00:00:00
David and I are staying in a
00:00:01
300-year-old house and uh we've both
00:00:05
smashed our head on the beams twice
00:00:07
already. Uh but this is both our first
00:00:09
Davos, David. It's our first Davos.
00:00:11
We've been here for 24 hours and um uh
00:00:15
any first impressions here.
00:00:17
>> Um it's interesting. You know, we're
00:00:19
we're staying very far away.
00:00:21
>> Yeah,
00:00:21
>> they didn't apparently they didn't want
00:00:22
you to be part of this.
00:00:23
>> They didn't want me too close. Yeah.
00:00:25
>> But we finally we got you finally got
00:00:27
you an invitation. your invitation to
00:00:28
not get lost in the mail.
00:00:29
>> My invitation didn't get lost in the
00:00:31
mail this time.
00:00:31
>> For those of you who watch the pod, you
00:00:32
know what I'm talking about.
00:00:33
>> Inside joke. Um, but it's great to be
00:00:36
here and uh great to be here at USA
00:00:39
House. Thanks to all the sponsors and um
00:00:42
really delighted for our first guest for
00:00:44
the pod. Sarah Rogers works for is the
00:00:47
under secretary uh for public diplomacy
00:00:50
at the State Department. for members
00:00:53
here who don't know this position or
00:00:56
what you've been charged with or what
00:00:57
you've decided to work on. I'm curious
00:00:59
about that. Do they tell you what to do
00:01:00
or do you come up with your own mandate?
00:01:02
But yeah, tell us everything about what
00:01:03
you're doing.
00:01:04
>> Longtime listener, first time guest and
00:01:06
thank you to both of us. Uh thank you
00:01:08
from all of us at America House for
00:01:10
joining us here.
00:01:11
>> Yeah.
00:01:12
>> So I am the under secretary for public
00:01:14
diplomacy and when I got this
00:01:16
nomination, my friends and family all
00:01:18
congratulated me and then conferably
00:01:19
said what is that?
00:01:20
>> Yeah. Uh so diplomacy traditionally
00:01:22
concerns the relationship between the
00:01:25
American government and foreign
00:01:26
governments. Two ambassadors, shake
00:01:28
hands, make a deal, um solve a war. But
00:01:32
public diplomacy is different. Public
00:01:34
diplomacy addresses the relationship
00:01:36
between the American government and
00:01:37
foreign publics. And this has become a
00:01:40
very important under secretariat with
00:01:41
the rise of the internet and then during
00:01:44
the Biden administration especially uh
00:01:46
these mushrooming concerns about
00:01:49
so-called disinformation and what do we
00:01:51
do when there are allegedly malign
00:01:55
influences on the public view of America
00:01:58
um the public's intersection with
00:02:00
American interest how do we interact
00:02:02
with the internet and the information
00:02:04
ecosystem that is part of my portfolio I
00:02:07
also oversee other soft power activities
00:02:09
including our educational and cultural
00:02:11
and sports diplomacy. So I am privileged
00:02:14
to play a role in the World Cup this
00:02:16
summer and the LA Olympics coming up and
00:02:19
uh the Fulbright program and others like
00:02:21
it. So
00:02:22
>> you seem particularly focused on freedom
00:02:26
of speech and a little bit of tension
00:02:29
between our standards and the companies
00:02:31
in America which have made the move to
00:02:34
being strongly freedom of speech.
00:02:36
something that kind of got lost in our
00:02:38
industry for a couple years in
00:02:39
technology but has now made I think um
00:02:42
some significant progress on does seem
00:02:44
like some folks in Europe don't share
00:02:46
our love of freedom of speech. Maybe you
00:02:48
could explain to us what the tension is
00:02:52
today and what some of the regulations
00:02:54
are that have been put in place in
00:02:57
Europe.
00:02:57
>> Sure. Absolutely. So the two main
00:03:00
regulations that I've interfaced with
00:03:02
since taking office and part of this is
00:03:04
just a product of my first official trip
00:03:06
was to Europe and while I was in Europe
00:03:08
a large fine came down on an American
00:03:11
platform X under the digital services
00:03:13
act which I'll get into in a moment. So
00:03:15
Europe um especially since since the
00:03:18
second world war but I think really
00:03:19
since the American founding and our
00:03:21
codification of the first amendment you
00:03:23
know America has taken a much stronger
00:03:25
approach on free speech than even most
00:03:27
of the west and with the rise of the
00:03:30
internet and all communication or a lot
00:03:32
of communication becoming transnational.
00:03:34
We see these new technocratic regulatory
00:03:36
frameworks in Europe bumping up against
00:03:39
the commitments to free speech in the
00:03:40
United States. And Jason makes an
00:03:42
important observation that for a while
00:03:44
some of these large American technology
00:03:46
platforms were more inclined to moderate
00:03:48
or to censor kind of in conformity with
00:03:51
some prevailing um some prevailing norms
00:03:54
and concerns in the United States. But I
00:03:56
think in the United States we've shifted
00:03:59
back toward a less centurious approach
00:04:02
and so have these platforms. And at the
00:04:04
same time, you have uh regulatory
00:04:07
efforts in Europe and the UK. And I'll
00:04:09
I'll name a couple that I think have
00:04:10
been particularly relevant. So the UK
00:04:13
has something called the online safety
00:04:15
act. The online safety act imposes age
00:04:18
gating obligations on a broad swath of
00:04:21
content, almost any content that's
00:04:22
upsetting, and then requires platforms
00:04:25
to run risk assessments for and in some
00:04:28
cases remove content that the UK would
00:04:31
say is illegal. And in the UK, you know,
00:04:34
major categories of content are banned,
00:04:36
are rendered illegal. That would not be
00:04:38
illegal in the United States, which is
00:04:40
where these platforms are located, which
00:04:42
is where their original user base is,
00:04:44
which is where their executives live um
00:04:46
and which is their primary regulator.
00:04:48
So, under the online safety act, we now
00:04:50
have um active litigation by the
00:04:52
relevant regulator against several
00:04:54
American websites. These are websites
00:04:57
that don't reach into the UK. They're
00:04:59
not these aren't websites dedicated to
00:05:01
discussing the queen. They're not
00:05:03
websites that sell goods in the United
00:05:05
Kingdom. These are websites that exist
00:05:07
on American soil, host large quantities
00:05:10
of American users, and in often in
00:05:12
oftentimes discuss American political
00:05:14
topics. But because users are permitted
00:05:16
to discuss them in a way that offends UK
00:05:18
law, there's the imposition of a UK
00:05:21
fine. The Digital Services Act in the EU
00:05:24
is similar. So DSA
00:05:26
contains but doesn't just contain uh
00:05:29
contentbased regulations, hate speech
00:05:31
regulations. So DSA requires all of the
00:05:34
EU member states to adopt at minimum
00:05:37
kind of a floor for hate speech
00:05:39
prohibition. And those prohibitions in
00:05:42
the statute, I think, are much vagger
00:05:44
than American lawyers are accustomed to.
00:05:47
And one of our one of our jurist
00:05:49
credential principles under the American
00:05:51
First Amendment is if you're going to
00:05:53
enact any regulation that comes close to
00:05:55
touching speech, it needs to be very
00:05:57
clear what you are prohibiting because
00:05:59
you have this chilling effect concept. A
00:06:01
vague prohibition will chill speech,
00:06:03
especially when that prohibition is
00:06:05
imposed on a large riskaverse
00:06:07
corporation. So you impose vague
00:06:09
prohibitions on large riskaverse
00:06:11
corporations and that's how it becomes
00:06:13
illegal to make jokes around the water
00:06:14
cooler for example. You see the same
00:06:16
effect here. Digital services act also
00:06:19
regulates other aspects of um digital
00:06:22
commerce and social media. So it
00:06:24
regulates um things like transparency
00:06:27
and competition. And I think you know we
00:06:30
have we have a lot of Europeans in the
00:06:32
audience today and I hope none of them
00:06:34
will find it contentious if I suggest
00:06:36
that in Europe there is more of a focus
00:06:39
on uh technocratic regulation as an
00:06:42
arbiter of what's acceptable than there
00:06:44
might be in America where we have this
00:06:45
tradition that um really emphasizes like
00:06:48
rugged individualism and individual
00:06:50
conscience. And to be clear, no one is
00:06:53
saying, certainly not the State
00:06:54
Department or America, hey, you can't
00:06:56
have your own platforms in Europe,
00:06:58
right?
00:06:58
>> Build your own. Build your own Facebook,
00:07:00
build your own Instagram, build your own
00:07:02
Twitter/X,
00:07:03
uh, Tik Tok, whatever you'd like to
00:07:04
build, and you can have whatever
00:07:06
standards you like on your platforms.
00:07:08
We're saying, "Hey, these are our
00:07:09
platforms. This is our standard, and we
00:07:12
don't want our users uh or our platforms
00:07:16
to be receiving fines." That's that's
00:07:17
our position.
00:07:18
>> I I think I think that's basically it.
00:07:20
And look, when American companies
00:07:21
operate abroad, they abide by the laws
00:07:23
where they operate. But at a certain
00:07:26
point, so so we recently issued some
00:07:29
sanctions, which we'll get into. And one
00:07:30
of the individuals we sanctioned uh was
00:07:32
a former EU official who threatened Elon
00:07:35
Musk with enforcement action because X
00:07:38
within the United States had said that
00:07:40
it was going to host on a live uh
00:07:43
Twitter space an interview with Donald
00:07:44
Trump, our president. So it wasn't that
00:07:46
Donald Trump had said anything
00:07:48
violative. It wasn't there was a
00:07:49
specific piece of content that the EU
00:07:51
wanted to ban. It was just that the act
00:07:54
of an American business hosting an
00:07:56
interview with an American president
00:07:58
might offend EU uh EU preferences about
00:08:03
speech generated a regulatory threat.
00:08:05
And when you reach across borders and
00:08:07
make a threat like that, that offends
00:08:09
American interests and American values.
00:08:11
And so you can expect America to
00:08:13
respond. And I think so I my history is
00:08:17
as an American lawyer in American courts
00:08:18
and we have you know we're a nation of
00:08:21
50 states and each state has its own
00:08:22
regulations and we've had to think about
00:08:24
you know when there's a website in
00:08:26
California that operates in Texas how do
00:08:28
you decide to what extent Texas gets to
00:08:30
regulate and we have all these
00:08:32
jurisdictional concepts like does the
00:08:34
website purposefully avail itself of the
00:08:36
forum is it is are you posting
00:08:38
defamatory statements about a person in
00:08:39
Texas but the mere existence of a
00:08:42
website in California that Texas doesn't
00:08:44
like is hardly ever, basically never, a
00:08:48
basis for regulation. And so when we
00:08:50
talk about things like extr
00:08:52
territoriality, you know, what we're
00:08:53
really talking about is it's undisputed
00:08:56
that Europeans get to have their own
00:08:58
laws in Europe, but we also get to have
00:09:00
our own laws in the United States. And
00:09:02
we're celebrating 250 years of American
00:09:04
independence. And so we want, you know,
00:09:07
we want our markets to be able to
00:09:09
interoperate online. Um, but we're not
00:09:12
willing to give up American freedom of
00:09:13
speech and the bargain.
00:09:14
>> Hey, David, when we look at, and I'm
00:09:18
asking you this one so I can give you a
00:09:19
pass on it, but what what do you think
00:09:22
people are so scared of in the UK when
00:09:24
it comes to freedom of speech? Uh, and
00:09:26
and maybe the most freedom of the the
00:09:29
most um rockus platform X specifically.
00:09:33
>> Well, I don't think the people are
00:09:35
afraid. I think the government is afraid
00:09:37
of the people criticizing it and
00:09:40
therefore they're engaged in what
00:09:42
sensors always do which is protect the
00:09:44
people in power. Um there's something
00:09:47
Sarah you you should explain this to us
00:09:51
but as I understand there have been over
00:09:53
12,000 people is it prosecuted or
00:09:56
>> arrested
00:09:57
>> arrested under the online safety act.
00:10:00
Was that just in one year or is that
00:10:02
since it
00:10:03
>> that that was in 2023 alone?
00:10:05
>> Okay.
00:10:06
>> But that isn't just under the online
00:10:07
safety act. So I think what's
00:10:09
particularly insidious and particularly
00:10:11
relevant about statutes like the OSA and
00:10:13
the DSA is that these are portals
00:10:15
through which existing censorship laws
00:10:17
get applied to the internet. So a lot of
00:10:19
these Brits are arrested under um ex of
00:10:22
under existing statutes like there's a
00:10:24
communications act, there's a law
00:10:26
against inciting quote unquote racial or
00:10:28
religious hatred. And we, I think, have
00:10:30
differences of opinion about, you know,
00:10:31
what amounts to incitement in America
00:10:33
versus the UK. But so, for example, uh,
00:10:36
you had a comedian called Graeme Lahan
00:10:38
who tweeted that, um, if a woman sees a
00:10:42
penis in a in a ladies room, you know,
00:10:43
she should feel free to kick that guy in
00:10:45
the balls. And that's that's something a
00:10:46
lot of comedians say, and I think it
00:10:48
channels an impulse that a lot of
00:10:50
Americans and Europeans would frankly
00:10:51
consider common sense. But he was
00:10:54
dragged out of the airport like a
00:10:55
terrorist, had his devices confiscated,
00:10:57
was thrown in jail overnight and lost
00:10:59
access, my understanding is to his heart
00:11:01
medication if I recall correctly.
00:11:02
>> And because this was an incitement to
00:11:04
violence
00:11:05
>> because this offended some existing law
00:11:08
against uh provocative speech in the UK
00:11:11
and the the online safety act is a
00:11:13
device through which all of those
00:11:14
existing laws get applied to the
00:11:16
internet. You had another case in the UK
00:11:18
where Joey Breton, a footballer, um,
00:11:21
called somebody a bike nonce, which
00:11:24
nonce is not an American term, but I
00:11:26
imagine you're insinuating someone is
00:11:27
affeminate for riding a bike so much or
00:11:29
in the manner that he rides the bike.
00:11:31
And that resulted in a suspended prison
00:11:33
sentence, but still a prison sentence
00:11:35
>> because he called somebody desty.
00:11:36
>> Yeah. Basically,
00:11:37
>> that's what we call in United States.
00:11:38
>> And there were there was there were some
00:11:39
other tweets, too, but none none that
00:11:41
would meet the bar for American
00:11:43
incitement. So, David, you're absolutely
00:11:44
right. So that was in a single year of
00:11:46
slightly over 12,000 Brits arrested for
00:11:49
speech acts and that is more than more
00:11:52
than we're arrested that year in Russia,
00:11:54
more than in China, more than in Turkey.
00:11:57
And when you talk to Brits about this,
00:12:00
you know, you're absolutely right. Most
00:12:01
of the British people that you talk to
00:12:03
say this is totally unacceptable. And if
00:12:04
you look at the polls in the UK, you see
00:12:07
public sentiment against this kind of
00:12:09
thing. But I've I've had, you know, both
00:12:11
public and private engagements with
00:12:12
regulators in these countries. And the
00:12:14
defense you hear is well, you know, we
00:12:17
have a less chilling, less totalitarian
00:12:19
environment than China. So maybe more
00:12:21
people are willing to break the rules,
00:12:22
more people are willing to offend. But
00:12:24
if you arrest 12,000 people a year for
00:12:26
speech and you're raising children in an
00:12:28
ecosystem where you can be dragged out
00:12:30
of the airport for offending the dogmas
00:12:32
of transgender activism,
00:12:34
>> then you might not have a different
00:12:36
culture than China for long.
00:12:38
And and why should the United States be
00:12:41
paying to defend your country and
00:12:44
support it in fighting say a proxy war
00:12:48
against Russia if that's basically the
00:12:51
values that are being enforced.
00:12:53
>> Right. Exactly. When we interact with
00:12:55
our NATO allies in the NATO context, we
00:12:57
hear a lot about our shared history and
00:12:59
shared values. And it's time to ask, you
00:13:01
know, what values do we still share? We
00:13:04
together with our allies comprised the
00:13:06
free world after World War II and the
00:13:09
free world that was assembled against
00:13:10
communism. But the cornerstone of a free
00:13:13
world of any free society has to be
00:13:15
freedom of speech
00:13:16
>> and criticizing and the uncomfortable
00:13:18
speech is where this actual defense is
00:13:21
necessary.
00:13:22
>> Yes.
00:13:22
>> And we have a very special, you know,
00:13:26
bent in the United States to really go
00:13:28
after our leaders. I do it every week
00:13:29
with David um since he's now a public
00:13:31
servant. I mean, we go at it and they're
00:13:35
knocking on people's doors strictly for
00:13:37
saying like, "Hey, you know, I I might
00:13:39
have disagreements with the Catholic
00:13:41
Church. I'm a Catholic."
00:13:42
>> Well, a lot of it's about immigration,
00:13:44
right? I mean, so I've seen a bunch of
00:13:45
these examples, you know, on X. I saw um
00:13:49
one clip on X where a judge was handing
00:13:51
down a 2-year sentence against somebody.
00:13:55
I don't know if if this rings a bell,
00:13:57
but supposedly for speech that I think
00:13:59
was criticizing the UK's open
00:14:02
immigration policies. That's where I
00:14:04
sense a lot of the the prosecutions are.
00:14:06
Right.
00:14:07
>> Right. And this is another place where,
00:14:09
you know, free speech and freedom of
00:14:10
expression are American values and
00:14:12
interests in and of themselves. But
00:14:14
another priority for the administration
00:14:15
is common sense on mass migration. And a
00:14:18
lot of the speech that offends those in
00:14:22
power has to do with migration policy.
00:14:24
So, there was a 31-month sentence handed
00:14:26
down to a suburban mother named Lucy
00:14:28
Connelly in the UK uh because after a
00:14:32
man called Axel Rudabanka stabbed I
00:14:35
think it was a seven-year-old girl, an
00:14:36
8-year-old girl, and a nine-year-old
00:14:38
girl at a birthday party. There was
00:14:40
ensuing unrest and she she tweeted uh
00:14:44
something anti-migration and it was
00:14:45
pretty inflammatory, but it would have
00:14:47
been unambiguously legal in the United
00:14:49
States. Um, she said, 'If this is what
00:14:51
migration is going to do to our country,
00:14:52
and I'm paraphrasing slightly, but I
00:14:54
remember it pretty well. If this is what
00:14:56
migration means, then burn down the
00:14:57
migrant hotels for all I care. Uh, this
00:15:00
was a berieved mother who' lost a child.
00:15:02
She saw three little girls murdered for
00:15:04
no reason. And she reacted and then she
00:15:07
felt bad and she deleted the tweet. That
00:15:09
was a 30 31-month sentence.
00:15:12
>> 31 month
00:15:13
>> 31month sentence in the United Kingdom.
00:15:15
Meanwhile, you have actual pedophiles,
00:15:18
actual child sex offenders who get
00:15:20
minimal prison or none in the United
00:15:22
Kingdom. And that that's led to this um
00:15:25
epithet that you hear among UK
00:15:27
activists, this quote unquote two-tier
00:15:29
policing, this activist cause that
00:15:30
they've assembled around because they
00:15:31
sense that if you oppose mass migration,
00:15:34
if you make that kind of critique, you
00:15:36
are subject to a different justice
00:15:38
system than the kind of person who
00:15:40
merely agitates for Sharia law in
00:15:42
Britain or merely downloads child
00:15:44
pornography in Britain.
00:15:46
>> Yeah.
00:15:47
>> So, okay. So,
00:15:48
>> I emphasized that for
00:15:49
>> Yeah. So I mean so I think um
00:15:52
>> that was the gong of righteousness.
00:15:54
>> We appreciate it.
00:15:55
>> And then just to add one more dimension
00:15:57
to this uh so US companies have been
00:16:01
getting fined like crazy right in the UK
00:16:05
and then the EU. Um and I think it's
00:16:08
related to this issue but can you just
00:16:09
describe that like
00:16:10
>> Yeah. Um because that that's where this
00:16:13
crosses over into
00:16:15
you know an ally doing something that we
00:16:18
think is mad into directly hurting
00:16:22
American interests I guess right or
00:16:25
>> right so I don't believe there have been
00:16:28
any big fines under the UK online safety
00:16:30
act yet but um its provisions take
00:16:34
effect over time and some of those
00:16:35
provisions are just coming online now
00:16:37
including the ones relating to AI okay
00:16:39
>> and we have active litigation in
00:16:42
American courts right now. Um, one of
00:16:44
the leading lawsuits involves the
00:16:46
website 4chan, which people who are very
00:16:49
online in America may be familiar with.
00:16:50
4chan is kind of a no holdsbred uh
00:16:53
promodial soup for memes and the like.
00:16:55
The cat memes come out of there. A lot
00:16:57
of activism Occupy Wall Street came out
00:16:59
of 4chan, but 4chan has essentially no
00:17:01
censorship rules. It bans child
00:17:03
pornography. That's pretty much it. And
00:17:05
so the UK has decided that 4chan is not
00:17:07
allowed to exist unless it pays a bunch
00:17:08
of money to the United Kingdom for not
00:17:11
policing its speech in accord with uh UK
00:17:14
laws, the numerous UK speech statutes
00:17:16
that led to prison sentences like the
00:17:18
one I just discussed. But there was a
00:17:20
large fine handed down during my recent
00:17:22
European tour against X and I believe it
00:17:24
wasund€140
00:17:26
million euros, but that might be
00:17:27
dollars. I'm
00:17:29
>> Elon because they disagree with his
00:17:31
influence uh in
00:17:34
>> uh the UK.
00:17:34
>> Look, I can't speak for the UK
00:17:36
regulators, but I can make inferences.
00:17:38
What's
00:17:38
>> your ex X has a particular political
00:17:40
veillance. Um we saw Joe Biden after
00:17:43
Elon acquired Twitter saying, you know,
00:17:45
we we've got to find ways to go after
00:17:47
him. And I think that that sentiment
00:17:49
might be shared. But as an under
00:17:52
secretary of state, I'm not an advocate
00:17:53
for one American company or even one
00:17:55
American viewpoint on the free speech
00:17:57
issue. If any American company were
00:18:00
fined, let's say $140 million even by a
00:18:04
foreign power for upholding the American
00:18:07
first amendment, um if General Motors
00:18:09
were treated that way, you know, the US
00:18:10
government would have something to say
00:18:11
about it. I also think that X is not the
00:18:15
first company to be fined under EU
00:18:18
digital regulations. So there's an
00:18:20
infographic that circulated recently
00:18:22
comparing, you know, revenues raised
00:18:24
within the EU through other metrics and
00:18:26
then revenues raised just by finding
00:18:28
American tech companies. And there's a
00:18:29
suspicion that this is really kind of a
00:18:31
de facto tax tax and pretexts are
00:18:34
contrived for finding large American
00:18:36
tech companies in order to raise
00:18:38
revenue.
00:18:39
>> Yeah. I I so that was the thing I think
00:18:40
I was referring to is that um and I
00:18:43
think actually the president may have um
00:18:45
truth that out um that I think the the
00:18:48
maybe this is more the EU but the the
00:18:51
DSA has become almost like a digital
00:18:53
speed trap to try and find American
00:18:55
companies and it does massly
00:18:58
disproportionately
00:18:59
affect them to the point where you could
00:19:02
argue that it's effectively like a
00:19:03
tariff on American tech companies
00:19:05
operating in Europe. And if that's the
00:19:08
case, well, I mean, I guess Europe is
00:19:11
allowed to have tariffs, but then that's
00:19:13
going to change the tariffs that we set.
00:19:14
So, it's all part of a larger trade
00:19:16
negotiation,
00:19:16
>> right? Exactly. I've referred to the DSA
00:19:18
before as a censorship tariff because
00:19:20
the cost of maintaining the censorship
00:19:22
apparatus under the DSA is intentionally
00:19:24
levied on specific companies, mostly
00:19:26
American ones, that are that are subject
00:19:28
to higher and more intricate regulatory
00:19:30
standards than other companies are. And
00:19:33
EU regulators say, "Well, that's not
00:19:34
because they're American, that's because
00:19:36
they're large." But the fact that
00:19:38
they're American and not European surely
00:19:40
makes them easier as a political
00:19:41
proposition to tax. And so a lot of
00:19:44
Americans see this as a tax.
00:19:45
>> Really bizarre. David, we're seeing
00:19:46
we're living in a time where we're
00:19:48
seeing freedom of speech expression go
00:19:50
down in Europe and go up in the Middle
00:19:53
East.
00:19:54
>> You know, they just had the Riad comedy
00:19:56
festival. There were some rules. Hey,
00:19:58
you can't criticize the kingdom.
00:20:01
Let's leave religion off the table. But
00:20:02
you can go after your own. But uh we we
00:20:06
might not uh we might have some uh
00:20:07
sensitivities there and um you know and
00:20:10
then there's everything in between.
00:20:12
South Korea does require you have a
00:20:15
social security number essentially to
00:20:16
post online. Um but David, I'm I'm
00:20:20
wondering what you think about this
00:20:22
overall trend in the world of what we're
00:20:24
seeing with censorship.
00:20:26
>> I mean it's not a good trend. Um, I
00:20:28
think that the the purpose of
00:20:31
censorship, like I mentioned before, is
00:20:32
always to protect the people in power
00:20:35
and and and specifically it it insulates
00:20:38
them from criticism, but it'd be a lot
00:20:41
better for them to hear that criticism
00:20:42
and adjust their policies than it would
00:20:44
be to try and switch off the, you know,
00:20:47
the feedback altogether.
00:20:49
>> And it's very clear, I think, in Europe
00:20:51
and the UK that these policies of open
00:20:54
migration, mass migration are very
00:20:55
unpopular. Why not listen to the people
00:20:58
and adjust your policies instead of
00:20:59
trying to silence them?
00:21:01
>> Uh, say what you will about President
00:21:03
Trump. Uh, and people have varying
00:21:06
opinions, but South Park has been
00:21:09
deranged this season. I mean, they have
00:21:12
gone full boore in attacking him like to
00:21:16
a level that I wouldn't feel comfortable
00:21:17
explaining the details of it. Uh, here.
00:21:20
>> Not in a family podcast.
00:21:21
>> Not in a family podcast.
00:21:24
But but even
00:21:25
>> President Trump has a thick skin on
00:21:27
these things. We did have one weird
00:21:28
thing that occurred. I think it was
00:21:30
before your time, the Jimmy Kimmel,
00:21:32
>> Charlie Kirk Kurfluffle, but even that
00:21:34
it seemed David um President Trump and
00:21:38
the administration and Brendan Carr
00:21:39
friend of the pod who's been on a couple
00:21:41
times um kind of rethought that one.
00:21:44
Yeah.
00:21:45
>> Well, Jimmy Kimmel was back in the air
00:21:47
within was it like two or three nights.
00:21:49
So yeah, I mean there's no real
00:21:50
censorship there. In that case, it was
00:21:52
the network affiliates who were upset
00:21:55
because he because Jimmy Kimmel said
00:21:57
something untrue and malicious and
00:22:00
outrageous. So in any event, this is
00:22:02
>> the heat of the moment with after kind
00:22:04
of worked itself out. There was no like
00:22:05
government censorship.
00:22:06
>> Brendan probably shouldn't have said
00:22:08
what he said in my estimation.
00:22:10
>> Anyway, in any event, there was no
00:22:11
government censorship. That's the bottom
00:22:13
line. Um yeah, I think it is disturbing
00:22:16
that uh countries that we see as our
00:22:19
closest allies that share similar values
00:22:22
that are part of the same western
00:22:24
culture and history are moving in this
00:22:27
direction of more and more censorship is
00:22:29
disturbing and I'm glad to see that um
00:22:32
under President Trump the Department of
00:22:34
State is pushing back on this. I think
00:22:35
Sarah the work that you're doing and
00:22:37
Secretary Rubio extremely important. So
00:22:40
I think you're making a huge difference.
00:22:42
I think we have to use the tools that we
00:22:45
have whether they're tools on trade or
00:22:48
the denial of visas or um expressing
00:22:51
condemnation to push back on this as we
00:22:54
you know as we will as we can.
00:22:56
>> Let's talk about some of the new issues.
00:22:59
Uh AI uh it was pretty obvious but 18
00:23:04
months ago when you saw a deep fake it
00:23:07
just didn't pass the uncanny valley. uh
00:23:10
Grock images uh Nano Banana from our
00:23:13
friends at Google. I mean these things
00:23:15
now if you're if you're flipping by very
00:23:17
quickly you could make a mistake. This
00:23:21
also uh in terms of censorship we have
00:23:24
significant protections in the United
00:23:26
States for say cartoonists as do the
00:23:29
French and
00:23:31
>> they're mocking public figures. How is
00:23:33
it different when you're mocking public
00:23:35
figures, uh, presidents, prime
00:23:38
ministers, cabinet members,
00:23:41
but the public can't tell? Cuz this is
00:23:44
new,
00:23:45
>> right? I think I think this is a really
00:23:47
interesting question and it's our
00:23:48
privilege to be at this new
00:23:49
technological frontier where these new
00:23:51
questions arise. U, I'm glad you
00:23:53
mentioned cartoonists. So, after Charlie
00:23:55
Kirk was murdered and I knew him, I
00:23:57
represented him on some First Amendment
00:23:59
issues in the United States. I saw
00:24:01
Americans walking around in an old
00:24:03
t-shirt from 10 years ago and that
00:24:05
t-shirt said just sweet Charlie. Uh
00:24:08
because that was a t-shirt we bought
00:24:09
when free speech in France was under
00:24:11
threat and French people stood up for
00:24:13
it. The Charlie Hepto cartoonists were
00:24:15
bombed. They were murdered. Yeah.
00:24:17
>> Um for saying things that offended
00:24:19
religious zealots. And I think you know
00:24:22
it's a different kind of religious
00:24:23
zealatry to not want to allow any
00:24:26
descent online. And thinking back on
00:24:29
that episode and how European consensus
00:24:31
on free speech might have shifted since
00:24:33
then is really sobering. But I think
00:24:35
America we take pride in being the kind
00:24:38
of civilization where Charlie Kirk and
00:24:40
Charlie Hebdo can both speak. I think
00:24:42
making fun of public officials. You know
00:24:44
pointing out when the emperor has no
00:24:46
clothes is one of the most essential
00:24:48
things you can do in a democracy. If you
00:24:49
believe in self-governance, you have to
00:24:51
believe in that. And what's interesting
00:24:53
about a deep fake is that the point of
00:24:55
parody is that you can tell that it's
00:24:56
parody. But if you're depicting a public
00:24:59
official falsely in a way that people
00:25:01
can't tell as a satirical or um
00:25:05
non-authentic depiction, then the parody
00:25:08
tension really isn't there. And what I
00:25:10
would say though is whenever whenever we
00:25:13
reach a new technological frontier,
00:25:15
there's a temptation to just enact a
00:25:17
flurry of new regulations. And if we
00:25:19
look back over history at other
00:25:21
frontiers that have caused similar
00:25:22
instability, like the invention of the
00:25:24
printing press, people thought that was
00:25:26
the end of the world. The invention of
00:25:27
the telegraph, there were worries about
00:25:28
disinformation and attention span. The
00:25:30
invention of the film strip, people
00:25:32
thought the train was coming at them
00:25:33
through the screen.
00:25:35
The the the impulse to restrain that
00:25:39
deal, to regulate, and to allow people
00:25:41
to adapt and to give freedom the benefit
00:25:43
of the doubt, that impulse tends to be
00:25:45
vindicated over time. When it comes to
00:25:46
deep fakes, I think we have in in
00:25:49
America and in Europe strong legal
00:25:52
remedies against defamation. So if
00:25:54
someone creates an image of a public
00:25:55
figure that is false and people are
00:25:57
believing that image and a reasonable
00:25:59
viewer would believe that that person
00:26:01
engaged in that action, you can already
00:26:03
sue for defamation,
00:26:04
>> right?
00:26:05
>> And that that doesn't mean that
00:26:06
>> and we have child protection and
00:26:08
underage laws. Those are very strong.
00:26:10
Yes. The thing is just because you don't
00:26:12
have AI specific laws doesn't mean that
00:26:15
you can do whatever you want with AI,
00:26:17
you could still use AI as a tool to then
00:26:19
break the law and be prosecuted.
00:26:21
>> I mean, if you engage in cyber hacking,
00:26:24
for example,
00:26:25
>> and you use AI to do it, you're guilty
00:26:28
of of a cyber crime.
00:26:30
>> Yeah. So there's a lot of things like
00:26:32
that where uh there are plenty of
00:26:34
existing laws that apply to AI and we
00:26:37
should just think about using all of
00:26:39
those before you start then creating a
00:26:41
bunch of AI specific.
00:26:42
>> Yeah. those didn't cover it
00:26:44
>> then there would be hey maybe we need to
00:26:45
have a thoughtful discussion
00:26:47
>> because you know I'm trying to think of
00:26:49
an edge case here but
00:26:51
>> um for cyber security it's even hard to
00:26:54
do like using voice clones it's just
00:26:56
fraud you know it's
00:26:57
>> wire fraud you know
00:26:59
>> and it might be that it you use the
00:27:02
existing fraud statute but there are
00:27:03
little regulatory tweaks you can make
00:27:05
the make the fraud easier to detect so
00:27:07
one approach which I don't think is
00:27:09
always correct but it it exemplifies one
00:27:11
direction of thinking is maybe there's
00:27:13
water marking or something on some AI
00:27:15
images that would mitigate tort
00:27:17
liability for some of the providers. Um
00:27:19
or when we got when we when we invented
00:27:21
capital markets on a mass scale, right?
00:27:23
We had our old laws against fraud, but
00:27:26
we kind of made some more fine grain
00:27:28
securities regulations like now you have
00:27:30
to uh file a certain disclosure annually
00:27:33
with your earnings and whatnot. And we
00:27:35
didn't fundamentally change how we
00:27:36
treated false information. we just
00:27:38
developed some slightly more fine-tuned
00:27:41
devices. But when I say fine-tuned, I
00:27:43
think I think that's an important piece
00:27:45
of guidance. You don't just go crazy and
00:27:47
try to put the technological innovation
00:27:49
back in the bottle, especially when, you
00:27:51
know, we have foreign policy rivals like
00:27:54
China that are developing AI at um an
00:27:56
aggressive pace. And if we if we cocoon
00:28:00
ourselves in safety, we hurt our
00:28:02
standing in that race. So where sir,
00:28:05
where do you think this relationship
00:28:06
between the US and EU is now headed on
00:28:09
this topic of free speech? I mean there
00:28:11
does seem to be a fundamental
00:28:12
divergence. Um do you I I don't know the
00:28:17
conversations that you're having, but do
00:28:19
you think this gets worked out or do you
00:28:21
think the divide gets greater? What like
00:28:24
where's this headed? So before uh
00:28:27
President Trump and Secretary Rubio did
00:28:29
me the honor of this appointment, I was
00:28:31
a litigator and it was my job to fight.
00:28:33
And now I'm a diplomat. So it is my job
00:28:36
to be diplomatic. And in that spirit, I
00:28:39
would like to sound a uh gong of
00:28:41
optimism.
00:28:42
>> Yeah. I think that a lot of ordinary
00:28:44
Europeans are not comfortable with
00:28:47
comedians getting dragged out of the
00:28:49
airport, just like Europeans weren't
00:28:51
comfortable with comedians getting
00:28:52
murdered who are publishing offensive
00:28:54
cartoons. And if you look at polls in
00:28:57
Europe, I think you see some of the
00:28:58
sentiment. So, I don't know where things
00:29:00
are going. I can't promise in a panacea,
00:29:03
but I will say that I've had productive
00:29:05
conversations and hope that I'll have
00:29:07
more. I mean, if it does become more
00:29:10
acute, is Europe prepared for all the
00:29:14
American social networks to be turned
00:29:17
off and blocked by IP address because we
00:29:19
really don't need the money like these
00:29:21
platforms. It's nice to make money in
00:29:23
Europe, but maybe it's time
00:29:25
>> or would the European or would various
00:29:27
European countries demand their own
00:29:29
version? You know, would there be a UK
00:29:31
specific version of X? Is that where
00:29:33
this would be headed
00:29:34
>> to an extent? because you know one way
00:29:36
to resolve the transnational issue is
00:29:37
geoencing. Now I think I I understand
00:29:41
that some of the UK enforcement actions
00:29:43
geofencing has not been enough which is
00:29:44
pretty ridiculous but you're essentially
00:29:46
>> saying that's not enough for them.
00:29:48
>> Yeah. Like there's there's a there's a
00:29:49
there's a small American website and I
00:29:51
can't recall the name of it that offcom
00:29:52
has sued and that website responded well
00:29:55
we've geoenced we've blocked UK IPs so
00:29:57
you should have nothing to say about the
00:29:58
content on our website but offcom is
00:30:00
still going.
00:30:00
>> Yeah, they should be good. But those
00:30:01
people then chose their citizens chose
00:30:03
to get a VPN. Yes, that's well that's
00:30:05
>> which cost 30 bucks a year and then you
00:30:07
can make your own decision
00:30:08
>> which is what the people of Iran are
00:30:10
doing too. So
00:30:12
>> um but I think I think you know you
00:30:14
mention um like fire like blocking by IP
00:30:16
address. I think some countries that
00:30:18
just where the people where they don't
00:30:20
have that Charlie Hubo tradition like
00:30:21
countries like Russia or China they just
00:30:24
admit that they are censurious societies
00:30:26
and they just block these websites when
00:30:28
you have
00:30:29
>> Yeah. I mean the great in China we have
00:30:32
the great firewall which we're not
00:30:34
trying to take down. If you want to
00:30:35
>> but could that happen? Could the UK put
00:30:37
up a great firewall and just say that
00:30:39
>> you know we're black outside world.
00:30:41
>> We call your bluff.
00:30:42
>> I think it's technologically it's
00:30:43
technologically feasible to a point.
00:30:45
There are circumventions but it is not
00:30:46
politically feasible because British
00:30:48
people want to be free. And I think if
00:30:50
Kier Starmer said we're putting up a
00:30:51
great firewall and you're not allowed to
00:30:52
access any American social media
00:30:54
anymore, he'd be out of office.
00:30:56
>> Right? So that is their right, but they
00:30:59
don't want to do that because it would
00:31:00
be too obvious what they're doing. And
00:31:01
so therefore,
00:31:02
>> they want to do the fines. They want
00:31:04
>> to be fines and just have it be more
00:31:06
subtle. And we're pushing back saying,
00:31:07
"No, you can't do that."
00:31:08
>> Yeah. Good luck doing that against Elon.
00:31:10
He's pretty principal disc. I think he
00:31:12
can pay for the speeding ticket. I don't
00:31:13
think it's going to be a problem. And I
00:31:15
would say President Trump because I I do
00:31:16
think that that President Trump's
00:31:18
election definitely changed the
00:31:20
direction of free speech in the United
00:31:22
States, never mind the rest of the
00:31:23
world, because I think under the Biden
00:31:25
administration, we now know from cases
00:31:27
like Biden v. Missouri and then also uh
00:31:30
you know what was released in the
00:31:31
Twitter files and then since then even
00:31:33
more disclosure that's come out that the
00:31:36
Biden administration was pressuring
00:31:38
social networks to engage in censorship.
00:31:41
>> David, we did discuss this. You could
00:31:43
bring up Biden for all of 2025, but when
00:31:45
2026 came around, you had to I'm
00:31:47
recounting I'm recounting what was
00:31:49
happening for several years and
00:31:51
President Trump changed that direction.
00:31:53
>> Absolutely.
00:31:53
>> And so if it weren't for that, I think
00:31:55
we'd still be on a censorship.
00:31:56
>> If it was up to Zuckerberg, he would
00:31:58
have continued to do it under Kamla. He
00:32:00
did it with no problem under Biden. He's
00:32:02
a weather vein. His entire position is
00:32:05
based on what makes the system grow.
00:32:06
>> Look, I think when it comes to these
00:32:08
>> I don't have any personal feelings on
00:32:09
it. I think I think when it comes to the
00:32:11
the tech companies, there's let's say a
00:32:13
range of courage.
00:32:14
>> Yes.
00:32:15
>> And so I'd say Elon is an outlier in
00:32:17
terms of willing to stand up Yeah. to
00:32:19
the government in terms of protecting
00:32:21
free speech and there's others who sort
00:32:23
of just kind of more blow with the wind
00:32:25
and do whatever the government is sort
00:32:26
of um suggesting. But demanding, but it
00:32:30
was wrong. It was wrong for the
00:32:31
government to be doing that particularly
00:32:32
in the US where you have a first
00:32:33
amendment. But let me
00:32:35
>> and to catch people up, we literally had
00:32:36
our FBI putting pressure on our own tech
00:32:40
companies to say we don't like the the
00:32:42
tone of these tweets, the tone of these
00:32:44
posts we think are damaging, but we
00:32:47
would have never gotten to the bottom of
00:32:49
CO and if it actually we should all be
00:32:52
taking mysterious, you know,
00:32:54
experimental vaccines. I took it. I'm
00:32:56
okay. But like the folks who were
00:33:00
saying, "Hey, maybe we don't need this.
00:33:01
Maybe we don't need to give it to kids.
00:33:03
They don't see that whole discussion was
00:33:05
shut down by the Biden administration.
00:33:06
Now you got me doing it
00:33:07
>> irrefutably and the the pretext for some
00:33:09
of this was disinformation a term that
00:33:11
was really distended to encompass and if
00:33:13
you read the white papers put out by
00:33:15
these disinformation NGOs they will
00:33:16
admit yeah the information can be true
00:33:18
but if it promotes an adverse narrative
00:33:21
we don't like it and that's such an
00:33:22
Orwellian adverse narative
00:33:25
misinformation. No, not misinformation.
00:33:26
>> There's there's misinformation and
00:33:28
disinformation. And the way some people
00:33:29
defined these was misinformation is
00:33:31
false and disinformation is bad. And if
00:33:34
disinformation pollutes your democracy,
00:33:36
the wrong candidate right might win. I
00:33:38
think is really the impulse. But we had
00:33:40
information suppressed under opaces of
00:33:43
combating disinformation. That turned
00:33:45
out to be true. So things that were
00:33:47
suppressed included the assertion that
00:33:49
the vaccine did not completely prevent
00:33:51
transmission. That turned out to be
00:33:53
true. It it mitigated transmission
00:33:55
significantly, but it was not a
00:33:56
sterilizing vaccine. Another thing that
00:33:58
was suppressed,
00:33:59
>> which by the way is why a lot of people
00:34:00
took it. They didn't want they wanted to
00:34:02
be a blocker in the system, so like it's
00:34:03
my social obligation to do it.
00:34:05
>> And if had given the choice, they might
00:34:07
not have.
00:34:08
>> And another thing that was suppressed
00:34:09
that was suppressed was the assessment
00:34:10
that the virus might have leaked from a
00:34:12
lab. And we now know that was that was
00:34:14
the same assessment of a House committee
00:34:16
and the CIA. So the government thinks
00:34:18
the virus, they're not sure, but it
00:34:20
might have leaked from a lab more likely
00:34:21
than not. and you're you're reaching out
00:34:23
to Twitter, to Facebook, to Instagram
00:34:26
saying, "Hey, you know, we can't force
00:34:27
you to take these posts down under the
00:34:29
First Amendment, but we'd really
00:34:30
appreciate if you did. And if you want
00:34:31
to stay in our good graces, you should."
00:34:33
>> Which is a long way of saying we all
00:34:35
need to be vigilant about it in the
00:34:36
United States, internationally. If
00:34:39
you're not vigilant about free speech,
00:34:40
there are people who will take it away.
00:34:42
>> Yes. And let me let me ask a question
00:34:43
about that. So, you mentioned um
00:34:44
organizations or NOS's who are kind of
00:34:47
instigating. They're like j you know,
00:34:49
jinning up these regulators. They're
00:34:51
showing them cases. What about this?
00:34:53
What about this? What about that? I'm
00:34:55
curious, and I think you've called this
00:34:56
a censorship industrial complex. Could
00:34:58
you just explain what this thing is? And
00:35:01
do you think that I know that some of
00:35:03
these groups are in the US, not just
00:35:04
Europe? In fact, they mostly might be in
00:35:06
the US. And what I'm wondering is, are
00:35:09
they going to the European regulators as
00:35:11
an end run around the First Amendment in
00:35:14
the US because they can get European
00:35:16
regulators to censor material that
00:35:18
otherwise could not be censored in the
00:35:20
US? I mean, it's a great question, but
00:35:22
um it's a question we don't even need to
00:35:23
ask because we know the answer, and the
00:35:24
answer is yes. So, we have emails that
00:35:26
have leaked from some of these NOS's.
00:35:28
So, um one of them, the Center for
00:35:30
Countering Digital Hate, which is a
00:35:31
British NGO whose leader was the target
00:35:34
of um some of our visa sanctions. There
00:35:36
are emails exchanged with with
00:35:38
Democratic politicians in the United
00:35:39
States, and with politicians now very
00:35:42
close to Kier Stormer saying um our
00:35:44
number one priority should be to kill
00:35:45
Musk's Twitter. So, kill an American
00:35:47
company, right? um in order to suppress
00:35:49
American political speech and our second
00:35:51
priority is to instigate UK and EU
00:35:54
regulatory action. So this is an entity
00:35:56
taking government money to get foreign
00:35:58
governments to come after American
00:36:00
businesses and this whole fact pattern
00:36:03
where these where these American NOS's
00:36:06
were working with the American
00:36:07
government to send kind of forceful they
00:36:10
allege not technically coercive emails
00:36:12
to to Twitter and Meta. um that was an
00:36:15
attempt by these activists to replicate
00:36:17
sort of the EU DSA in a way that would
00:36:21
kind of dodge the American first
00:36:22
amendment. So the EUDSA requires that
00:36:25
member states designate NOS's as
00:36:27
so-called trusted flaggers. Meaning this
00:36:29
this organization its job is to sit on
00:36:32
Twitter, look for offending tweets that
00:36:34
might be hateful or whatever and report
00:36:36
them to Twitter. and they get a
00:36:38
privileged reporting channel and the
00:36:39
company's required to give th give those
00:36:42
reports first trunch priority. If you
00:36:44
look at what was happening under Biden,
00:36:46
it was a very similar system. These
00:36:48
government agencies would arrange first
00:36:50
trunch priority for these reports and
00:36:52
some of what was put into those
00:36:53
channels. The reports were technically
00:36:54
made by NOS's. You also had you know the
00:36:57
the upside one of the small upsides of
00:36:59
co if you care about government
00:37:00
transparency is everyone was holding
00:37:02
their meetings on video. And so you have
00:37:04
these videos of these Zoom meetings with
00:37:05
government operatives saying, you know,
00:37:07
we couldn't do this under the First
00:37:09
Amendment. But fortunately, this NGO on
00:37:10
this call with us is going to do it
00:37:11
instead.
00:37:12
>> Yeah. And they have ways of pressuring
00:37:14
people, which leads to my final
00:37:16
questions for you, which is there are
00:37:19
firms that would, it actually started in
00:37:22
the conservative space and moved to the
00:37:24
liberal. Let's try to get advertisers to
00:37:26
cancel on this program. They went after
00:37:28
Howard Stern and they went after the
00:37:30
liberals first. Then they went after the
00:37:32
conservatives. let's get uh you know
00:37:35
Rush Limbaugh's advertisers to cancel.
00:37:37
Oh my god, he said these incendiary
00:37:38
things yada yada. Um but we had a even
00:37:41
more pernitious one which is people
00:37:43
started to say well hey you're
00:37:44
Cloudflare. Hey you're Amazon. Uh hey
00:37:47
you're PayPal. Hey you're Stripe.
00:37:50
>> We're going to go after you and make
00:37:52
sure that we shame slash pressure you
00:37:55
>> sometimes behind the scenes to debank
00:37:58
and to demonetize. YouTube got pulled
00:38:02
into this as well, like we're going to
00:38:03
shadowban your videos. They started
00:38:05
labeling all-in videos because we had
00:38:07
conversations with scientists
00:38:09
>> about co okay uh labeling also
00:38:13
suppressed I think. So what are your
00:38:15
thoughts on that which seems even more
00:38:17
pernitious because if you take away a
00:38:20
person's ability to monetize it, how do
00:38:21
they scale right
00:38:23
>> that? So there's been one successful
00:38:25
Supreme Court case in US history on
00:38:27
viewpointbased debanking and that was my
00:38:29
case um which we won and that was called
00:38:32
NRA versus VUO and the way we got that
00:38:34
into court was you had you had the New
00:38:36
York financial regulator um per the you
00:38:39
know per the pleadings literally
00:38:40
reaching out to financial institutions
00:38:42
saying you know it would really be
00:38:44
better for your enterprise risk
00:38:45
management framework if you didn't do if
00:38:48
you didn't do business with any proun
00:38:49
group
00:38:50
>> enterprise riskmanagement framework. So
00:38:52
you have all these professionals and you
00:38:54
guys have you know been in finance and
00:38:56
you know this um like these this these
00:38:58
bureaucracies hired within financial
00:39:00
institutions to ensure compliance with
00:39:02
all these regulations and so they have
00:39:04
these elaborate risk management
00:39:05
protocols and this gets a bit into the
00:39:07
weeds but there's this thing in finance
00:39:08
called reputational risk and that's
00:39:10
supposed to be the reputation of a bank
00:39:12
for safety solveny and soundness. You
00:39:14
don't want to run on the bank if
00:39:15
everyone thinks the bank might fail.
00:39:16
That's bad for the system. But there's
00:39:19
this ESG movement to expand the concept
00:39:21
of reputational risk to include things
00:39:23
like do you have a reputation for
00:39:25
letting naughty disfavored speakers have
00:39:28
bank accounts and that came up in the
00:39:30
NRA case. Supreme Court says government
00:39:32
is not allowed to do that. Even though
00:39:34
the government, you know, our first
00:39:35
amendment says Congress shall make no
00:39:37
law, you know, restricting the freedom
00:39:38
of speech. This wasn't Congress making a
00:39:40
law restricting their freedom of speech,
00:39:42
but it was a government entity uh
00:39:44
adversely applying regulations to choke
00:39:47
off certain viewpoints. And they were
00:39:48
applying it instead of going directly to
00:39:50
the guy saying the thing you don't like,
00:39:52
they're putting pressure on this risk
00:39:54
averse middleman, this bank. And the the
00:39:56
the debanking and deplatforming is
00:39:58
insidious for exactly that reason. When
00:40:00
you have a risk averse middleman like a
00:40:03
financial institution,
00:40:04
>> it's almost like they designed it that
00:40:06
way.
00:40:06
>> Yeah. they they they they don't have
00:40:08
skin in the game with respect. They
00:40:09
don't believe in your speech the way you
00:40:11
do. They have their in-house counsel
00:40:13
telling them that this is going to piss
00:40:14
off the financial regulator. So, it's
00:40:16
easier to take it down. And my office is
00:40:18
very
00:40:19
>> So, that's a common theme is that when
00:40:21
the government can't do it directly
00:40:22
because it' be a violation of the first
00:40:24
amendment, they use an intermediary to
00:40:26
do it.
00:40:27
>> So, you get the bank to debank someone
00:40:29
or you get an NGO,
00:40:30
>> Dark NGO,
00:40:31
>> which is really a government
00:40:32
organization because it's funded by the
00:40:34
government, but they call themselves
00:40:35
non-government. So they they do the
00:40:37
quote unquote factchecking.
00:40:38
>> Yeah.
00:40:39
>> You know, or um you know, you get one of
00:40:41
these other cases where um you know, the
00:40:44
the this was a little bit more overt,
00:40:45
but where the FBI through the Biden
00:40:47
administration is then putting pressure
00:40:48
on the social networks. In any event,
00:40:51
you get, like you said, a middleman to
00:40:53
do the dirty work because the government
00:40:55
can't do it directly
00:40:56
>> and to do it in a really nefarious
00:40:58
>> Yes.
00:40:59
>> way that's hard to detect. Yes. It's
00:41:01
like it'd be a shame if we blocked a
00:41:04
merger. Like they were very Zuckerberg's
00:41:07
a pragmatist. I'm going to go at him
00:41:09
again. Like he likes to buy things. And
00:41:11
if the FBI is calling you and you've got
00:41:12
to get something through the FTC next,
00:41:15
you're going to try to make nice, right?
00:41:17
And that is the risk of giving any
00:41:19
regulator kind of a capricious cudgel
00:41:21
over the internet is even if the even if
00:41:23
the regulation isn't explicitly
00:41:24
speechbased is just you can only do your
00:41:27
merger if this guy likes likes the look
00:41:28
of the merger then companies are going
00:41:30
to vi to impress that regulator that I
00:41:32
think a bit of that was going on frankly
00:41:34
with the Jimmy Kimmel thing. um because
00:41:36
you had this this this merger in the
00:41:38
works, this Techno merger that they
00:41:40
tried to complete under the Biden
00:41:41
administration and my friends in telecom
00:41:43
tell me that when Techno was trying to
00:41:45
sell itself during the Biden
00:41:46
administration, it went out of its way
00:41:48
to show the regulator how woke it was.
00:41:50
And so now it has an incentive to show
00:41:52
the administration that it's magal lined
00:41:54
and that's what happens when you give a
00:41:56
regulator a large cudgel. Now I want to
00:41:58
say something about labeling. So
00:42:00
>> labeling videos sounds oh it's just
00:42:02
transparency. What could be wrong with
00:42:04
that? people people should know if fact
00:42:06
checkers think that something is wrong
00:42:07
and I think my office's approach on that
00:42:09
is it depends on who's putting the label
00:42:11
on there and for what purpose so a lot
00:42:13
of these disinformation NOS's it was
00:42:15
almost like mart it was almost like the
00:42:17
red scare they would make a list of
00:42:19
outlets that were spreading
00:42:20
disinformation but they wouldn't just
00:42:21
publish that list they would send it
00:42:23
around to the credit card companies the
00:42:24
payment processors and suggest with with
00:42:27
kind of an implicit government
00:42:28
impromater because they're all
00:42:29
government funded as David very very
00:42:31
relevantly points out like you know you
00:42:34
guys really shouldn't be funding these
00:42:35
websites and the websites would never
00:42:36
know why and the viewer would never know
00:42:38
why. I think a type of labeling that's
00:42:40
really good is the type exemplified by
00:42:42
community notes on X where I can read
00:42:45
the tweet and then I can see what the
00:42:46
community notes say about it and you can
00:42:48
see a ranking of the community total
00:42:51
it's been a total game changer. I
00:42:52
remember when they were doing
00:42:53
factchecking and the facteing was so bad
00:42:55
cuz the fact checkers were biased or
00:42:56
sometimes it just wasn't good quality
00:42:58
control but the community note thing has
00:43:00
like really worked and you'll see that
00:43:02
when someone posts something that's
00:43:04
truly misinformation like it's a fake
00:43:06
image or a fake article or something it
00:43:09
always gets caught amount of time and
00:43:11
then you get notified
00:43:13
>> you get a if you like have you noticed
00:43:15
this if you like it'll come circle back
00:43:17
>> and then it gets community noted I get a
00:43:19
notification then I feel like an idiot
00:43:20
that oh I got
00:43:23
that. But you know what? People will
00:43:24
drag social media for, you know, the
00:43:26
fakes or whatever. But I never get
00:43:28
notified when the New York Times makes a
00:43:30
mistake and post a correction on page
00:43:33
43. They never notify anybody about
00:43:35
that. They bury that on the last page.
00:43:37
So I still think social media is by far
00:43:39
the best.
00:43:40
>> Were you in the meeting for accuracy?
00:43:41
Were you in the meeting when
00:43:43
>> they were deciding community notes or
00:43:46
not? And Elon was like, "Tell me about
00:43:48
it." And I was like, "Elon, I think this
00:43:49
is really interesting. You should
00:43:50
>> Yeah. double click on it because it's
00:43:53
actually working. Um, and he looked at
00:43:56
it, he immediately understood the
00:43:57
algorithm and he said, "Keep the group."
00:43:59
>> Yeah,
00:43:59
>> that group stays.
00:44:00
>> And you know what's the genius of that
00:44:02
algorithm is the community only gets
00:44:03
promoted if users who usually disagree
00:44:05
agree that that notice
00:44:07
>> they look for consensus amongst rivals.
00:44:10
>> Yes.
00:44:11
>> Which is a fascinating uh
00:44:13
>> the I'll tell you the other game changer
00:44:15
um on X has been Grock cuz you can just
00:44:18
go at Grock what's the truth? Yeah.
00:44:20
>> And you won't necessarily always agree
00:44:22
with Guac. I'm not saying it's perfect,
00:44:23
but it's pretty darn good.
00:44:24
>> It's trending in the right direction.
00:44:25
>> It's I mean, it's really good on the
00:44:27
whole. And yeah, I mean, it does a
00:44:30
really good job facteing, too. So, we
00:44:33
don't really need these bureaucrats and
00:44:35
politicians and regulators telling us
00:44:36
what's true or not. We have community
00:44:38
notes. We have AI now. You've got other
00:44:40
users
00:44:41
>> and you can file a lawsuit if you feel
00:44:43
you've been defamed. Like, this exists
00:44:44
in the United States.
00:44:45
>> Exactly.
00:44:46
>> As a concept. Uh, listen Sarah, we feel
00:44:49
I think I can speak for everybody uh
00:44:51
here in the USA House that we're really
00:44:53
glad that you're so vigilant and dogged
00:44:55
in protecting the First Amendment. Give
00:44:57
it up for Sarah Rogers.