reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The chief strategy officer at Flock (a surveillance company) contacted the speaker on X after the speaker called him a tyrant. The speaker says they did not notice the message until two days ago and then posted a public rebuttal on X. The speaker also says they have tried for years to reduce unsolicited commentary, but now are expanding concerns about surveillance technology. The speaker frames their concerns as forward-looking rather than only reacting to one company. They say their “chief concern is not a camera” but that the U.S. has “quietly allowed a national intelligence collection network” to emerge, and that Flock uses “active deceit” and “steamrolling any opposition.” They compare the issue to the aftermath of the PRISM disclosures: many people came to accept that surveillance exists, but the speaker argues that social media or consumer tracking feels less present than physical devices—describing cameras on playgrounds, outside bedrooms, along streets, and other intimate settings—so the monitoring feels different. They argue Flock is an example of broader problems and state that other systems exist, including Alexa recording in living rooms. They distinguish Flock from “regular security cameras,” saying accountability for privately owned or publicly operated cameras typically involves identifiable ownership and processes (e.g., city departments), while Flock’s systems are centralized and the destination of data is unclear. They add that domestic customer service and addresses can create more accountability options than overseas ones, and that it is different from data pipelines like a local DVR. The speaker says Flock’s transparency claims are not the same as transparency, describing Flock as starting with deceit, avoiding answers, and calling Americans “terrorists” for wanting to know camera locations while the cameras can “know where you are at all times.” They say concerns have intensified because Flock is rapidly deploying sensors “before anyone notices,” and they emphasize scale (comparing 100 cameras to 83,000). They say “these are not just cameras,” arguing the most important part is the broader sensor function. They discuss Flock as “automated license plate readers” while asserting this is a “huge lie by omission.” The speaker claims the system provides an “electronic fingerprint” of vehicles and people, using high-resolution imaging and AI object detection to scan vehicles (including color and defects), identify bumper stickers, and associate faces with cars and passengers. They mention the existence of technology for lidar scans of vehicles and people, suggesting that systems could generate high-resolution 3D models of whatever is in front of the sensor, “certainly not all” devices—then note the speaker is guessing because of lack of openness about technical specifications. The speaker argues that because of secrecy, decisions are being made without full information and that risks include data breaches and exposure of biometric face data to foreign actors. They also raise scenarios involving U.S. military faces being cataloged, data cross-referencing with other breaches, and scanning of convoys and nuclear-weapons transport vehicles. They ask what happens with presidential motorcades and whether IDs from nearby phones could be captured. They claim cargo shipments onto military bases could be logged through high-resolution sensing and AI inference, but state that “where it goes” is unknown. They say Flock states it does not work with ICE and does not track illegal immigrants, which they interpret as cherry-picking which crimes to report. They argue accountability is impossible because Flock is a private company serving the government: they are not subject to FOIA, and legal action requires proving harm without knowing enough information. The speaker then calls for opposition rather than dialogue, including treating Flock as a “catalyst” for broader conversation about surveillance technologies. They recommend “knowing where Flock cameras are located” and logging them on a public “deflock” database (via website and GitHub, with an app mentioned). They warn that using a smartphone near a Flock camera is a “huge no-no” because the system may log Bluetooth device IDs. They urge educating family by pointing out cameras and starting conversations, focusing on data security. They say to prepare for what comes next, including expansion to drones that could hover over properties. They also suggest political activism: calling representatives while being polite and respectful, and they use an analogy about dedication and opportunity costs for politicians. Finally, they discuss “carrot and stick,” arguing that cities should be rewarded if they stop or push back against Flock-like technologies. They call for support of “good cops” who push back rather than only attacking police, asserting that surveillance technology encourages treating the public like criminals and harms both sides. They conclude by rejecting what they describe as engaging with people like Flock’s leadership and say discourse should move “towards something good,” potentially “fight in the shade.”

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.

Misinformation is a problem now handed to the younger generation, as making information available didn't guarantee people wanting correct information. Online harassment, as experienced by the speaker's daughter and her friends, highlighted this issue. Context matters, as people seek correct information for medical advice but may prioritize shared views in their communities. The boundaries of free speech need to be defined, especially regarding inciting violence or discouraging vaccinations. Rules are needed, but with billions of online activities, AI might be necessary to enforce them, as delayed action can result in irreversible harm.

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.

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 speaker discusses their experience on Twitch and their efforts to raise awareness about child predators on the platform. They share how they were ignored by Twitch and authorities, and their interactions with the Twitch safety council. They also uncover a larger ring of predators targeting children and their attempts to report it to Twitch. The speaker faces backlash and smear campaigns from other creators. They mention their ban on YouTube and the lack of transparency from the platform. They highlight Twitch's response to the Bloomberg expose and the subsequent negative press. The speaker expresses their disappointment in Twitch's handling of the situation and their hope for a different outcome.

My name is Ryan Hartwig, a former Facebook content moderator. I observed Facebook's interference in US elections and influence in foreign countries. I provided evidence in the Murphy vs. Missouri case. I call on the Texas legislature to act against Meta to prevent disruption in the 2024 elections.

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.

The speaker expresses their disappointment with the CEOs' deflection and denial during the hearing, emphasizing the need for legislation to hold them accountable. They believe that the CEOs are only concerned about profits and that their apologies are meaningless as children continue to be harmed. The speaker wishes all the CEOs had been forced to apologize to the parents present. They share their personal experience of their son being cyberbullied on Snapchat and highlight the need to remove certain features from these apps. When Mark Zuckerberg claims there is no causal link between social media and mental health issues, the speaker questions how many more children need to die before the impact is acknowledged. The speaker commends the strength of the parents speaking out and urges for concrete changes from the companies.

The speaker criticizes Democrats for using voting machines in the 2020 election and accuses Big Tech of censoring Americans. They express satisfaction at the loss of jobs due to censorship and praise Elon Musk for buying Twitter. The speaker then accuses the Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter of failing to remove child pornography and mentions their doctoral dissertation on minors accessing a gay hookup app. They claim that Elon Musk banned accounts promoting child porn but Twitter allowed it. The speaker also mentions a lawsuit against Twitter for refusing to remove a lewd video featuring minors. They conclude by stating that they were violated.

The speaker wrote to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, asking him to remove the president's Twitter account. The speaker believes this is not a free speech violation because Twitter, as a corporation, has terms of use policies that dictate who can speak on the platform. The speaker claims Donald Trump has violated these terms and should face consequences. They assert he has used his platform as president to incite fear and potentially incite harm against a witness to a possible crime against the country and democracy. The speaker is asking Twitter to revoke the president's privilege to use the platform, as they have done in the past when users violated the terms of use.

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.

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.

I used to be on Twitter, but it has become toxic and not worth my time. I'm trying to find an alternative to it. Social media needs a code of conduct to address issues like spreading false news and racism. The power of social media platforms should be reflected upon by society. The policy of the owner of X is also problematic. This is a problem that future society needs to address, focusing on ethics in social media.

The speaker discusses the issue of vaccine disinformation and the need for platforms like Facebook to be more transparent about their algorithms and engagement. They emphasize the importance of holding these platforms accountable and demanding better. The conversation also touches on the spread of misinformation by Donald Trump and the similarities between misinformation about elections and blocking access to vaccines. The speaker suggests that self-policing across various groups, such as lawyers and state medical boards, is necessary. They mention the damage caused by false claims and express hope for investigations into profiteering off the pandemic.

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.

The speaker sued the Biden administration and won. According to the speaker, discovery revealed that 37 hours after Biden's inauguration, a White House group was appointed to censor the speaker and others. The speaker claims to have emails between this group and Mark Zuckerberg, as well as people at Twitter. The speaker credits Elon Musk with making these emails public and believes Musk is essential to free speech in the U.S. because he opened up Twitter. The speaker states that Musk released these documents to journalists against the advice of his attorneys.

The speaker has been on Twitch for over 4 years and has been trying to raise awareness about the dangers the platform poses to children. They share their experiences of being ignored by Twitch and the authorities when reporting incidents involving child predators. They also mention their interactions with the Twitch Safety Council and their disappointment in their response. The speaker discusses their efforts to expose a coordinated ring of predators targeting young unsupervised children on Twitch. They talk about encountering difficulties when reporting these accounts and their frustration with the lack of response from Twitch and larger creators. The speaker also mentions facing attacks and smear campaigns from other creators. They highlight the importance of child safety and criticize Twitch's handling of the issue.

The speaker acknowledges that brands have the power to make their own decisions. They clarify that they have never accused Elon Musk or Twitter of being anti-Semitic, but they express concern about the platform's handling of hate speech. The speaker admits that they are not publicly or privately talking to advertisers, but rather engaging with Twitter's management to help improve the platform. They address the critique of seeking a role at Twitter or donations, stating that it is unfair to suggest that expressing outrage over anti-Semitism is a shakedown. The speaker mentions their efforts to work with various platforms, including Twitter, to make improvements.

I haven't personally presented my case to Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey, but I did email Jack before January 6th to warn him about a potential coup on his platform. However, I haven't heard from him since. If I had the chance to speak to Mark Zuckerberg, I would first have a private conversation. From my perspective, I'm concerned about the internet being defined by hate, division, and lies. This is not right, especially for those with children. We shouldn't let greed, profit, and growth shape our future. I hope that as human beings, they prioritize people's safety and consider the impact on the internet and future generations.

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.