Everywhere, the script is: people come online → the digital economy grows. Tanzania broke it. Internet use hit ~31% yet its services sector shrank from 49% of GDP (2001) to 29% (2024). New IGP research: the bottleneck isn't infrastructure, it's governance. internetgovernance.org/wp-co…

Export controls since 2010: ~$158B market cap loss for US firms, ~$18B for Chinese targets (per Fed economists). China's domestic chip equipment share went from 25% → 35% in one year. Cheng & Mueller call it what it is: unilateral disarmament dressed up as containment. We kneecap American companies while China builds around them. internetgovernance.org/2026/…

Much of the current media coverage frames the Anthropic-DoD dispute as an ethical conflict: a reckless Pentagon trying to weaponize AI versus a principled company standing firm on responsible use. While not entirely wrong, this framing it misses what is most important. internetgovernance.org/2026/…

A startlingly pessimistic take on the meaning of the DoW-Anthropic clash

India’s internet is far more restricted than officially acknowledged. This is the largest study of #DNScensorship in #India till date, both in terms of test list coverage as well as the size of blocklist. Monumental work by .@Squeal

As I have said since the beginning, this is about the principle of the thing for both parties. Anthropic is saying private firms should be able to set the terms on which they offer products and services to the government. USG is saying no, private firms may not set terms of use. In other words, the USG is saying that companies who provide services to the military are not quite “contractors” but instead assets to be deployed at will by the government, only to be constrained by the government’s interpretation of the law. There is no difference in principle from the government saying “we unilaterally dictate the price of every service and product we procure.” After all, price is just another term in a contract. This is why the government’s stance has a certain appeal, but is ultimately conceptually incoherent and a fundamental departure from the principles of ordered liberty that you and I both share. The “coloring within the lines of our republic” response is for the government to say, fine, we won’t give you business and we will give business to your competitors. Perhaps even to make a public stink about it. I don’t know a single person who objects to that or thinks it’s illegitimate for the government to do. But instead what the government is doing is trying to destroy Anthropic, using policy measures reserved only for foreign adversaries. This is obviously a different-in-kind response, and all principled classical liberals should reject it outright. This is not hard, or at least it should not be. In short: You are focusing on the wrong thing. Of course DoW is free to have a principle that they will accept no limitations on their use of technology. The problem is that their policy response is not just doing that, but instead attacking the basic principles of private property: that people have the right to set the terms of their engagement with the government.

Voices from academia, policy, industry and civil society shared insights on AI and geopolitics, international trade, innovation and more at Internet Governance Project's session today on AI governance and global economic development

A good review of Australia's social media law aei.org/technology-and-innov…

The biggest problem with "AI Safety/Alignment" is that they homogenize "AI" into a single thing. The good thing about @deanwball's emphasis on common law/tort solutions is that it reduces the governance problem to specific applications. "Guardrails" for what? chatbots? facial recognition in law enforcement? autonomous vehicles? medical devices?

Huston's data also shows that 95% of the transferred number blocks had been held by the selling party for more than 5 years. From 2017 - 2019, over 70% were held for 10 years or more. Since 2021, over 90% were held for more than 10 years.

Please use the link below to join the information session on Georgia Tech's MS degree in Cybersecurity (Policy track) today from 1:00 PM to 2:00 PM Eastern Time: gatech.zoom.us/meeting/regis…

A good discussion of how the U.S. withdrawal from certain United Nations bodies affects digital governance, from @jovankurbalija diplomacy.edu/blog/usas-exit…

Why we shouldn't renew the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act @ShaneTews @RandPaul internetgovernance.org/2026/…

The UN system absorbed the Internet Governance Forum. Will a multistakeholder virus spread into the multilateral system, or will it make Internet governance more multilateral? More details here: internetgovernance.org/2025/…

ICANN fosters some Not-So-Smart Ideas for AFRINIC internetgovernance.org/2025/…

Everyone interested in Internet governance needs to read this warning about a governmental takeover of AFRINIC from Kenya's Alice Munyua substack.com/inbox/post/1779…

Cybersecurity professionals! Learn about GT's Masters of Science program in Cybersecurity at a zoom-based information session. It's an interdisciplinary program with a concentration on Policy, involves you in rigorous technical preparation and some hands-on learning of threat hunting and incident response. You can talk with @miltonmueller and Sergio Caltagirone at the M.S Cybersecurity Info Session Time: Nov 7, 2025 11:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting lnkd.in/ddncNKhX