Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Society needs to take a breather

Sign saying "slow down"
gerenme/Getty Images

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University. He previously clerked for the Montana Supreme Court.

Patience is a virtue. It’s a simple refrain I learned well in Mrs. Campbell’s class — rather than read the instructions on a pop quiz, I rushed to start answering the questions. Turns out I missed three bonus points for simply writing my name on the back of the page rather than the front. Speed, though, has become the dominant social, political and economic norm.

We need our food delivered in minutes — you can even pay to have your UberEats order prioritized over others. We need real-time updates on our social media feeds — news and nonsense from friends and foes alike, full of instantaneous “hot takes” rather than reasoned analysis. We demand our politicians deliver progress on our ideological aims now — candidates jockey to be viewed as the one most likely to succeed on short-term policy goals and partisan preferences. And, we expect and encourage companies to compete to be the “first mover” instead of the “steady and responsible actor.”

It’s time to slow things down. We need to resist our urge to act with haste. So here are a few suggestions for how we can exercise more patience — and, by doing so, save some lives, improve our politics and enhance our discourse.


First, let’s lower the speed limit just about everywhere and let’s enhance the use of automated ways to ticket those who prioritize their speed over the safety of others. It’s not rocket science that fewer bad things can happen when cars move slower — but don’t take my word for it. Instead, consider that officials in Edmonton, Canada, saw a 50 percent drop in fatal and injurious crashes following a 6 mph drop in the speed limit. These benefits can come at relatively low cost, too. The European Union mandated the use of intelligent speed assistance systems in all new cars to increase driver awareness of excessive speeds and to ease enforcement. We can and should do the same in the United States.

Next, let’s consider granting our elected officials a single, longer term. Imagine if senators only served a single, eight-year term. Do you think they might reevaluate how they spend their time in office? I sure do. Rather than waste a third or half of their day calling donors, they could spend more time talking with their colleagues about substantive reforms. And, in place of prioritizing bills they know will please their “base,” they can more thoroughly consider legislation that may not score political points but will nevertheless further the public interest.

Finally, let’s turn to social media. This may be the most obvious place where our addiction to speed has caused poor social outcomes. Speaking from unfortunate personal experience, I know that it can feel impossible to pull away from the drama and debates that endlessly populated my apps. And you may be able to relate to my temptation to post hot takes just to see how folks respond. Those urges are understandable because that’s what the apps are built to do. We can and should advocate for more responsible platform design. The Prosocial Design Network, a community of behavioral science and design experts, has a menu of proven strategies that platforms can incorporate to make their respective feeds more aligned with quality deliberation – ideally platforms would voluntarily adopt these straightforward approaches for a better social media experience.

Realizing a slower society won’t be easy. The steps mentioned above, though, can help create space for safer streets, a more responsive democracy and a more deliberative social media ecosystem. Here’s to moving slowly and thinking about things.

Read More

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage
Why Fox News’ settlement with Dominion Voting Systems is good news for all media outlets
Getty Images

Fox News’ Selective Silence: How Trump’s Worst Moments Vanish From Coverage

Last week, the ultraconservative news outlet, NewsMax, reached a $73 million settlement with the voting machine company, Dominion, in essence, admitting that they lied in their reporting about the use of their voting machines to “rig” or distort the 2020 presidential election. Not exactly shocking news, since five years later, there is no credible evidence to suggest any malfeasance regarding the 2020 election. To viewers of conservative media, such as Fox News, this might have shaken a fully embraced conspiracy theory. Except it didn’t, because those viewers haven’t seen it.

Many people have a hard time understanding why Trump enjoys so much support, given his outrageous statements and damaging public policy pursuits. Part of the answer is due to Fox News’ apparent censoring of stories that might be deemed negative to Trump. During the past five years, I’ve tracked dozens of examples of news stories that cast Donald Trump in a negative light, including statements by Trump himself, which would make a rational person cringe. Yet, Fox News has methodically censored these stories, only conveying rosy news that draws its top ratings.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Flag / artificial intelligence / technology / congress / ai

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity.

Getty Images, Douglas Rissing

Liberty and the General Welfare in the Age of AI

If the means justify the ends, we’d still be operating under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders understood that the means—the governmental structure itself—must always serve the ends of liberty and prosperity. When the means no longer served those ends, they experimented with yet another design for their government—they did expect it to be the last.

The age of AI warrants asking if the means still further the ends—specifically, individual liberty and collective prosperity. Both of those goals were top of mind for early Americans. They demanded the Bill of Rights to protect the former, and they identified the latter—namely, the general welfare—as the animating purpose for the government. Both of those goals are being challenged by constitutional doctrines that do not align with AI development or even undermine it. A full review of those doctrines could fill a book (and perhaps one day it will). For now, however, I’m just going to raise two.

Keep ReadingShow less
An illustration of AI chat boxes.

An illustration of AI chat boxes.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

In Defense of ‘AI Mark’

Earlier this week, a member of the UK Parliament—Mark Sewards—released an AI tool (named “AI Mark”) to assist with constituent inquiries. The public response was rapid and rage-filled. Some people demanded that the member of Parliament (MP) forfeit part of his salary—he's doing less work, right? Others called for his resignation—they didn't vote for AI; they voted for him! Many more simply questioned his thinking—why on earth did he think outsourcing such sensitive tasks to AI would be greeted with applause?

He's not the only elected official under fire for AI use. The Prime Minister of Sweden, Ulf Kristersson, recently admitted to using AI to study various proposals before casting votes. Swedes, like the Brits, have bombarded Kristersson with howls of outrage.

Keep ReadingShow less
shallow focus photography of computer codes
Shahadat Rahman on Unsplash

When Rules Can Be Code, They Should Be!

Ninety years ago this month, the Federal Register Act was signed into law in a bid to shine a light on the rules driving President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal—using the best tools of the time to make government more transparent and accountable. But what began as a bold step toward clarity has since collapsed under its own weight: over 100,000 pages, a million rules, and a public lost in a regulatory haystack. Today, the Trump administration’s sweeping push to cut red tape—including using AI to hunt obsolete rules—raises a deeper challenge: how do we prevent bureaucracy from rebuilding itself?

What’s needed is a new approach: rewriting the rule book itself as machine-executable code that can be analyzed, implemented, or streamlined at scale. Businesses could simply download and execute the latest regulations on their systems, with no need for costly legal analysis and compliance work. Individuals could use apps or online tools to quickly figure out how rules affect them.

Keep ReadingShow less