their effect.” They don’t.

Underlying causes of depression and suicide are often much deeper for teens, best addressed by parents, yet some want to give it to government bureaucrats. The latest attempt is Texas House Bill 18, supported by your editorial board.

The bill would essentially ban teens from social media and force all to register online. It excludes YouTube by picking it as a winner with an educational provision.

Though well-intended, the bill would have many costly unintended consequences. Teens could lose benefits from connecting with family and friends and learning new things, have less information in a growing digital world and possibly choose less-desired activities.

Everyone registering for digital services reduces privacy and security. Texas should empower parents to decide for their kids — many of us may choose to keep our kids offline — not government bureaucrats.

Vance Ginn, Round Rock

Originally published at the Dallas Morning News. 

​The mental health of preteens and teenagers across America has been a growing concern as suicide remains the third highest cause of their deaths. The causes of suicide are largely unknown and complex.

Some point to the decline of the family structure, with fewer two-parent households, more parents working full-time, and subsequently more kids spending less time with family. Others tie the cause to fewer Americans actively practicing religion and raising their children to lean on their faith in times of stress and uncertainty.

And then there are those who blame social media and other interactive digital services, where minors are increasingly spending their time.

Whichever cause is contributing to the problem of suicides by teens is a serious one, worthy of research and solutions.

A growing number of state lawmakers have introduced legislation aimed at curbing the use of social media and other interactive digital services by minors. Those bills often require age verification, nullify online contracts entered into between minors and companies offering those services, establish curfews when minors are prohibited from using them, and authorize private rights of action where individuals can sue companies and be awarded damages.

But it has not been established that social media – this thing that youth have quickly embraced and mastered, but many older adults don’t like or are still trying to figure out – is indeed the biggest problem. If it is, then which specific aspects or activities are most problematic and how can they be isolated to address them?

Instead of getting to the root causes, those who suspect it’s bad or believe that it’s at least a contributor to mental health challenges are throwing the kitchen sink at it, seemingly overlooking the practical implications of increased regulation and the dangers of inviting government to co-parent.

Take, for example, age verification requirements.

Proponents say these requirements exist only for minors, but in order to prove that one isn’t a minor, all users must provide their personal information to the social media company or its third-party provider, which matches the information against official government records. It’s not like a person attempting to buy beer or cigarettes at the grocery store, where a cashier must “card” those who appear to be underage.

When accessing the Internet on a computer, cell phone, or other electronic device, the only way for a person to prove that he or she isn’t a minor is to go through the entire age verification process…for every single program or service he or she uses. And this would apply to every user in the state.

Some argue that the risks to minors justify these burdensome new requirements, but when adults suddenly begin having to provide their personal information to access multiple online programs they’ve used for years (and not knowing where that personal information will be stored, how will it be used, whether it will be shared, and more) and then find out why, expect lots of angry phone calls to lawmakers’ offices.

This brings up a number of other questions that should be answered.

Whose job is it to monitor and, if necessary, restrict minors’ access to technology in the first place? Is it the role of government to set curfews or establish limitations for the activities of minors in the home and/or while under the supervision of a parent or legal guardian?

Should parents, schools, or others bear the responsibility of educating minors about the appropriate uses of technology, the Internet, and social media? Is enough being done to establish healthy behavior patterns and warn against the dangers of overuse, bullying, inappropriate contact, and engaging with strangers? If not, shouldn’t we start there before introducing government restrictions?

Also, could overregulation by the government lead to unintended consequences such as kids losing access to educational and other positive materials? Could it lead to them being denied the opportunity to connect and socialize with peers, family members, and others around the world who their parents know and trust, all because the government makes giving them access so burdensome?

Is government really prepared to restrict citizens’ access to one of the greatest innovations, sources of knowledge, and enablers of human interaction made available in our lifetime?

And for social media programs and interactive digital services offered across the globe, how will companies comply with potentially dozens of rules and regulations that differ from state to state? Is that even possible, and should the rules differ for Louisianans than for people living in Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi?

Rather than throwing the kitchen sink at it with bigger government, let’s be thoughtful about the best ways to address the needs of young people and their families while ensuring that solutions will actually work, are workable, and don’t trade individual liberties for more government. We’ve tried that too many times before, and the results aren’t good.

Originally published with Erin Bendily, Ph.D., at Pelican Institute for Public Policy.

​In today's episode of "This Week's Economy," I discuss the latest GDP report, the House Republicans passing a new debt ceiling bill, School Choice, state budgets, social media bans, and more.

Thank you for listening to the 6th episode of "This Week's Economy,” where I briefly share my insights every Friday morning on key economic and policy news at the U.S. and state levels.

Today, I cover:
1) National: Findings from the latest GDP report released yesterday (April 27th) and the debt ceiling bill passed by House Republicans;
2) States: Updates on Universal School Choice and budgets across states, especially Texas and Louisiana; and
3) Other: Bills circulating on restricting social media, and more.

You can watch this episode on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor (please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating).

For show notes, thoughtful economic insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more at my Substack directly in your inbox.

​There's a lot of talk about the harms of social media on teens. Notable experts on both sides of the issue struggle to reach consensus. But state lawmakers are moving ahead with legislation to ban teens from social media.

The issue is, even if we assume the worst, a ban is a short-term fix to a potentially longer-term problem. Worse, it will likely do more to avoid dealing with teens’ underlying problems by taking control away from parents. And it could shortchange teens of many benefits online for education, networking, and more.

If these issues are truly due to social media, when teens turn 18 and become “legal adults,” the issues will continue. The only difference a ban will make is that when teens become adults, and move away to start their lives, they won't have their parents to guide them online. They’ll have missed out on the opportunity to have productive discussions about safe practices with their parents.

Despite what legislators are claiming, bans aren’t a pro-parent approach. Legislation to ban minors from social media gives the government (politicians and bureaucrats) the power to decide what’s best for children. And as usual, it's set to do a poor job of it.

Earlier this year, Utah became the first state to ban teens from social media.

The pair of bills ban teens under 16 completely and impose heavy-handed restrictions for sites allowing teens 16 to 18. Those restrictions include state-mandated curfews, intrusive age verification, punitive fines on companies with sites subjectively considered to be too appealing, and a presumption that any harm a child experiences is the result of social media. Parental consent is required for teens 16 to 18 to create an account, but that’s the end of a parent’s input into what they want for their teen.

Now Texas, Arkansas, and other states are following suit.

While legislators praise these bills as a solution to the mental health crisis facing teens, these provisions don’t address the underlying problems from many factors. Adding to the debate about whether social media is a significant cause of depression, experts are also grappling with how to reduce cyberbullying, curb exploitation, and protect teens from predators online.

State efforts have done more to gloss over the problems teens are facing in the name of parental choice, missing opportunities to address specific issues and avoiding the unintended consequences of such actions. What’s more, the specifics in these bills, like state-imposed curfews and civil penalties, constitute a draconian approach that removes parents from choosing what’s best for their kids.

Rather than banning teens from engaging in our connected world, we should separate the concerns into actionable items. Experts, stakeholders and parents alike should be given time to propose solutions with meaningful input that prepare teens to safely and responsibly enter the technology-integrated world.

The hard part, of course, is reaching a consensus.

To some, that’s why an all-out ban on allowing teens on the Internet would do the trick. But that would ignore the reality that teens will one day become adults and find themselves unequipped to contend with an online world, less productive, and more at risk of the concerns given for bans. It also takes the power out of the hands of parents, who are the ones best positioned to find what’s best for their kids, and puts it in the hands of bureaucrats.

Government meddling in the parent-child relationship rarely works well, and there’s little reason to believe this time will be different. That goes for Utah, Texas, Arkansas, and any other state that tries to help kids by disempowering parents.

If the warning signs are true, and social media is creating all the harm talked about in the news, we can’t simply ban the problems away. We’ll need to address them head-on with solutions that balance liberty, free speech, privacy, and parenting. Without these, we will fail to set up the next generation for offline and online success.

​Originally published at The Center Square. 

​In Let People Prosper episode #40, I talk with Max Gulker, Ph.D., about whether Big Tech is a monopoly, FTC's overreach with regulations, & benefits of network effects to let people prosper.

​On today's episode of the "Let People Prosper" show, which was recorded on March 21, 2023, I'm thankful to be joined by Dr. Max Gulker, Senior Policy Analyst at Reason Foundation.
We discuss:

1. The myth about "big tech" companies being a "monopoly," such as Amazon, Twitter, etc.;
2. The antitrust and regulatory threats by Federal Trade Commission’s Chair Lina Khan (here’s her foundational article); and
3. The future of technology for us to prosper with network effects and freedom.

You can watch this interview on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor (please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating).

​Dr. Gulker’s bio and other info (here):

• Max Gulker, Ph.D., is a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
  Gulker’s research and writing bring a fresh perspective to social policy issues and debates. Gulker's recent research topics include welfare and work requirements, the impact of recent government policy on urban poverty, childcare, and cash assistance. Rather than traditional top-down approaches, Gulker looks for social policy alternatives where the private, public and non-profit sectors empower, rather than dictate to, people, families, and communities in need.
• Prior to joining Reason Foundation, Gulker spent five years with the American Institute for Economic Research, where he wrote on social policy, including employment, education and healthcare, and emerging technology, including cryptocurrency, tech antitrust, and the sharing economy. Gulker has appeared on television news outlets including the Fox Business Channel, print media including the Wall Street Journal, and podcasts including Kibbe On Liberty. He has presented research, given speeches, and participated in panels at conferences on economics, technology and politics.
• Gulker received his BA in Economics from the University of Michigan in 2000 and his Ph.D. in economics from Stanford University in 2008. Prior to entering the policy research field, he spent several years in the private sector, consulting on litigation including antitrust, intellectual property, bankruptcy and shareholder class actions.
• Follow him on Twitter @maxg_econ.

For show notes, thoughtful economic insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more at my personal website or Substack newsletter where you can get every episode in your inbox.