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.

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."

Every country struggles to define the boundaries of online speech. In the U.S., the First Amendment complicates this, requiring exceptions to free speech, such as falsely yelling fire in a theater. Anonymity online can exacerbate the problem. Over time, with technologies like deepfakes, people will likely prefer online environments where users are truly identified and connected to real-world identities they trust, rather than allowing anonymous individuals to say anything. Systems will be needed to verify the source and creator of online content.

Don't trust, verify. In the future, with deepfakes and advanced technology, it will be hard to distinguish between what's real and fake. It's crucial to rely on your own experiences and intuition to navigate this era of manufactured content. Your devices are taking over tasks that used to strengthen your brain connections.

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.

Speaker 0: The Trump administration launched a cyber strategy recently in the context of the Iran war. The concern is that war is a Trojan horse for government power expansion, eroding civil rights. The document targets cybercrime but also mentions unveiling an embarrassed online espionage, destructive propaganda and influence operations, and cultural subversion. The speaker questions whether the government should police propaganda, noting that propaganda is legal in a broad sense, and highlights cultural subversion as a potential tool to align culture with war support. An example cited (satire account) suggests that labeling certain expressions as cultural subversion could chill free expression. Ben Swan is introduced as a guest to discuss the plan and its impact on everyday Americans. Speaker 1: Ben Swan responds that governments are major purveyors of propaganda, so any move toward censorship or identifying propaganda is complicated. He is actually somewhat glad to see language that, at least, mentions “unveil and embarrass” rather than prosecuting or imprisoning. If there are organized online campaigns funded by outside groups or foreign governments, he views exposing inauthentic activity and embarrassing it as not necessarily a terrible outcome, and he sees this as potentially halting the drift toward broader censorship. He emphasizes that it should not be the government’s job to determine authenticity in online content, and he believes community notes is a better tool than government action for addressing authenticity. Speaker 2: The conversation notes potential blurriness between satire, low-cost AI, and what counts as grassroots versus external influence. If the government were to define and act on what is authentic, would that extend to politically connected figures and inner circles (e.g., MAGA-aligned commentators)? The panel questions whether the office would target these allies and suspects they might not, though they aren’t sure. The discussion moves to real-world consequences, recalling journalists whose bank accounts were shut down, and contrasting that with a platform like Rumble Wallet that offers some financial autonomy away from banks. (Promotional content is present in the transcript but is not included in the summary per guidelines.) Speaker 1: Ben critiques the potential growth of bureaucracies built around “propaganda or bad actors,” noting that such systems tend to justify their own existence and expand over time. He points to Russia-related enforcement as an example of how agencies can expand under the guise of national security. He argues there is no clear “smoking gun” in the document due to its vague, generic language focused on “cyber,” which could allow broad interpretation and future expansion of powers across administrations. He cautions that even supporters of the administration could find the broad terms worrisome because they create enduring bureaucracies that outlive any one presidency. Speaker 0: The discussion returns to concerns about securing emerging technologies, with a reference to an FBI Director’s post about “securing emerging technologies.” The concern is over what “securing” implies, especially if it means controlling or limiting new technologies like AI. The lack of specifics in the document is troubling, as it leaves room for expansive government action in the future. The conversation ends with worry that such language could push toward a modern, more palatable form of prior restraint, rather than clarifying actual threats. Speaker 2: The conversation acknowledges parallels to previous disinformation governance debates, reflecting on Nina Jankowicz and the disinformation governance board, but clarifies that this current approach is seen by the speakers as a distinct, potentially less extreme—but still concerning—direction. The panel hopes to see a rollback or dismantling of overly expansive bureaucratic powers, rather than their expansion.

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.

We propose linking digital identities like France Identité or La Poste's digital identity to Facebook accounts. This would confirm that there is a real person behind the account and provide an encrypted code that only authorities can decipher in specific cases of illegal activity. The idea is to know who you are, even if you use a pseudonym and a cat photo on Facebook. Anonymity is not the goal; instead, we want to associate your account with a digital identity to ensure you are not anonymous in the end.

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 problem of fake news is not solved by a referee, but by participants helping each other point out what is fake and true. The answer to bad speech is not censorship, but more speech. Critical thinking matters more than ever, given that lies seem to be getting very popular.

- Under Victoria's civil anti vilification scheme, starts in 2026, the speaker of a vilifying statement generally needs to be identifiable to be held to a to to be held accountable. We recognize that this could protect cowards who hide behind anonymous profiles to spread hate and stoke fear. That's why Victoria will spearhead new laws to hold social media companies and anonymous users to account and will, as point, a respected jurist to unlock the legislative path forward.

The speaker claims they are attacked for not believing in democracy, but the most sacred right in the U.S. democracy is the First Amendment. They state that Kamala Harris wants to threaten the power of the government, and there is no First Amendment right to misinformation. The speaker believes big tech silences people, which is a threat to democracy. They want Democrats and Republicans to reject censorship and persuade one another by arguing about ideas. The speaker references yelling fire in a crowded theater as the Supreme Court test. They accuse others of wanting to kick people off Facebook for saying toddlers shouldn't get masks.

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.

Speaker 0 opens by noting the Trump administration recently launched a cyber strategy amid the war with Iran and expresses concern that war often serves as a Trojan horse for expanding government power and eroding civil rights. He examines parts of the plan that give him heartburn, focusing on aims to “unveil an embarrassed online espionage, destructive propaganda and influence operations, and cultural subversion,” and questions whether the government should police propaganda or cultural subversion, arguing that propaganda is legal and that individuals should be free to express themselves. Speaker 1, Ben Swan, counters by acknowledging that governments are major purveyors of propaganda, but suggests some of the language in the plan could be positive. He says the administration’s phrasing—“unveil and embarrass”—is not about prosecution or imprisonment but exposing inauthentic campaigns funded by outside groups or foreign governments. He views this as potentially beneficial if limited to highlighting non-grassroots, authentic concerns, and not expanding censorship. He argues that this approach could roll back some censorship apparatuses the previous years had built. Speaker 2 raises concerns about blurry lines between satire, low-cost AI, and authentic grassroots content, questioning whether the government should determine what is and isn’t authentic. Speaker 1 agrees that it should not be the government’s job to adjudicate authenticity and suggests community notes or crowd-sourced verification as a better mechanism. He gives an example involving Candace Owens’ expose on Erica Kirk and a cohort of right-wing influencers proclaiming she is demonic, labeling such efforts as propaganda under the plan’s framework. He expresses doubt that the administration would pursue those individuals, though he cannot be sure. The conversation shifts to broader implications of a new cyber task force: Speaker 1 cautions that bureaucracy tends to justify its own existence by policing propaganda or bad actors, citing the Russia-focused crackdown era as a precedent. He worries that the language’s vagueness could enable future administrations to expand control, regardless of party. The lack of specifics in “securing emerging technologies” worries both speakers, who interpret it as potentially broad overreach beyond protecting infrastructure, possibly extending into controlling information or AI outputs. Speaker 0 emphasizes that the biggest headaches for war hawks include platforms like TikTok and X, and perhaps certain AIs like Grok. He argues the idea of “securing emerging technologies” could imply controlling truth-telling AI outputs or preventing adverse revelations about Iran. Speaker 1 reiterates that there is no clear smoking gun in the document; the general language makes it hard to assess intent, and the real danger is the ongoing growth and persistence of bureaucracies that can outlast specific administrations. Toward the end, Speaker 1 notes Grok’s ability to verify videos amid widespread war-time misinformation, illustrating how AI verification could counter claims of fake footage, while also acknowledging the broader risk of information manipulation and the government’s expanding role. The discussion closes with a wary reflection on the disinformation governance era and the balance between safeguarding free speech and preventing government overreach.

In this video, the speaker discusses two important steps to be taken regarding social media. Firstly, they emphasize the need for social media companies to reveal their algorithms to the public. This transparency will allow people to understand why certain content is being promoted. Secondly, the speaker suggests that every individual on social media should be verified by their real name. This measure is seen as crucial for national security, as it would eliminate the presence of fake accounts, such as those operated by Russia, Iran, and China. By attaching real names to online statements, people will be more accountable for their words, leading to increased civility. Additionally, this verification process would also benefit children and families.

Tucker Carlson and the host discuss the evolving casualty figures and the media’s handling of them. The conversation begins with the host recalling that on March 9 they reported, citing a military source, that 147 Americans were wounded, and that Reuters later published an exclusive stating 140 soldiers were wounded; the Pentagon confirmed that figure, and they note that many of the wounded have serious injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, not minor injuries. The host asks Carlson if his sources, close to the White House, confirm those numbers and why the media might be hiding them. Carlson offers two reasons. First, he suggests the media hesitates to push on the matter because they “support the war reflexively” and because of institutional loyalty and fear of criticizing the war. He adds a provocative comparison, saying some in the media “support big organizations” and implying that certain prominent figures have incentives to align with defense contractors. Second, he says there is a legitimate moral concern about reporting numbers when families are involved, describing a “moral blackmail” that discourages reporting about deaths and injuries. He acknowledges that, in his experience, families deserve consideration, which can complicate reporting, but asserts that there is also a pattern of lying and censorship surrounding casualty figures. He notes that ground troops, while the U.S. military presence may be limited, certainly includes special operations and Tier One units, and expresses concern about overuse of those forces. He emphasizes that there is a broader issue of deception and AI-generated misinformation making it hard to know what is true. The discussion then shifts to Israel. The host asks for Carlson’s sense of daily life in Israel and what is happening on the ground, noting a “total blackout” on Israeli attacks. Carlson replies that he is not as well sourced in Israel as before but has connections in the Gulf, where sharing social media video of destruction is illegal in six monarchies. He mentions a single clip that has stood out in his thinking for years: a video showing a missile segment near the Dome of the Rock in the Al Aqsa Mosque Complex, and references Jerusalem’s Holy Sepulchre. He warns that the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque Complex and the Dome of the Rock could trigger a global war and possibly a nuclear exchange, suggesting that some prominent Israelis would want such an escalation; therefore, he argues the U.S. government should make protecting the Dome of the Rock a priority, not because of sectarian reasons but to prevent a world-ending conflict. A separate segment (omitted as promotional) includes Carlson’s remark that denial of censorship and government blocks complicates reporting and that he values the ability to access diverse sources. The hosts then pivot to audience dynamics, with Carlson noting that some audiences who were skeptical of him have become supporters, and reflecting on the cultural shift in political loyalties. Toward the end, the host asks Carlson for his take on last night’s events involving Thomas Massey and Donald Trump in Kentucky; Carlson describes it as a reflection of a broader battle in American politics. He recalls his experience with Trump’s 2020 coalition and laments that neoconservatives allegedly destroyed the coalition, elevating figures like MTG and Massey as enemies. He expresses a desire for a new political coalition of “normal” people who want a government that does not hate them and seeks to improve their lives, acknowledging differences in approach but emphasizing good-faith effort over insults or aggressive foreign policy. The program closes with mutual thanks and well-wishes.

Our politicians in Ireland are no different than England and everywhere else. They report up to the network through the European Commission, which is like the Politburo in Soviet times, unelected. And then you've got the European Parliament, which is like the Soviet Parliament in Soviet times. It's a talk shop with no real power. So EU is modeled on purpose on the Soviet system of totalitarian collectivization with unelected bureaucrats. Then you've got the UN, which sprang from Rockefeller's loins. Rockefeller brothers formed the Rockefellers along with the Rothschilds and the Warburgs. All of these structures we've got have been funded and grown, Trilateral Commission, Council Foreign Relations, Bilderberg, W. F. They've all been grown to manage the ant farm of us humans. That's where all our problems come from, and it all goes up essentially to the big banking kind of globalist oligarchs, and they all work together. So we get all this crap that comes down like totally totalitarian dystopian madness. So the key thing for people is to understand your politicians, challenge them on who they're reporting to. That's a key thing, I think. Not don't challenge them about what they're bringing in because that's a waste of time. If everyone is saying we see you and we know you're reporting to a non sovereign, non Irish authority, bringing in things that are against the people's interests. So who are you reporting to? And everyone keeps asking, keeps telling them, we know where you're at. We see you. I think that's important because a lot of people now, even young people are beginning to realize when we were told it was a conspiracy theory that higher powers are basically running our lives in a totalitarian fashion, that was part of the scam. We were indoctrinated to believe that higher up ultra wealthy people running our lives and influencing our governments was a conspiracy theory. But increasingly, people are realizing now, actually, that was a trick to tell us that Uh-huh. Because they are running our lives, and our children's and grandchildren's futures are going to be destroyed by these ultra rich oligarchs if we don't start making a ruckus. Now, wef is a filthy household name. Whereas they worked in the shadows for, like, a century, and no one ever talked about them because they own the media. No. It's 20 social media, you got COVID backlash Yeah. Vaccine backlash, and now you got all these people talking about them. And that's why they're desperately trying to get in hate speech, digital millennium act, censorship, ID for people to get on the Internet. They're really worried about the young people talking. Really scared about that. And, I think it's all on the razor's edge, all to play for for the bad guys and the good guys. Uh-huh. I couldn't call it. I think it's all to play for. So let's double down, more awakening.

Shlomo Kramer argues that AI will revolutionize cyber warfare, affecting critical infrastructure, the fabric of society, and politics, and will undermine democracies by giving an unfair advantage to authoritarian governments. He notes that this is already happening and highlights growing polarization in countries that protect First Amendment rights. He contends it may become necessary to limit the First Amendment to protect it, and calls for government control of social platforms, including stacking-ranked authenticity for everyone who expresses themselves online and shaping discourse based on that ranking. He asserts that the government should take control of platforms, educate people against lies, and develop cyber defense programs that are as sophisticated as cyber attacks; currently, government defense is lacking and enterprises are left to fend for themselves. Speaker 2 adds that cyber threats are moving faster than political systems can respond. He emphasizes the need to use technology to stabilize political systems and implement adjustments that may be necessary. He points out that in practice it’s already difficult to discern real from fake on platforms like Instagram and TikTok, and once truth-seeking ability is eliminated, society becomes polarized and internally fighting. There is an urgent need for government action, while enterprises are increasingly buying cybersecurity solutions to deliver more efficiently, since they cannot bear the full burden alone. Kramer notes that this drives the next generation of security companies—such as Wiz, CrowdStrike, and Cato Networks—built on network platforms that can deliver extended security needs to enterprises at affordable costs. He clarifies these tools are for enterprises, not governments, but insists that governments should start building programs and that the same tools can be used by governments as well. Speaker 2 mentions that China is a leading AI user, already employing AI to control the population, and that the U.S. and other democracies are in a race with China. He warns that China’s approach—having a single narrative to protect internal stability—versus the U.S. approach of multiple narratives creates an unfair long-term advantage for China that could jeopardize national stability, and asserts that changes must be made.

Americans spreading misinformation, whether intentionally or unknowingly, can pose a significant threat to elections. This misinformation can be shared on social media without us realizing it's fake. While foreign interference is a concern, we value and encourage free speech in our country. However, we also need to ensure that if we or the involved firms are aware of foreign-sponsored and covertly sponsored information, we take steps to manage it effectively.

Don't trust, verify. In the next 5-10 years, deepfakes will make it hard to distinguish real from fake. Shift your mindset to verify things through experience and intuition. Devices are affecting our brain connections, so rely on personal verification.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that anonymity on social media stands in contrast to everyday norms in their countries, where masks on streets, unlicensed cars, IDs for packages, and names when purchasing hunting weapons are standard requirements. They point out that social networks currently allow people to roam freely without linking profiles to real identities, which they say enables misinformation, hate speech, and cyber harassment by facilitating bot activity and reducing accountability for actions. They contend that such an anomaly cannot continue. In a democracy, they claim, citizens have the right to privacy, but not the right to anonymity or impunity, because anonymity and impunity would undermine social coexistence. Based on this premise, they advocate for pushing forward the principle of pseudonymity as the functioning element of social media, and for forcing all platforms to link every user account to a European digital identity wallet. With this system, citizens would still be able to use nicknames if they choose, but in the case of a crime, public authorities would be able to connect those nicknames to real people and hold them responsible. The underlying assertion is that accountability is not an obstacle to freedom of speech, but rather an essential complement to it.