reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Free speech should exist, but boundaries are needed when speech incites violence or discourages vaccinations. The question is where the US should draw those lines and what rules should be in place. With billions of online activities, AI could potentially encode and enforce these rules. A delayed response to harmful content means the harm is already done.

The speaker argues against the claim that the Great Barrington Declaration was censored, stating that it was only removed from one YouTube video. They emphasize that being blacklisted on Twitter does not equate to censorship, as the platform can curate its content. They challenge the speaker's standing and argue that there is no evidence to support the idea that lockdowns were unnecessary. The speaker also criticizes the notion that governments and platforms should have a detente on speech regulation, asserting that the government has suppressed regular people's speech through its influence over platforms. They advocate for companies having the freedom to decide what speech is allowed on their platforms while upholding the First Amendment.

Speaker 0 argues that it is difficult to hear, but it is time to limit the First Amendment in order to protect it. They state that we need to control the platforms—specifically all social platforms—and to stack rank the authenticity of every person who expresses themselves online. They say we should take control over what people are saying based on that ranking. The government should check all the social media.

"Today's misinformation is always tomorrow's truth. It's always the government who wants to censor people who are critical of the government." "Europe is trying to police everyone and shake down American tech companies, which is exactly what the digital markets act looked like. That is what's at stake here, and that is not how our First Amendment works." "Everything our government here in The United States told us about COVID turned out to be false. If you criticize any of the things they initially told you, you had to be censored." "When Elon bought Twitter, now it's a place where the first amendment and free speech are right where they need to be." "The spillover effect it can have on, American content being seen by European users." "The answer to stupid speech, bad speech, and wrong speech is more speech." "the hallmark of Western culture is free expression." "There were 12,183 arrests for offensive post online." "Global Alliance for Responsible Media." "Disinformation governance board."

Speaker 0 highlights how their platform is committed to reducing hateful content and promoting healthy behavior online. They claim that 99.9% of posted impressions are healthy, although the definition of "healthy" is not clarified. Speaker 1 questions this definition, citing examples like porn and conspiracy theories. Speaker 0 acknowledges the challenge of distinguishing between lawful but awful content and emphasizes that specific policies are in place. They mention Kanye West's potential return to the platform and assure that he will adhere to these policies. Speaker 0 believes in fostering healthy debate and discourse, even with those we disagree with, as it is essential for free expression to thrive.

The speaker believes in adhering to the law and transparency regarding content shown on the platform. They argue against going beyond the law, stating it would be like censorship. The discussion revolves around hate speech on the platform and the responsibility to moderate it. The speaker emphasizes following the law and avoiding censorship, despite the concerns raised about hateful content. Ultimately, they stress the importance of upholding freedom of speech within legal boundaries.

We support free speech, but there are limits, especially when it incites violence or discourages vaccination. It's important to define these boundaries. If we establish rules, how can we enforce them effectively, perhaps using AI? With billions of activities occurring, identifying harmful content after the fact can lead to significant consequences.

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.

Speaker 0: When I first met Tim Ballard, he was in this wild legal fight, and Glenn Beck helped him build Underground Railroad. They were best friends. Whenever Sam or Tim needed to break a story about child trafficking, Glenn Beck was “his fucking dude.” Then Tim was considering running for Senate or Congress, and with the momentum from Sound of Freedom, he seemed like a shoo-in, and he was set to upset some politician. After those attacks began, Glenn Beck “threw him under the bus,” and Tim told me, “I can’t believe that Glenn would fucking do that to me.” That exact video I showed him—Tim’s friend pledging allegiance to Israel, “he’s bought and paid for,” “not your friend,” “controlled by our intelligence agencies,” “Israel’s bitch.” Tim watched that one video and said, “holy fuck.” Speaker 1: Ryan, you might know this—the child ring Tim Ballard busted up in South America, depicted in Sound of Freedom, was Israeli-run. It was run by Israelis. The head of that ring escaped to Portugal, where a judge basically let him go, and nobody knows where that guy ended up. That’s the real story of Sound of Freedom: an Israeli-run sex-trafficking ring. You’re not told that. Do research and find out about it. That’s who was running the ring. So there’s a lot of interconnection—it's always them, man. It always comes back to them. It seems to always come back to them. It’s like 6,000,000 to one odds. Speaker 0: Every single time. Every single time. It’s strange how that happens. But you wanna wrap it up, Sam? Speaker 1: Yeah. Let’s wrap it up. Listen, everybody. Twitter is not a free speech platform. It is not an open, super highway of information. It is a military application. It is a propaganda operation. It is highly bodied, highly artificial, highly synthetic and manipulated. I’m not saying don’t use it; I use it every day. We absolutely must use it as best we can, but I need everybody to be aware that not everything is as it seems on this platform. You cannot take this platform at face value. Many of the big accounts you see mainstream through your feed aren’t to be taken at face value. They’re running campaigns, being paid, boosted, the algorithm manipulated, with bots and unauthentic accounts. You must be aware of the battlefield you’re engaging on. And I’m not saying you should leave. On the contrary, I want you here, battling. But it’s not what it seems. There’s a lot of smoke and mirrors, shadows, espionage, and spy games on this platform, and you need to be savvy. Don’t develop mistrust of everybody, but develop a wary eye. Look at people’s Twitter profiles, scroll through their feeds, see who they’re retweeting, who they’re boosting, who they’re following, who their networks are, who’s using the same message.

The foundation of democracy is vital, especially regarding freedom of speech. A recent policy titled "freedom of speech, not freedom of reach" emphasizes that while free speech is essential, platforms like Twitter can choose whom to amplify. It's important to limit the reach of extremist views without censoring speech entirely. Social media companies should follow the same business rules as other publishers. Providing a platform for hate groups and harmful individuals is unacceptable. The ADL has been actively monitoring and collaborating with major tech companies since 2017 to address these issues, ensuring that platforms are held accountable for the content they promote.

The ADL works with various companies in Silicon Valley, including Apple, Zoom, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and Twitter, to address the issue of hate speech on their platforms. They have expressed concern about Twitter allowing toxic content to persist, which has led to real-world violence in places like Pittsburgh, Poway, El Paso, and Washington, D.C. The ADL urges companies to use their innovation to combat hate speech. They have observed that anti-Semitic speech remains on the platform for longer periods, and toxic content is not being removed as quickly as before. The ADL emphasizes the importance of all users, including journalists and watchdog organizations, working together to make Twitter a safe space, as freedom of speech should not be used to slander or incite violence.

Speaker 0: Zuckerberg claims to be an old-fashioned liberal who dislikes censorship, but why doesn't Facebook take a similar stand on free speech? It seems rooted in American political tradition. Speaker 1: Zuckerberg reportedly spent $400 million in the last election, primarily supporting Democrats. This raises questions about his impartiality.

We support free speech, but there are limits, especially when it leads to violence or discourages vaccination. It's important to define these boundaries. If rules are established, how can they be enforced effectively? With billions of online activities, relying on AI to monitor and enforce these rules is crucial, as catching harmful content after the fact can lead to irreversible damage.

The speaker says the ADL opened a center in Silicon Valley in 2017, run by a future Facebook executive, and employs software engineers and data scientists. The ADL monitors data and collaborates with platforms like Google, YouTube, Meta, Twitter, Reddit, Steam, Amazon, Apple, and Zoom. The speaker states the ADL has worked with Twitter since its founding, engaging with both the old and new leadership, including Elon. Another speaker claims the ADL has daily meetings with social media companies, including Zoom, to censor speech. They assert the ADL is not a civil rights group, but an intelligence organization operating in the U.S. for another country.

Social media companies should be liable for their algorithms' actions, not users' content. Appealing to freedom of speech is a smokescreen. Companies are responsible for what their algorithms promote, similar to an editor being responsible for front-page content. If an algorithm writes something, the company is definitely liable. Information isn't truth; most of it is junk. Truth is rare, costly, and complicated. Flooding the world with information won't make the truth float up. Institutions are needed to sift through information. Media companies decide where public attention goes and have a responsibility to distinguish reliable from unreliable information. AI further complicates this.

People want to use platforms that are appealing and comfortable, so freedom of speech should have limits. Shadow banning and algorithmic suppression are making people less visible on platforms like YouTube. This information war prevents real truth from being discovered. While freedom of speech allows people to say anything, controversial statements don't need to be broadcasted to the whole country. Twitter should let people express themselves within the law but limit who sees their content based on user preferences. Personalized algorithms are destroying content creators who aren't part of the mainstream system. This control over messages is social engineering and mind control. Despite this, people will fight against it.

Facebook and other platforms have the power to manipulate content without explanation or transparency. They can secretly ban candidates or limit their reach while boosting other content. Elon Musk believes this is done in the name of free speech and to benefit people.

in the last twenty four hours, you locked the accounts and shut down the accounts of two guys, Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones. it's better if you unlock those accounts and let the guys be heard. censorship isn't good for America. It's antithetical to our culture. If you tell people they can't speak, that's when they scream. And if you tell people they can't scream, that's when they tear things down. free speech is a precondition for peace. There's a different category of saying that you may demonetize certain people. What I'm talking about is not a legal point. It's just a cultural point. because of who you are, you deserve not to be heard. restore the accounts of those guys, believe me, it will be a down payment on beginning to reunite this country.

Jonathan asks for commentary on Nick Fuentes, what countermeasures are effective, and what the government’s role should be in being critical of such a platform. The respondent explains that Nick Fuentes’ second name is Joseph, and that Fuentes is a Hispanic person described as an open, unapologetic racist, homophobe, and anti-Semite. He notes that Fuentes has been incredibly effective at spreading his message thanks to X and social media, which act as super spreaders of anti-Semitism and hate, making Fuentes like patient zero. He points out that it didn’t help when former President Trump had Fuentes over for dinner at Mar-a-Lago, and he criticizes those in power who don’t renounce Fuentes. JD Vance has done so, but the current right faces a challenge with elevated bad voices like Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, and Candace Owens, while there are good voices on the right such as Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro, and Mark Levin who push back on figures like Speaker Johnson and the revolting lunatics. To defeat rising anti-Semitism on the right, he believes it must come from the right; to defeat rising anti-Zionism on the left, it must come from people on the left. At AADL, the goal is to provide data and tools and to operate behind the scenes rather than publicly targeting Fuentes or Hassan Piker; the speaker even calls Hassan Piker “Hamas Piker” and notes his large platform on Twitch, Steam, YouTube, and Instagram. The speaker emphasizes working to get platforms to enforce terms of service to pull down the most offensive hate speech, or compel action from the platforms. However, he also stresses the need for people on the right to take down figures like Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes, and for people on the left to support similar efforts. The second speaker adds that in a sermon about the nuance of every human being, they did not mean Nick Fuentes.

Free speech should exist, but there should be boundaries regarding inciting violence and causing people not to take vaccines. Rules are needed, and AI could encode those rules due to the billions of activities happening. If harmful activity is caught a day later, the harm is already done.

Experiment to see what people want! I believe it's less about free speech and more about choosing how algorithms program us, because they definitely are. It's hard to predict what algorithms will do, and that's risky. But, imagine an algorithm store instead of an app store, where I choose algorithms to filter my content. This gives me more control and creates a healthier relationship with technology. This applies beyond Twitter, to YouTube and financial tech too. Algorithms know our preferences better than we do, and this will only increase. We need to increase individual agency by choosing different algorithms, turning them off, or even creating our own.

Social media sites must be held responsible and understand their power. The speaker claims these sites speak directly to millions of people without oversight or regulation, and that "has to stop." The speaker asserts that the same rules must apply across platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Someone "has lost his privileges" and content "should be taken down."

Social media sites must be held responsible and understand their power. The speaker claims these platforms directly address millions without oversight or regulation, and this must end. The speaker asserts there can't be different rules for Facebook and Twitter; the same rule must apply to both. Someone has lost their privileges, and content should be taken down.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss hate speech and content moderation on Twitter, as well as COVID misinformation policies and broader editorial questions. - Speaker 0 says they have spoken with people who were sacked and with people recently involved in moderation, and they claim there is not enough staff to police hate speech in the company. - Speaker 1 asks if there is a rise in hate speech on Twitter and prompts for personal experience. - Speaker 0 says, personally, they see more hateful content in their feed, but they do not use the For You feed for the rest of Twitter. They describe the content as something that solicits a reaction and may include something slightly racist or slightly sexist. - Speaker 1 asks for a concrete example of hateful content. Speaker 0 says they cannot name a single example, explaining they have not used the For You feed for the last three or four weeks and have been using Twitter since the takeover for the last six months. When pressed again, Speaker 0 says they cannot identify a specific example but that many organizations say such information is on the rise. Speaker 1 again pushes for a single example, and Speaker 0 repeats they cannot provide one. - Speaker 1 points out the inconsistency, noting that Speaker 0 claimed more hateful content but cannot name a single tweet as an example. Speaker 0 responds that they have not looked at that feed recently, and that the last few weeks they saw it but cannot provide an exact example. - The discussion moves to COVID misinformation: Speaker 1 asks about changes to COVID misinformation rules and labels. Speaker 0 clarifies that the BBC does not set the rules on Twitter and asks about changes to the labels for COVID misinformation, noting there used to be a policy that disappeared. - Speaker 1 questions why the labels disappeared and asks whether COVID is no longer an issue, and whether the BBC bears responsibility for misinformation regarding masking, vaccination side effects, and not reporting on that, as well as whether the BBC was pressured by the British government to change editorial policy. Speaker 0 states that this interview is not about the BBC and emphasizes that they are not a representative of the BBC’s editorial policy, and tries to shift to another topic. - Speaker 1 continues pushing, and Speaker 0 indicates the interview is moving to another topic. Speaker 1 remarks that Speaker 0 wasn’t expecting that, and Speaker 0 suggests discussing something else.