Caitlin Burke (Stanford U) has posted “TikTok, Instagram, and the “Fourth Party”: The Impact of Technical Design on Personal Content Moderation” (Ohio State Journal On Dispute Resolution 2025) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

As policymakers debate Section 230, children’s online safety, andsocial media regulation, increasing attention has shifted from online content to the design of digital platforms. This article examines how thepersonal content moderation systems of TikTok and Instagram shape user experiences through interface design, reporting tools, appeals processes, and platform governance. Drawing ondispute system design, it introduces the concept of the “fourth party” to explain how technical design influences online disputes and redistributes power between platforms and users. The article argues thatplatform design is analytically distinct from protected speech and should therefore be evaluated separately from content moderation under theFirst Amendment. By reframing content moderation as a problem of product and interface design rather than speech alone, the article offers a framework forplatform accountability, consumer protection, and online safety that preserves free expression while addressing the harms of modern social media.

Urooba Salman (Lahore U Management Sciences (LUMS)) has posted “The Digital Panopticon: How AI has Reshaped Workplace Surveillance and Labor Control” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This paper seeks to interrogate how artificial intelligence has transformed the exercise of managerial power, labor autonomy, and the traditional and foundational principles of labor law. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s theory of thepanopticon and extending it to the modern workplace, it argues that algorithmic systems have created a “digital panopticon”; an architecture of invisible surveillance which disciplines workers through datafication and the fear of surveillance rather than outright coercion. Using insights from labor law scholarship, critical theory, and existing empirical research, the paper demonstrates that AI-based monitoring tools, ranging from productivity trackers and biometric attendance systems to predictive analytics, actually embed control into the very scaffolds of the modern workplace, eroding collective bargaining practices, privacy, and procedural fairness.

This study situates these changes and transformations within the Pakistani context and legal framework, where though the infiltration of surveillance is not so perverse, fragile labor protections, weak privacy and data governance laws, and imported surveillance technologies create an especially fertile ground for exploitation. It conceptualises this phenomenon as “surveillance colonialism,” wherein technologies from authoritarian or unregulated jurisdictions infiltrate developing economies under the guise of modernization. The paper contends that Pakistan’s outdated legal architecture regarding AI and data cannot adequately address such algorithmic decision making, leading to an accountability vacuum and a structural silencing of labor resistance which needs to be addressed before it is too late.

Tom Golway (Generative Dynamics Research) has posted “The Problems of Philosophy in the Age of AI” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

When Bertrand Russell wrote The Problems of Philosophy in 1912, he grappled with the gap between appearance and reality, asking how we can know anything with certainty when our senses may deceive us. Russell’s skepticism presumed that underlying truth existed and could be approached through rigorous inquiry. Over a century later, his questions have not merely persisted—they have proliferated into new domains of epistemic risk. Artificial intelligence does not simply introduce fresh uncertainties; it actively manufactures realities, fragments shared understanding, and operates at speeds that preclude human deliberation. In this landscape, the peril is not ignorance but epistemic surrender: the quiet abdication of judgment to systems that neither know nor care what is true. This paper revisits Russell’s inquiry in light of AI’s epistemic power, arguing for a renewed ethics of validation, provenance, and human oversight.

Valerio De Stefano (York U Osgoode Hall Law) has posted “Labour Law, Technology, and the Attack on the Rules-Based-Order” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This paper argues that current debates on artificial intelligence and algorithmic management at work are also debates about private power, managerial prerogative, and democracy. It situates recent attacks by major technology companies and their political allies on the European Union and other rule-based international institutions within a broader struggle over who should regulate technology and govern society. It contends that the anti-democratic turn of parts of the tech world is closely connected to authoritarian ideas about work, hierarchy, and obedience. The workplace is one of the principal sites where authority is exercised, surveillance normalised, and habits of subordination formed, with consequences that extend beyond employment relations into democratic life more broadly. Against this background, the paper examines how AI and algorithmic management intensify employer power through pervasive monitoring, automated evaluation, predictive analytics, and data-driven discipline. It argues that existing legal frameworks, especially data protection law, remain insufficient unless infused with labour law concepts that address the structural imbalance of power at work. It therefore advocates a substantial upgrading of labour law, stronger limits on digital surveillance, and a more robust role for collective bargaining, codetermination, and worker voice in the governance of workplace technologies. It contends that labour law is one of the main ways in which the rule of law enters the workplace and workers remain citizens rather than subjects while at work. The regulation of AI at work is thus a constitutional and democratic question as much as an economic or technological one.

Joshua S. Joseph (Hofstra U Maurice A. Deane Law) has posted “Balancing Innovation and Biomedical Ethics within National Institutes of Health: Integrative and Regulatory Reforms for Artificial Intelligence-Driven Biotechnology” (44 Biotech. L. Rep. 2 (2025) [10.1089/blr.2025.360002.jj ]) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The article examines the foundational principles of biomedical ethics and their relevance to the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and biotechnological progress. It then analyzes the potential impact of the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH or the Agency) proposed 2024 reorganization reforms, as presented by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (E&C), and advocates for the inclusion of provisions that would enable the Agency to develop and deploy “safe, secure, and trustworthy” AI within the biotechnology sector. Thus, the article proposes two key integrative reforms to address these concerns: (1) enhancing research collaborations among healthcare systems, academic institutions, and the private sector through AI-driven platforms, and (2) establishing an NIH office to oversee AI-based health initiatives. These reforms would require legislative amendments, including updates to the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act of 1980 (Bayh-Dole Act or Bayh Dole) and the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 (Cures Act), while adhering to biomedical ethics. Such amendments would ensure (1) ethical standards in collaborative research and development (R&D) among institutions and (2) effective health initiative design and implementation. In the same light, this article advocates for an updated legislative framework to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) that regulates the role of such integrative efforts and balances the transformative potential of AI in biotechnology. In all, these regulatory steps ensure that innovation benefits society while safeguarding individual rights such as personal data and privacy and mitigating algorithmic bias.