reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed.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.

We will restore the Department of Justice's focus on justice by doubling the civil rights division and directing law enforcement to combat extremism. Social media platforms must be held accountable for the hate that spreads on their sites, as they have a responsibility to protect our democracy. If you profit from hate, amplify misinformation, or fail to regulate your platforms, we will ensure you are held accountable as a community.

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.

Facebook and other platforms should measure and share the impact of misinformation, along with the audience it reaches. They should work with the public to create strong enforcement strategies that apply across all their properties. Transparency about rules is important, so people shouldn't be banned from one platform while allowed on others for spreading misinformation.

Section 230, which granted internet platforms immunity as passive conduits, should be repealed.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 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 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.

The speakers claim that graduation speakers are spreading blood libels and social media influencers are making baseless claims about Jews, science, and Israelis. They express concern that this could worsen and call for tech platforms to stop lifting up these voices, elected officials to speak out, and people to stand with their Jewish friends. Social media is described as a super spreader of antisemitism, racism, misogyny, and misinformation. Companies like X and Meta are said to have retreated from content moderation, and community notes are not a solution. The speakers believe it is time for government to step up and regulate these companies, which they consider monopolistic. They advocate for these companies to demonstrate accountability like other media businesses and remove Nazis and anti-Zionists from their platforms.

Social media sites should be held responsible for their power, as they directly address millions without oversight or regulation, and this must end. There can't be one rule for Facebook and another for Twitter; the same rule must apply to both.

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 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.

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.

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.

Over the past decade, anti-Semitism has shifted online, making it easier to generate and spread hateful content. To address this, the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs developed a system that monitors anti-Semitism on the entire internet, focusing on Facebook and Twitter. Using artificial intelligence, the system identifies around 10,000 anti-Semitic posts daily out of 200,000 suspect posts. By making this information public, it aims to shame individuals and deter anti-Semitism. Additionally, a command center in Tel Aviv analyzes the data and takes action, such as notifying law enforcement or city officials about specific instances. The speaker urges Facebook and Twitter to take responsibility and not allow anti-Semitism under the guise of freedom of speech.

The conversation centers on the core idea that democracy hinges on freedom of speech, but with in-depth debate about what that freedom should look like in the context of large platforms. Speaker 0 references the bedrock of democracy and notes a new policy posted yesterday titled “freedom of speech, not freedom of reach,” highlighting the tension between protecting speech and avoiding amplification of harmful or extremist content. Speaker 1, Jonathan, clarifies his stance: “I don't think it's about censorship. I believe in freedom of speech. The ADL is a civil rights organization, but I don't believe in freedom of reach.” He argues that Twitter, like other publishers, should have the ability to choose whom it privileges and who it doesn’t privilege, suggesting there should be a “lunatic fringe” kept on the fringe rather than algorithmically amplified. He lists examples such as “Russian propagandists, alt right crazy people, you know, violent anti Zionists,” implying that such content should not be algorithmically promoted. Speaker 2 asks whether this should be achieved through a free marketplace of ideas managed by private companies or through legal intervention in Washington, prompting Speaker 1 to respond that social media platforms should “simply obey the same rules of business that other publishers do.” Speaker 3 reframes the issue: it is not about limiting anyone's free speech but about giving people the largest platform in history to reach a third of the planet, noting that “Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.” He asserts that there will always be racist, misogynist, anti-Semites, and child abusers, but argues that the goal is not to give bigots and pedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims. Speaker 4 shifts to the ADL’s operational stance, noting that they opened a center in Silicon Valley in 2017 and that the person running it will be “the next Facebook executive.” They describe having software engineers and data scientists monitoring online content and working with major platforms—Google, YouTube, Meta, Twitter, Reddit, Steam, Amazon, and others from Apple to Zoom. The speaker emphasizes ongoing collaboration with Twitter “since it was founded,” describing continuity with both “the old regime” and “the new regime,” and adds a provocative aside: “Like, I'm talking to Ivon. Bad guy.” The overall thread is a sustained effort to monitor, engage with, and influence platform policies through cross-platform collaboration while advocating for restraint in amplifying harmful content.

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.

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.

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.

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."