Executive Q&A: Justin Hendrix on Elevating Tech Policy Discourse and Defending Democracy in the Digital Age

Justin Hendrix is a leading voice at the crossroads of technology, democracy, and civil society. As the CEO and Editor of Tech Policy Press, he has created a platform that amplifies urgent conversations about how emerging technologies shape power, politics, and public life. With a background that includes teaching graduate courses on Tech, Media, and Democracy at NYU, Justin combines academic insight with journalistic rigor to spotlight the profound challenges and possibilities of the digital age.

What began as a side project born from post-2016 anxieties about democracy has grown into a vital nonprofit publication. Under Justin’s leadership, Tech Policy Press serves as a bridge between expert discourse and public understanding—offering nonpartisan analysis and elevating diverse voices from around the globe. Whether tackling AI’s role in governance, the unchecked power of tech oligarchs, or the overlooked risks of neurotechnology, Justin brings clarity to issues that are shaping our collective future.

Justin Hendrix, CEO and Editor of Tech Policy Press.

In this Q&A, Justin shares the story behind Tech Policy Press, reflects on the state of tech journalism, and explains why a democratic future depends on more equitable, transparent, and inclusive tech policy.

Q: Was there a specific moment that made you realize the need for a platform like Tech Policy Press?

After the 2016 election, I attended a Washington, DC, event on democracy, where I met Bryan Jones, a technology executive who teaches at the University of Texas School of Law. We shared an interest in the role of technology in democracy, and we decided to launch a blog as a side hustle to host writing and analysis on related topics. Bryan did most of the work in those early days, including setting up the nonprofit. In 2020, during the COVID pandemic, I decided I wanted to try my hand at growing the nonprofit. I’d been teaching a graduate course on Tech, Media, and Democracy at NYU, and became convinced I wanted to work on those issues full time. We rebranded the blog as Tech Policy Press and got started on the trajectory that led us to today. 

Q: What keeps you personally motivated in this space, especially given how complex and fast-moving the tech policy world is?

I find the issues we write about to be fascinating, and the discourse over them to be both urgent and necessary. Given the two decades-long decline in democracy around the world and the rise of a powerful tech oligarchy, I find it hard to imagine that the world ahead will be more democratic, more just, more sustainable, and more equitable unless we make significant changes to our politics and the balance of power between the state, corporations and the wealthy, and the people. But I want to spend the rest of my days looking for paths forward. This is a collective problem, and it will require a collective response; I believe Tech Policy Press is part of that response.

Q: For people who might not be familiar, how would you describe the mission of Tech Policy Press in your own words?

I repeat these words every week on my podcast, so they are top of mind: Tech Policy Press is intended to provoke new ideas, debate, and discussion at the intersection of technology and democracy.

Q: With so much happening in media today, where do you see Tech Policy Press fitting into the bigger picture? How do you see your role as a publisher changing in this moment, especially with tech issues taking center stage?

I think we sit in the liminal space between academia and expert dialogue on issues and the traditional news media. We want to provide information, analysis, and useful perspectives that help our readers see around the corner on tech policy issues. 

Q: How do you see Tech Policy Press standing apart from other publications that cover technology and policy?

We are lucky to have contributors from all over the world. That helps us see patterns and draw connections between what is going on in different jurisdictions and under different regulatory frameworks. We are nonpartisan and independent, which allows us to look at these issues primarily through the lens of the public interest rather than through any national or corporate interest.

Q: Do you think the media is doing a good job covering tech policy issues, or is there still a gap?

There is absolutely amazing coverage of tech and tech policy issues across the media—from major publications such as The New York Times and The Washington Post to Wired and The Atlantic to independent outlets like 404 Media and Futurism. But this is a huge, dynamic beat; it is hard for anyone to get their hands around it all. That includes us. 

Q: How important is it to you to bring a variety of voices into Tech Policy Press? How do you go about making that happen?

It is exceedingly important to me that we are regarded as an outlet for diverse perspectives and voices from around the world. This means we put more effort into finding and building relationships with contributors who can bring diversity to our pages, in all senses of the word. Sometimes it takes a little more effort to forge those relationships or advance those projects, because it requires relationship building first. 

Q: What would you say are the top five tech policy stories people should be watching right now? And why do these stories matter, especially for the U.S.?

1. The application of artificial intelligence in government. Are we enabling better services and finding efficiencies, or are we laying the groundwork for authoritarianism? This is a question that is relevant across many countries, including the US. 

2. How we contain and rationalize the interests of billionaire tech oligarchs to the public interest is another issue we must grapple with over the next decades. 

3. Relatedly, the effort to address the monopoly tech firms, including Google and Meta, that is ongoing in the US and in Europe is incredibly important. It could have a big impact on competition, and it could also change the way that people engage with technology in their daily lives.

4. Child online safety is another key topic. It is also one of the most contested areas in tech policy. But clearly, as we move from the social media to the AI age, we haven’t done enough to think about young users and the potential harms they face. 

5. In general, and fundamentally, how we manage datafication and privacy in the next decades will define so much of how the world looks in the future. Are we building a surveillance-laden dystopian society? Or will we find a way to take advantage of data to advance the public interest?

Q: How are global regulations, like Europe’s Digital Services Act, shaping the U.S. approach to tech policy?

I think this is an open question. Many folks hoped the DSA might set a benchmark for social media and search engines. I think the jury is out on whether it will translate into real effects in the US. Certainly, however, the access to data for researchers that the DSA enables may produce findings that policymakers can act on in the US.

Q: What role should civil society play in shaping tech policy? Are they getting enough influence right now?

Civil society groups are crucial for shaping tech policy. But right now, they are under threat, partly by tech oligarchs who like to sue their critics and platforms that no longer wish to cooperate with them. Many digital rights and internet freedom groups funded by the US government are in serious trouble. The year ahead will be very difficult for civil society groups concerned about tech accountability and democracy.

Q: Are there any emerging technologies or policy areas that you think deserve more attention than they’re getting right now?

We’ve had several pieces lately on neurotechnology and privacy concerns. I think this technology is emerging into the marketplace now, and the issues it raises are quite novel. We need more work on neuro-rights and related ideas.

Q: Despite all the challenges in tech policy, what gives you hope as you continue this work?

Everywhere I go, I see people working hard on these issues. I teach students who care about these issues and want to improve the world. And I work with an excellent team of people who want to make a difference. If they aren’t giving up, neither am I.