Paragraphs

THE IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH OF ELECTION DAY 2020 offers lessons about the state of American democracy as well as technology’s influence on voters, the voting process, and democratic institutions. Whatever the outcome of an election, and despite a polarized society, it is clear that all Americans share a common stake in protecting the integrity and independence of the administration of elections, the declaration of winners and losers, and a peaceful transition of power. Yet other questions persist: How have disinformation campaigns, whether domestic or foreign, affected the electoral process? And what does the future hold in terms of a tech agenda?

All Publications button
1
Publication Date
Authors
Marietje Schaake
Paragraphs

ANTITRUST AND PRIVACY CONCERNS are two of the most high-profile topics on the tech policy agenda. Checks and balances to counteract the power of companies such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook are under consideration in Congress, though a polarized political environment is a hindrance. But a domestic approach to tech policy will be insufficient, as the users of the large American tech companies are predominantly outside the United States. We need to point the way toward a transnational policy effort that puts democratic principles and basic human rights above the commercial interests of these private companies.

These issues are central to the eight-week Stanford University course, “Technology and the 2020 Election: How Silicon Valley Technologies Affect Elections and Shape Democracy.” The joint class for Stanford students and Stanford’s Continuing Studies Community enrolls a cross-generational population of more than 400 students from around the world.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
White Papers
Publication Date
Authors
Marietje Schaake
-

Society has been transformed by a technology revolution and its 24/7 influence on so many aspects of our reality. The COVID-19 pandemic and the nationwide movement for racial justice have made it even clearer how essential these tools are for our daily lives. Silicon Valley has clearly followed through on its promise to change the world on a vast scale, but not necessarily for the better.

In this session, Jim Steyer, CEO and founder of Common Sense and author of the new book, Which Side of History?: How Technology is Reshaping Democracy and Our Lives, will join Stanford's Marietje Schaake and Renee DiResta to highlight the myriad ways in which technology and social media have allowed for the erosion of our democracy, from the rampant distribution of misinformation and the influence of online conspiracy theories to the attacks by Russian trolls during the 2016 U.S. election. Through discussion, they will discuss the steps we must take to hold technology accountable for its harms and recapture the promise and potential of technology that has been lost.

 

0
marietje.schaake

Marietje Schaake is a non-resident Fellow at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center and at the Institute for Human-Centered AI. She is a columnist for the Financial Times and serves on a number of not-for-profit Boards as well as the UN's High Level Advisory Body on AI. Between 2009-2019 she served as a Member of European Parliament where she worked on trade-, foreign- and tech policy. She is the author of The Tech Coup.


 

Non-Resident Fellow, Cyber Policy Center
Fellow, Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence
Date Label
0
renee-diresta.jpg

Renée DiResta is the former Research Manager at the Stanford Internet Observatory. She investigates the spread of malign narratives across social networks, and assists policymakers in understanding and responding to the problem. She has advised Congress, the State Department, and other academic, civic, and business organizations, and has studied disinformation and computational propaganda in the context of pseudoscience conspiracies, terrorism, and state-sponsored information warfare.

You can see a full list of Renée's writing and speeches on her website: www.reneediresta.com or follow her @noupside.

 

Former Research Manager, Stanford Internet Observatory
Jim Steyer
Seminars
Paragraphs

POPULAR CULTURE HAS ENVISIONED SOCIETIES of intelligent machines for generations, with Alan Turing notably foreseeing the need for a test to distinguish machines from humans in 1950. Now, advances in artificial intelligence that promise to make creating convincing fake multimedia content like video, images, or audio relatively easy for many. Unfortunately, this will include sophisticated bots with supercharged self-improvement abilities that are capable of generating more dynamic fakes than anything seen before.

In our paper “How Relevant is the Turing Test in the Age of Sophisbots,” we argue that society is on the brink of an AI-driven technology that can simulate many of the most important hallmarks of human behavior. As the variety and scale of these so called “deepfakes” expands, they will likely be able to simulate human behavior so effectively and they will operate in such a dynamic manner that they will increasingly pass Turing’s test. 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Authors
Paragraphs

IN 2016 WE LEARNED ABOUT EFFORTS BY FOREIGN ACTORS to interfere in the U.S. election by injecting misinformation and disinformation into public discourse on social media. False events and personas added to the polarization and manipulation of voters.

The 2020 election is marked by similar efforts, though this time the actors are domestic as well as foreign. What do we do know about people with deceptive or malicious agendas trying to influence citizens ahead of elections, to degrade democracy and sow distrust in the election results, or to spread confusion about science and facts more generally through our information systems?

 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Authors
Marietje Schaake
-

In October, the Justice Department sued Google for violating antitrust laws.These antitrust concerns are motivated by the potential economic harms caused by the tech giants’ monopoly positions, but there might be greater reason to worry about the political harms that the platforms pose to American democracy because of their control over the modern information ecosystem. If the antitrust laws are designed to address economic harms, how should policymakers confront the political harms from dominant digital platforms?

Join us on November 18th at 10 a.m. PST to discuss recommendations from the new White Paper of the Stanford Working Group on Platform Scale, where we will assess how today’s digital platforms pose threats to American democracy and a proposal for how creative technological interventions might mitigate the platform’s growing power. Panelists include Francis Fukuyama, Mosbacher Director of Stanford University’s Center for Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law and a leader at the Cyber Policy Center’s Program on Democracy and the Internet, Ashish Goel, Professor of Management Science and Engineering and (by courtesy) Computer Science at Stanford University, Barak D. Richman, Professor of Law and Business Administration at Duke University, Luigi Zingales, Professor of Economics at the Chicago Booth School of Business and Co-host of the podcast Capitalisn't, and Dick Costolo, former CEO of Twitter, founder and CEO of multiple startups, and now a Managing Partner at 01 Advisors, in conversation with Kelly Born, Executive Director of the Cyber Policy Center as they discuss new ideas in antitrust.

Dick Costolo

Encina Hall, C148
616 Jane Stanford Way
Stanford, CA 94305

0
Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies
Director of the Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy
Research Affiliate at The Europe Center
Professor by Courtesy, Department of Political Science
yff-2021-14290_6500x4500_square.jpg

Francis Fukuyama is the Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), and a faculty member of FSI's Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL). He is also Director of Stanford's Ford Dorsey Master's in International Policy, and a professor (by courtesy) of Political Science.

Dr. Fukuyama has written widely on issues in development and international politics. His 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man, has appeared in over twenty foreign editions. His book In the Realm of the Last Man: A Memoir will be published in fall 2026.

Francis Fukuyama received his B.A. from Cornell University in classics, and his Ph.D. from Harvard in Political Science. He was a member of the Political Science Department of the RAND Corporation, and of the Policy Planning Staff of the US Department of State. From 1996-2000 he was Omer L. and Nancy Hirst Professor of Public Policy at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University, and from 2001-2010 he was Bernard L. Schwartz Professor of International Political Economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University. He served as a member of the President’s Council on Bioethics from 2001-2004. He is editor-in-chief of American Purpose, an online journal.

Dr. Fukuyama holds honorary doctorates from Connecticut College, Doane College, Doshisha University (Japan), Kansai University (Japan), Aarhus University (Denmark), the Pardee Rand Graduate School, and Adam Mickiewicz University (Poland). He is a non-resident fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Rand Corporation, the Board of Trustees of Freedom House, and the Board of the Volcker Alliance. He is a fellow of the National Academy for Public Administration, a member of the American Political Science Association, and of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is married to Laura Holmgren and has three children.

(October 2025)

CV
Date Label
Ashish Goel
Luigi Zingales
Barak Richman
-

The internet is now the most common source of political news for almost half of Americans, and social media is now the primary source of news for those under 30. Yet today’s youth have little capacity to evaluate the credibility of digital sources, with colleges across the country often relying on severely outdated guidelines supporting digital literacy education. Join Stanford’s Sam Wineburg, Washington State University’s Mike Caulfield, and Rowan University’s Andrea Baer and Dan Kipnis, in conversation with the Cyber Center’s Kelly Born, about the many challenges and opportunities facing media literacy.

Andrea Baer
Mike Caulfield
Dan Kipnis
Sam Wineburg
Seminars
Authors
News Type
Q&As
Date
Paragraphs

Graham Webster leads the DigiChina Project, which translates and explains Chinese technology policy for an English-language audience so that debates and decisions regarding cyber policy are factual and based on primary sources of information.  

Housed within Stanford’s Program on Geopolitics, Technology, and Governance (GTG) and in partnership with New America, DigiChina and its community of experts have already published more than 80 translations and analyses of public policy documents, laws, regulations and political speeches and are creating an open-access knowledge base for policy-makers, academics, and members of the tech industry who need insight into the choices China makes regarding technology.

Q. Why is this work important?

A lot of tech is produced in China so it’s important to understand their policies. And in Washington, D.C., you hear a lot of people say, “Well, you can’t know what China’s doing on tech policy. It’s all a secret.” But while China’s political system is often opaque, if you happen to read Chinese, there’s a lot that’s publicly available and can explain what the Chinese government is thinking and planning.

With our network of experts, DigiChina works at the intersection of two policy challenges. One is how do we deal with high technology, and the questions around economic competitiveness, personal autonomy and the security risks that our dependence on tech creates.

The other challenge is, from a US government, business or values perspective, what needs to be done about the increased prominence and power of the Chinese government and its economic, technological and military capabilities.

These questions cut across tech sectors from IT infrastructure to data-driven automation, and cutting-edge developments in quantum technology, biotech, and other fields of research.

Q: How was DigiChina started?

A number of us were working at different organizations, think tanks, consultancies and universities and we all had an interest in explaining the laws and the bureaucratic language to others who aren’t Chinese policy specialists or don’t have the language skills.  

We started working informally at first and then reached out to New America, which is an innovative type of think tank combining research, innovation, and policy thinking on challenges arising during this time of rapid technological and social change. Under the New America umbrella, and through partnerships with the Leiden Asia Centre, a leading European research center based at the University of Leiden, and the Ethics and Governance of Artificial Intelligence Initiative at Harvard and MIT, we were able to build out the program and increase the number of experts in our network.

Q: Who is involved in DigiChina and what types of expertise do you and others bring to the project?

More than 40 people have contributed to DigiChina publications so far, and it’s a pretty diverse group. There are professors and think tank scholars, students and early-career professionals, and experienced government and industry analysts. Everyone has a different part of the picture they can contribute, and we reach out to other experts both in China and around the world when we need more context.

As for me, I was working at Yale Law School’s China Center when I was roped into what would become DigiChina and had spent several years in Beijing and New Haven working more generally on US-China relations and Track 2 dialogues, where experts and former officials from the two countries meet to take on tough problems. As a journalist and graduate student, I had long studied technology and politics in China, and I took on a coordinating role with DigiChina as I turned back to that pursuit full time.

Stanford is an ideal home because the university is a powerhouse in Chinese studies and an epicenter of global digital development.
Graham Webster
Editor in Chief, DigiChina Project

Q. Are there other organizations involved as well?

We have a strong tie to the Leiden Asia Centre at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands, where one of DigiChina’s cofounders, Rogier Creemers, is a professor, and where staff and student researchers have contributed to existing and forthcoming work. We coordinate with a number of other groups on translations, and the project benefits greatly from the time and knowledge contributed by employees of various institutions. I hope that network will increasingly be a resource for contributors and their colleagues.

The project is currently supported by the Ford Foundation, which works to strengthen democratic values, promote international cooperation and advance human achievement around the world. A generous grant from Ford will keep the lights on for two years, giving us the ability to build our open-access resource and, with further fundraising, the potential to bring on more in-house editorial and research staff.

We hope researchers and policy thinkers, regardless of their approaches or ideologies, can use our translations to engage with the real and messy evolution of Chinese tech policy.
Graham Webster
Editor in Chief, DigiChina Project

Q. Do you have plans to grow the project?

We are working to build an accessible online database so researchers and scholars can review primary source documents in both the original Chinese and in English. And we are working toward a knowledge base with background entries on key institutions, legal concepts, and phrases so that a broader audience can situate things like Chinese legal language in their actual context. Providing access to this information is especially important now and in the near future, whether we have a second Trump Administration or a Biden Administration in the United States.

On any number of policy challenges, effective measures are going to depend on going beyond caricatures like an “AI arms race,” “cyber authoritarianism,” or “decoupling,” which provide useful frameworks for debate but can tend to prejudge the outcomes of a huge number of developments. We hope researchers and policy thinkers, regardless of their approaches or ideologies, can use this work to engage with the real and messy evolution of Chinese tech policy.

Hero Image
Graham Webster Q&A
All News button
1
Subtitle

Webster explains how DigiChina makes Chinese tech policy accessible for English speakers

Paragraphs

THE EMERGENCE OF A DIGITAL SPHERE where public debate takes place raises profound questions about the connection between online information and polarization, echo chambers, and filter bubbles. Does the information ecosystem created by social media companies support the conditions necessary for a healthy democracy? Is it different from other media? These are particularly urgent questions as the United States approaches a contentious 2020 election during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The influence of technology and AI-curated information on America’s democratic process is being examined in the eight-week Stanford University course, “Technology and the 2020 Election: How Silicon Valley Technologies Affect Elections and Shape Democracy.” This issue brief focuses on the class session on “Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles, and Polarization,” with guest experts Joan Donovan and Joshua Tucker.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Authors
Marietje Schaake
-

Image
december 10th digital tech social media and 2020 election

Since the 2016 election, great attention has been paid to the impact of digital technologies on democracy in the United States and around the world.  Foreign intervention into the U.S. campaign through social media and online advertising, including the rise of "fake news" and computational propaganda, exacerbated concerns that new technologies posed a substantial threat to the normal workings of  the U.S. electoral process.  These concerns remain for 2020, alongside new threats related to the COVID-19 pandemic.  With in-person campaigning, voter mobilization, and even voting itself hindered by the pandemic, digital technologies promise to play an even more important role in 2020.  

On December 10, 2020, the Stanford Cyber Policy Center will bring together scholars, tech platforms, principals from the digital campaigns, journalists, and other key experts to explore the effect of digital technologies on the 2020 Election.  The conference will explore the role of digital technologies on election administration, campaign tactics, political advertising, the news media, foreign propaganda efforts, and the broader campaign information ecosystem.  It will also consider how changes in platform policies affected the campaign and information environment, and whether lessons learned in the 2020 elections suggest that further changes are warranted.  

9AM:   Introduction: Kelly Born, Stanford Cyber Policy Center

9:10:    Findings from the Stanford/MIT Healthy Elections Project:  Nate Persily, Stanford Law School

9:30:    Trends in 2020 Political Advertising:  Erika Franklin Fowler, Wesleyan Media Project

9:50:    Online Political Transparency:  Laura Edelson, New York University Political Ads Project

10:10:  BREAK

10:20: Center for Technology and Civic Life’s Elections Project:  Tiana Epps-Johnson, CTCL

10:40:  Platform Speech Policies and the Elections: Daniel Kreiss and Bridget Barrett, University of North             Carolina at Chapel Hill

11:00:  Findings from the Election Integrity Project:  Alex Stamos and Renee DiResta, Stanford Internet             Observatory

11:20: BREAK

11:30:  Experiences from the Platforms

  • Nathaniel Gleicher, Head of Cybersecurity Policy at Facebook
  • Clement Wolf, Global Public Policy Lead for Information Integrity at Google
  • Yoel Roth, Director of Site Integrity at Twitter
  • Eric Han, Head of Safety at TikTok

12:30:  Full Panel Q&A/Discussion

1PM     Close

Nathaniel Persily
Erika Franklin Fowler
Daniel Kreiss
Clement Wolf
Nathaniel Gleicher
Yoel Roth
Eric Han
Bridget Barrett
Tiana Epps-Johnson
Laura Edelson
Subscribe to The Americas