We've published exactly where we think the draft is weakest. If you're a lawyer, constitutional scholar, technologist, security researcher, policy person, writer, or organizer, this is a direct invitation to help fix it.
TL;DR These aren't generic asks. They're the actual weak points we've flagged in our own draft.
These aren't generic asks — they're the actual weak points our own drafting notes flag. See the full text for context.
The speech/conduct distinction in Section 22, the scope of Section 12's "data is not an asset" rule, and how Section 19's scienter requirement holds up against ordinary interface design are all open questions the drafters flagged as unresolved.
Section 3's technology-neutral language needs to actually hold up against real evasion techniques — new data formats, corporate structuring, jurisdiction shopping. We also need people who understand how "destruction" of a model's influence (Section 11) can be verified in practice, not just asserted.
The realistic path runs through state-level enactment of the consent standard and algorithmic due-process provisions first. We need people who know how to actually move state legislation, not just draft it.
The drafters openly acknowledge the research exception in Section 21(b) could slow legitimate scientific work. We need people who can model that tradeoff honestly, not wave it away.
Translating 27 dense sections into material people can actually read — for the education tab, for social content, and eventually for the public-education mandate the amendment itself would require under Section 18(4).
Stage one of ratification happens at the state level. If you know how to organize locally — testifying at hearings, building coalitions, working a state legislature — this is where it starts.
A couple of details so we can route this to the right place — no commitment, just a starting conversation.