Rational Security – “The Authentic Flavors, Real Fruit” Edition

Podcast: Rational Security (The Lawfare Institute)
Date: March 26, 2026
Host: Scott R. Anderson
Guests:

• Renee DiResta (Lawfare Contributing Editor)
• Tyler McBrien (Lawfare Managing Editor)
• Molly Roberts (Lawfare Senior Editor)

Overview

This week's Rational Security dives deep into three interconnected national security and policy issues "a step beneath the headlines":

1. Social media liability and child safety after major verdicts against Meta and YouTube (The "Metaverse of Madness")
2. The political maneuvering surrounding President Trump’s “Save America Act” and its impact on election reform and DHS funding ("Saving Face")
3. The rise—and perils—of open-source intelligence (OSINT) as both a tool of transparency and a driver of disinformation or even market manipulation ("Polly Wants a Crack Up")

The discussion is intellectually rich and candid, featuring sharp analysis, memorable quips, and insight into the evolving intersections between law, tech, security, and society.

1. Metaverse of Madness: Social Media Liability, Children, and Product Design

(Segment Starts ~03:00, Deep Dive: 06:15-25:25)

Key Discussion Points

• Major Verdicts & Lawsuits

  • In two separate state jury trials (New Mexico and California), Meta (Facebook/Instagram) and YouTube faced massive civil liability claims over allegations their algorithms harmed children’s mental health and facilitated exploitation.
  • New Mexico’s “Operation Metafile” involved undercover agents posing as kids and quickly attracting thousands of adult male followers, with the platform pushing “monetization tips” at the fake minors rather than flagging the activity.
  • The verdicts hinge not on user content, but on platform design: whether features like recommender engines and endless scroll are “defective products” that actively cause harm (addiction, exploitation) (Renee DiResta [06:15-09:28]).

• Legal Evolution: Section 230 and Product Liability

  • Traditional legal shields for tech platforms (esp. Section 230) cover user-generated content, but courts are now distinguishing between “passive hosting” and platform conduct—i.e., product features that nudge, target, and addict users.
  • The analogy to tobacco companies: “They're more like tobacco companies than just public squares. And that's the shift we're seeing in the decisions, the findings, and also the legal approaches.”
    — Renee DiResta [09:18]
  • There's growing judicial willingness to probe the difference between “harm from content” and “harm from how content is algorithmically delivered”—with design choices under greater scrutiny (Scott Anderson [09:28-11:57]).

• Replication & Industry-Wide Impact

  • Meta’s vulnerabilities (whistleblowers, internal docs) aided the New Mexico case, but “a lot of [social media companies] have very similar types of features…that dynamic, that these are safe places for teenagers…they've spent a lot of time. This is where the tobacco comparison comes in. Merchants of doubt…”
    — Renee DiResta [11:57]
  • Other platforms will likely face similar challenges as the legal focus shifts to design and conduct.

• Future Legal Fights & AI

  • Cases challenging Section 230 immunity for algorithmic “promoting” or “packaging” harmful content (e.g., Anderson v. TikTok) foreshadow more direct legal risk for platforms beyond mere hosting.
  • These cases are often compared to criminal law scenarios—at what point does a recommender system’s action cross into “knowing and intentional” facilitation of harm? (Anderson [17:50-21:05])
  • AI particularly complicates liability: “That's why I'm very curious to see how some of those cases come out, particularly where…the AI is actively defaming people and things like this. Or giving actually harmful product advice.”
    — Renee DiResta [14:06]

Notable Quotes

• “Instead of Meta’s systems flagging suspicious adult activity, it started to send the child automated tips on how to monetize their account, grow their following…the jury found that was a consumer protection issue.”
  — Renee DiResta [06:30]
• “It’s almost like the TikTokification of all feeds…the idea that your social graph actually didn’t matter all that much. Recency, popularity, what other people are engaging with, a much heavier driver of engagement.”
  — Renee DiResta [15:21]

2. Saving Face: The “Save America Act” & Election Integrity Politics

(Starts ~25:25, Deep Dive: 26:54-44:43)

Key Discussion Points

• Trump’s “Save America Act” and Congressional Drama

  • The act is heavily promoted by Trump as essential for “saving” American elections, pushing strict ID and citizenship requirements—widely seen by Democrats (and many analysts) as voter suppression more than reform.
  • Bill’s fate entangled with funding for DHS/ICE and Congressional negotiations: attempts to move some parts through reconciliation (thus circumventing the filibuster) face major procedural and political hurdles.
  • The bill leans on narratives about epidemic fraud, which panelists note lack evidence. "Trump is not the Election Integrity Movement. Just to be clear, Trump is the fake, the election is stolen bullshit movement…whatever you think about voter id…is there an epidemic of illegal voting in our elections? The answer to that is categorically not."
    — Renee DiResta [31:23]
  • The tension reflects wider GOP strategy—using process to sow doubt and, if necessary, explain losses.

• Legislative Realities and Impacts

  • Even with procedural maneuvers, it’s unclear whether anything meaningful from the Save America Act will survive the “Byrd rule” governing reconciliation, or whether enough Republicans would support it in a contentious budget package.
  • Many of the measures (voter ID, proof of citizenship) are standard Republican aims with roots predating Trump, but their effect is complex and potentially counterproductive given recent shifts in the GOP voter base (Scott Anderson [36:38–39:37]).

Notable Quotes

• “The Save America act is kind of frightening for two reasons…if the act passes, it’s dangerous not only because it might disenfranchise a lot of people, but also…the stricter the rules are, the easier it is to say when you lost that you lost because a bunch of people who should have been disqualified were able to vote.”
  — Molly Roberts [32:29]
• “I think if the midterms don’t go his way, [Trump] blames it on the failure to have the Save America act passed…they stole the elections.”
  — Molly Roberts [40:43]

3. Poly Wants a Crack Up: OSINT, Prediction Markets, and Information Disorder

(Starts ~44:43, Deep Dive: 46:43-64:02)

Key Discussion Points

• OSINT Goes Mainstream—and Gets Messy

  • The widespread popularity of open-source intelligence (OSINT) accounts, dashboards, and tracking tools (flight trackers, pizza tracker indices) has democratized access to certain kinds of situational awareness but also contributed to misinformation and hype cycles.
  • “A lot of them look good and therefore seem authoritative and they sort of give this illusion that you know what's happening.” — Tyler McBrien [46:50]
  • Prediction markets like Polymarket have started to monetize and amplify OSINT dashboards and pseudo-indicators (e.g., Pentagon pizza index), shifting the incentives toward virality and profit, not accuracy.
  • The intersection means “the ability to kind of gamble on [these predictions] is where you do start to get to unethical things like markets being placed where then people go and actively try to shift the outcome.” — Renee DiResta [52:47]

• Signal, Noise, and Methodology

  • The best OSINT work (e.g. Bellingcat) “shows its work” with documentation and replicable methodology. The worst exploits the trappings of authority to drive clicks or bets, often with “vibe coded AI slop” and no meaningful expertise.
    • “Anyone trying to figure out if it's legitimate OSINT or not…will publish a very lengthy methodology…corroborating multiple data points instead of drawing one very authoritative sounding conclusion from a single video.”
      — Tyler McBrien [55:57]
  • The panel warns of “fake OSINT” accounts, disinformation campaigns (esp. around Ukraine), and the increasing challenge of distinguishing real from fake in a flood of content.

• The Complicating Factor of AI

  • AI’s ability to both synthesize and detect is a double-edged sword: while it can help analyze and verify, detection tools have false positives/negatives and often lack nuance. “[Some AI detection tools] are trying to make it simple. But in making it simple, it's actually obscuring some of the information that is most useful to people doing serious analysis, which is, how confident are we actually in this?”
    — Renee DiResta [61:58]

Notable Moments

• On the Polymarket prediction-special bar event in DC: “I have never seen a less fun looking party—even by my standards, and I am a 42 year old father of two…Which is not a good sign.”
  — Scott Anderson [51:25]
• On methodology and museum exhibits: “It has all the outward indicators of authority…it’s a real challenge. What does AI mean for this environment? Does it…make it easier or harder [to verify]?”
  — Scott Anderson [58:59]

Object Lessons & Notable Recommendations (Light-Hearted Segment, 64:02-end)

• Tyler McBrien: Plugs his new podcast “Who Blew Up the Guidestones?,” produced with Goat Rodeo and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ([64:20]).
• Molly Roberts: Shares a vintage “Nuke ‘em till they glow” Strategic Air Command hat ([65:17]), reflecting on the dystopian vibe of betting on global crises.
• Scott Anderson: Recommends McKay Coppins’ Atlantic article “Sucker,” on the perils of sports (and general) gambling, and D.C. bakery Seylou ([66:37]).
• Renee DiResta: Offers a playful family update—her kids are “deluging” her with K-Pop concert clips; and recounts her first brandy old fashioned in Madison ([68:43]).

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Metaverse of Madness / Social Media Lawsuits: 03:00–25:25
• Save America Act / Election Integrity & Congress: 25:25–44:43
• OSINT, Prediction Markets, Disinformation: 44:43–64:02
• Object Lessons / Recommendations: 64:02–end

Tone & Final Thoughts

The panel balances serious legal and policy insight with wry banter and a healthy skepticism about both digital progress and political rhetoric. They stress the power of platform design, the complexity of “integrity” debates, and the need for caution in a world awash with data, hype, and perverse incentives.

The episode is invaluable for listeners interested in the evolving legal landscape for Big Tech, the on-the-ground mechanics of US electoral reform proposals, and how information—and misinformation—is being weaponized, monetized, and remixed at scale.

Memorable Moment:

“Trump is not the Election Integrity Movement. Just to be clear, Trump is the fake, the election is stolen bullshit movement…The answer to [if there’s an epidemic of illegal voting] is categorically not.”
— Renee DiResta [31:23]

For further reading/listening:

• Tyler McBrien’s Baffler piece “Situational Unawareness”
• The Atlantic: “Sucker” by McKay Coppins
• “Who Blew Up the Guidestones?” podcast

This summary provides a comprehensive, structured walkthrough of the episode’s key arguments, character, and contributions—perfect for catching up or diving deeper.