reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Regulating social media is essential, as Congress has struggled to address the issues posed by rogue corporations. There is a need for better oversight and action from both Congress and the administration to tackle these challenges effectively.

The speaker believes dislike of social media is growing, complicating consensus-building in democracies. Traditional arbiters of fact have been undermined, and people self-select news sources, creating a vicious cycle. Curbing social media entities to ensure accountability on facts is difficult due to the First Amendment, especially when sources spread disinformation. Winning the right to govern, and thus implement change, requires winning enough votes. The speaker questions whether democracy can survive unregulated social media, suggesting democracies are struggling to address current challenges effectively. The speaker implies the upcoming election is about breaking the fever in the United States.

The speaker believes dislike of social media is growing, exacerbating the problem of building consensus in democracies. Traditional arbiters of fact have been undermined, and people self-select information sources, creating a vicious cycle. Curbing social media entities to ensure accountability on facts is difficult due to the First Amendment, especially when sources spread disinformation. The speaker suggests winning the right to govern through elections to implement change. The speaker questions whether democracy can survive unregulated social media, stating that democracies are deeply challenged and haven't proven capable of addressing current challenges quickly or substantially enough. The speaker believes the election is about breaking the fever in the United States.

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed. This perspective is based on the idea that platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok are not simply pass-throughs. Without moderation and monitoring of content by these platforms, there is a loss of control.

The speaker believes dislike of social media is growing, complicating consensus-building in democracies. Traditional arbiters of fact have been undermined, and people self-select information sources, creating a vicious cycle. Curbing social media entities to ensure factual accountability is difficult due to the First Amendment. Winning the right to govern, and thus implement change, requires winning enough votes. Some people are prepared to implement change in other ways. The speaker questions whether democracy can survive unregulated social media, stating democracies are deeply challenged and haven't proven capable of addressing current challenges quickly or substantially enough. The speaker suggests the upcoming election is about breaking the fever in the United States.

New forms of journalism are needed to reaffirm facts and separate them from opinions, as diversity of opinion is desired, but not diversity of fact. Some government regulatory constraints around certain business models may be required, consistent with the First Amendment. A distinction should be made between platforms allowing all voices to be heard and business models that elevate hateful, polarizing, or dangerous voices that incite violence. This will be a significant challenge.

Social media sites must be held responsible and understand their power. They speak directly to millions of people without oversight or regulation, and this has to stop. The same rule has to apply across platforms; there can't be one rule for Facebook and another for Twitter.

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed. This perspective is based on the idea that platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok are not simply pass-throughs. Without moderation and monitoring of content, there is a loss of total control.

The speaker believes dislike of social media is growing, exacerbating the problem of building consensus in democracies. Traditional arbiters of fact have been undermined, and people self-select news sources, creating a vicious cycle. Curbing social media entities to ensure accountability on facts is difficult due to the First Amendment. The speaker suggests winning the right to govern through elections to implement change. The speaker questions whether democracy can survive unregulated social media, stating democracies are challenged and haven't proven capable of addressing current issues. The speaker believes the upcoming election is about breaking the fever in the United States.

The Department of Justice will be put back in the business of justice, and the civil rights division will be doubled. Law enforcement will be directed to counter extremism. Social media platforms will be held accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. Social media platforms will be held accountable as a community if they profit off of hate, act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, or don't police their platforms.

Social media platforms should be held responsible for their power, as they directly address millions without oversight. The same rules must apply across platforms like Facebook and Twitter. There needs to be a responsibility placed on these sites to understand their reach and influence. The current lack of regulation on these platforms must end.

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed. This perspective is based on the idea that platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok are not simply pass-throughs. Without moderation and monitoring, there is a loss of control, leading to social, psychological, and real-world harm.

The Department of Justice will be put back in the business of justice, and the civil rights division will be doubled. Law enforcement will be directed to counter extremism. Social media platforms will be held accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. Social media platforms will be held accountable as a community if they profit off of hate, act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, or don't police their platforms.

Concerns are rising about a tech industrial complex that threatens our country. Americans face overwhelming misinformation, leading to power abuse. The free press is deteriorating, and social media is neglecting fact-checking. Lies are overshadowing the truth for profit and power. It's crucial to hold social platforms accountable to safeguard our children, families, and democracy from these abuses.

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed. This perspective is based on the idea that platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok are not simply pass-throughs. Without moderation and monitoring, there is a loss of control, leading to social, psychological, and real-world harm.

The Department of Justice will be put back in the business of justice, and the civil rights division will be doubled. Law enforcement will be directed to counter extremism. Social media platforms will be held accountable for the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to help fight against this threat to our democracy. Social media platforms will be held accountable as a community if they profit off of hate, act as a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, or don't police their platforms.

We need to focus on addressing violent extremists and limiting the reach of radical conservative influencers on platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Companies must decide if they want to promote disinformation. Additionally, we should reconsider the widespread distribution of networks like OANN and Newsmax by major providers like Verizon and AT&T to prevent pushing radical views onto the public. It's about allowing people to seek information on their own terms, rather than forcing it upon them. Translation: It is important to address violent extremists and limit the reach of radical conservative influencers on social media platforms. Companies need to decide if they want to promote misinformation. Additionally, we should reconsider the widespread distribution of networks like OANN and Newsmax by major providers like Verizon and AT&T to prevent pushing radical views onto the public. It's about allowing people to seek information on their own terms, rather than forcing it upon them.

The speaker believes dislike of social media is growing, exacerbating the problem of building consensus in democracies. Traditional arbiters of fact have been undermined, and people self-select information sources, creating a vicious cycle. Curbing social media entities to ensure accountability on facts is difficult due to the First Amendment. The speaker suggests winning the right to govern through elections to implement change. The speaker questions whether democracy can survive unregulated social media, stating democracies are deeply challenged and slow to address current issues. The speaker believes the current election is about breaking the fever in the United States.

The speaker believes dislike of social media is growing, exacerbating the problem of building consensus in democracies. Traditional arbiters of fact have been undermined, and people self-select information sources, creating a vicious cycle. Curbing social media entities to ensure accountability on facts is difficult due to the First Amendment. The speaker suggests winning the right to govern through elections to implement change. The speaker questions whether democracy can survive unregulated social media, stating democracies are deeply challenged and slow to address current issues. The speaker believes the election is about breaking the fever in the United States.

To protect social media companies from government pressure to censor content, an incoming administration could issue an executive order on day one. This order would prohibit government grants and contracts to any private company or nonprofit involved in domestic disinformation. This approach addresses the issue of government-funded censorship, allowing for the elimination of grants and contracts that support censorship activities. Currently, there are tens of thousands of individuals in the U.S. whose livelihoods depend on censorship work, a field that emerged in response to the 2016 election.

The Russians weaponized social media by manipulating public opinion with biased or fake stories. Domestic disinformation is a bigger issue than foreign efforts. In 2016, the Russian content wasn't very persuasive, but they learned they could use existing US content. The focus should shift from foreign to domestic disinformation, as most problems stem from how we interact online and the norms around political speech. The biggest threat to the 2020 election is domestic disinformation, not foreign influence. The impact of foreign interference is minimal compared to the overwhelming domestic disinformation in the US landscape.

The speaker believes dislike of social media is growing, exacerbating the problem of building consensus in democracies. Traditional arbiters of fact have been undermined, and people self-select information sources, creating a vicious cycle. Curbing social media entities to ensure accountability on facts is difficult due to the First Amendment. The speaker suggests winning the right to govern through elections to implement change. The speaker questions whether democracy can survive unregulated social media, stating democracies are challenged and slow to address current issues. The speaker believes the upcoming election is about breaking the fever in the United States.

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed. This perspective is based on the belief that platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok are not simply pass-throughs. Without moderation and monitoring of content by these platforms, there is a loss of total control.

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed. This perspective is based on the idea that platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, and TikTok are not simply pass-throughs. Without moderation and monitoring, there is a loss of control, leading to social, psychological, and real-world harm.

The speaker outlines a framework for understanding current information control by the US and its allies, arguing that the State Department, the Pentagon, and the Central Intelligence Agency operate together to shape information in society. They describe three roles: the State Department conducts overt information control through funding media institutions (which are presented as “free and independent” but labeled government-backed); the Pentagon engages in information control through psychological operations; and the CIA operates covert information control, influence campaigns, propaganda, and censorship work. Between the State Department and the CIA sits a vast network of soft power institutions that implement this influence. Soft power is defined as the alternative to hard power, enabling a country to win “hearts and minds” and influence other countries’ governments by manipulating populations. The speaker connects this framework to the Brazil situation, stating at the top level the involvement of three or more organizations: the State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). USAID and the NED are described as intermediaries between the State Department and the CIA, with the NED characterized as a CIA cutout established after the Church Committee era to fund dissident groups in a publicly firewalled way, though the speaker asserts there is no real divide between the NED and the CIA. The NED’s founders explicitly noted it would do what the CIA used to do, but via a private, publicly named entity. The speaker cites Christopher Walker (NED) as a participant in this ecosystem. The narrative then moves to a 2017 GlobSec video, described as the origin of today’s censorship industry’s consensus. The video’s description is read, highlighting concerns about traditional media being challenged by internet news and social networks, the spread of “unfiltered” alternative media, and the problem of algorithms that personalize content and reinforce confirmation bias. It identifies populist and extremist right-wing groups as exploiting these algorithms, and asks how to protect users from fake news and propaganda without censorship. It questions the role of information technology companies and the responsibility of social platforms for content, while debating how to fight extremism without undermining free speech. The panel includes figures tied to the CIA, DHS, and private security and consulting groups. Key participants highlighted include Michael Chertoff (Executive Chairman of the Chertoff Group, former DHS Secretary, linked to censorship governance), and Christopher Walker (Vice President of NED), among others. The speaker emphasizes Chertoff’s connections to BAE Systems and to the broader military–intelligence–policy network, noting Chertoff’s role in shaping how platforms were to police “unfiltered” content in 2017. The speaker also references Nina Janković, who was connected to the disinformation governance board and the Integrity Initiative, asserting a lineage from Chertoff to the broader censorship apparatus. The speaker then broadens the geopolitical frame to Russia’s resource wealth (citing a claim of $75 trillion in resources vs. the US’s $45 trillion), noting that the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) theater is the battleground for Eurasian influence. The montage in the video is described as starting with 1917 and Woodrow Wilson, portraying the blob’s view of democracy as a vector for hegemonic influence, and linking it to propaganda, censorship, and the need to control online discourse. The montage proceeds through references to 1936, Goebbels and the 1936 Olympics, Hitler, 1943, Elvis, 1960s–70s conspiracy theories about the CIA and JFK, and 1990s declassification of Northwoods-era plans, culminating in the framing of Internet propaganda as a modern battlefield. The session transitions to a live moderator, with a check on audio levels and an introduction to the next segment, announced as taking place in Bratislava for a global audience.