Skip to main content

tv   Social Medias Role in Democracy  CSPAN  May 31, 2018 12:02pm-1:36pm EDT

12:02 pm
two and a half years you're darn right he will be reelected. the fact is elections are choices. i would argue to you that the reason axelrod is sitting here and has become so famous and itlthy and all the rest of -- will debate that later -- is that he worked with a candidate -- remainder andthe take you live to the cato institute in washington. katie harbath is among the speakers at a panel gathering to talk about social media in democracy. just getting started here on c-span. at all was we will have lunch. social media is much discussed
12:03 pm
and that's because we have the first president who unleashes tweet storms. does social media threatens democracy? no more controlled by gatekeepers mean more different views articulated. 10 years ago, a prominent law professor jack hawkins argued that a cultural democracy would be a major value and consequent or the internet. -- for the internet. views are not just different but reprehensible. they are the gatekeeper. that is the concern. that this can affect our elections. posed, how do we
12:04 pm
fix this down the line without affecting free speech? there is no good solution to this problem. maybe he will have a different opinion today. but maybe not. this article is an important one about reddit. , it has becomen for all of us, a libertarian answer to that question. do answer is what do you about that speech? quote, theree, will be a time to expose the , to avert the evil by the processes of education. -- limit to be applied is
12:05 pm
does it matter? it is private people, the head of reddit are the one enforcing the silence. and these other questions related to democracy. the discussions don't have to be just about free speech. today our guests will hit on these topics. introduction, and everyone except andrew will speak for five minutes and then and are will moderate the rest of the does session and oversee the q and a. let me start with george holly second from your right. george is an assistant professor of political science at the university of alabama. right sense of the alt and the decline of americans christian ethic and nominations.
12:06 pm
then sandra woodward, second from your left, is the digital organizing director of organizing for action the -- that grew out of president obama's campaign. she is directing one of the largest digital communication andrams in the country works towards building healthier communities and national change. marantz,nter is andrew who has written for the new yorker since 2011. he wrote the struggle to detoxify the internet, available at sure -- at your internet portal. ned ryan, on the far end of your founder ofhe american majority, the son of
12:07 pm
former congressman jim are on -- jim ryan. finally, to my immediate left, katie her brought --katie harbath. she was achieved digital strategist at the national republican senatorial committee .rea andrew: why don't we just go this way. we thought about social media's impact on democracy. how do we define social media moving forward. what does this mean in the 21st century?
12:08 pm
who should be the guardian of free speech in america. social media has had serious positive effects for america. social media can be an extraordinary means of communicating with people, and allow people to be gatekeepers. outsiders like donald trump and -- as facebook and twitter. in the beginning, there is an approach to these entities that gives them the opportunity to grow. now they have grown up and it's time for the kids to start operating under the rules. these entities are creating content live streaming both
12:09 pm
produced original content, becoming publishers and content companies like tv and radio even the coming -- like google is doing. aree social media giants collecting more media every day. it's time to have a conversation regarding social media impact. i think we need to acknowledge that rule by algorithm is just as stringent as any dictator perhaps more so because it is faceless and hard to define. debate,. off views, how can the stick giant say democracy when i think they're becoming less democratic. these are anything but neutral platforms. we saw the revelation that
12:10 pm
the 2016 election. sources are made within the algorithm are conscious choices. twitter have suppressed-- but these regimes it a prose. -- opposed. are they willing to help governments from the best fulfill to make sure facebook and twitter earned market share. who's to say that can protect the speech of america. , theithms are necessary to social media's failed to be transparent. algorithm preaching is unusual but has a massive following in the digital industry and political world, changing the content that people see every
12:11 pm
day. facebook is uncomfortable with the consequences of their actions and have decided to try to scale back resources that will -- something tells me they would not have gone in this direction if hillary clinton ended up in the oval office. celebrated for using these tools. facebook's response to cambridge analytical, i remember them facing the same responses to the campaign. if algorithms start filtering away sensitive opinions about issues like abortion, and favorite some site over the other we should ask ourselves where the small hands of controllers over the algorithm, who controls the controllers? to argue form me more regulation or new rules.
12:12 pm
instead of a rigged system that we are now operating under we encourage greater competition, in isn't it better that everyone play by the same rules? we should not be afraid to for the purpose of freese breach -- of a monopoly.ak it's not that hard to think of the kings of so it can valley as the robber barons of the 21st century. early 80's, ronald reagan and mop the. -- mama bell. isn't the internet nothing more than a modern-day forum? social media and tech companies
12:13 pm
be the arbiters of speech? peoplesmall handful of are allowed to control the debate undermined democracy and it is for it. some have shown themselves on capable -- incapable. [applause] >> i should start by giving my answer to the question will social media save democracy? my answer is probably not but i'm not sure i agree with the premise of the question which is that democracy is in danger and needs to be saved. if itocracy is in trouble is reasonable to ask tech companies to take on such a grandiose task. problem andy has no
12:14 pm
we don't need to be concerned. my own research has caused me to take a deep in the worst elements of the online world. i am would like to see civility and decorum in our public debates and i don't think twitter and facebook are facilitating that. notingng that is worth is that at least theoretically social media is an ideological tool. social media is a great equalizer in political communication. you don't need any kind of budget foreign audience. you don't even need to provide your real name. in twitter a check mark is the only thing that distinguishes a public figure from an ordeal -- ordinary user. tool ofder becomes a political extremists because the
12:15 pm
only effective tool of a lot of them have, the example of the alt right. social media was there only method of penetrating discourse. the far right has had a presence on the internet since the web was created, twitter was really a game changer because it was away for the radical right to escape from the confines of its own platform. it was mostly ignored people who were not interested in the material. extreme insights have always been around but you may not know they existed. they could engage with the mainstream in a new way. social media also changed the ,ource -- situation specifically targeting their message in a public manner. there was a. in case the alt right
12:16 pm
established a false reality. that as of the start of 2015 the alt right was totally insignificant, but with the launch of the trump campaign are views,cerns with racist they saw an opportunity and what it did was use social media to witht specific individuals anti-submitted -- anti-semitic invective. as a substantially growing movement, i real story of part of the election cycle, in dedicating a speech to the entire subject.
12:17 pm
it led to a massive amount of free media and attention far beyond what they would have been able to create on their own. before we panic about this and decide we need to rein in social media i do think it is worth noting that any changes that we hinder the to ability of the all right, perhaps as a message in the future. it is worth noting that very few people were concerned about social media disruptive power use by the arab spring. sure i support making massive changes to public policy or social platforms operate
12:18 pm
because of how they were used by the alt right in 2015. especially because that movement is on the decline and likely will not recover. that american democracy is in danger at the moment. i do think we are facing a disrupt it. period.ptive the issue is a little bit different in the internet age. the libertarian response to this question is that the government should never dance each --'s speech. to dictate be free how their platform is being used. approacht is the right but given that the internet is now the most important means of communication i wonder how much
12:19 pm
practical effect it really has. i understand why libertarians would be uncomfortable with their ability to's the but censorship is ok if it is engaged in by a giant cap -- tech company who has a monopoly. it is something they need to think about first. these discussions might put most of the left in an awkward situation as well or can understand an argument that racism has to be the number one concern, i can imagine feeling a bit uneasy with the idea that we should allow a handful of silicon valley giants dictate what will be sent online. then feels like it is intentioned. i am open to the idea of creating certain aspects of the internet like public utilities.
12:20 pm
i am ambivalent about the issues. problem is if we were to start doing that it means the internet will be subject to the first amendment and that would make it harder to deny free speech rights. at this point, it's not clear to the available the only thing i believe and recommend is a number of troubling things happen in the 2016 presidential election cycle , i'm not sure they represent any long-term threat. my hope is that changes will be made by the government and the tech companies to change how we interact online. [applause]
12:21 pm
-- i am't agree with going to stay quiet for now and not just what happens run social media and free speech but the right to assemble, and our ability to assemble. permit me to speak about a personal story. my stepfather was born in 1944 in lithuania. have a clever strategy, denyg people to information. did you see him last tuesday? last tuesday?
12:22 pm
not stop the movement of the lithuanian. disintegrated the trust between people, friends and family members, but they didn't know if they were going to give up information that was going to incriminate them. they didn't just have feelings aout, they no longer had collective. as far as social media's concern is not just that what happens on social media is an important discussion of that we are making it port discussion -- important discussion i am not hearing it. we are allowing the same kind of social disintegration to happen and we are not realizing it. many of you may know dr. robert
12:23 pm
he wrote a harvard, book about 20 years ago. about the disintegration of our communities and how since the late 60's early 70's there has been a steep and steady decline in our participation in volunteer activities. that could be anything from sports, city participation in party activities, the pta, unions, religious activities across the board. it's not just a political problem, it's a fundamental society problem, people are not collecting the way they once did. first, people move further away from one another so it took more work to have conversation and sometimes conversations are sloppy when you have different
12:24 pm
opinions you will but hits. whereou are in a network you have to depend on one another you learn to develop and exercise -- that enable you to respect your friends while being on the same team. technology, to -- tv had a big impact on our participation in volunteer activities. we would come home and watch tv instead of going out of laying baseball. generational shift towards hyper individualism. responsibility to a collective and more towards individual. the only you can be. when there's a problem in this
12:25 pm
school district how will that affect our kids? community meeting the cause kids you mean the individual kids. these things have a measurable impact on the strength of our community. without those collectives it is really hard to make any social movement or change. that it isargue different in the age of the internet. this is is that fundamentally not true. perhapsble to assemble, in the blink of an eye very quickly but it's not dedication. they are one of the biggest public health considerations is that because we have these personal devices on his all-time we are more and more in our own
12:26 pm
personal spaces. we are less likely to have interpersonal written -- interpersonal relations. they are perhaps much more vocal on social issues but much less likely to participate in different activities. we are talking about the mock -- saving democracy does that have to do with saving democracy? absolutely. in 2014 this generation was , 33%d to vote in a midterm less likely to show up than the former generation. it's not that in 2016 everything changed, there has been a heightened level of activity.
12:27 pm
the problem is we are seeing long-term trends, not necessarily going to be enough to overcome that. we have laid a structure for our society that blow people away from deep relationships where they have to disagree and still love one another and cooperate and more towards a society where i will do what i want come if these dictators for, politics is interesting but it's not for me. -- mediaas to motive the greater which to which we are less likely to have personal interactions with other people, that is responsible for a next on our democracy and perhaps there is something to be talked about their. we are now's ending 10 hours at 39 minutes as adults online. screens, itwith could be on your smart phone, the number is going up.
12:28 pm
it's grown by one hour. -- connection online and it's considered a health epidemic and we need to have a conversation, not about what is happening on social media but whether we are being wise with the tool that we have. we are getting smart but can we also get wise? i want to think cato and all of you for giving me the opportunity. question,viously a this has been weighing heavily on my mind even before the 2016 election. i have worked for facebook for seven years. when i first started here in , this is a dramatic shift
12:29 pm
that has happened in a relatively short. of time.- period talk about how we are to addressing this. there are five main areas we are looking at. we believe that the end of the day that social media can be good for democracy and can encourage discourse but we have to make sure we are doing what we can to mitigate the rest and looking at the consequences that have come out of these. what's happening to the country domestically, what we can be account, the activity that we see on our landform and that we saw in 2016 , using fakesians
12:30 pm
accounts. that or that we can do even preventing them from taking those down in a timely manner or even preventing them from being traded in the first place, it gets us a long way. there is work we are trying to do on address pair of see make it more transparent on the ads for political partisan political action committees running online. we lost a tool last week in archive where you can see those ads and they will be there for seven years. i will talk more about that. looking what we can do around fake news, what we can and should be doing in fact. even ineen interesting just a years time that we have been trying different tactics i will talk about. what the impact those have had or have not had.
12:31 pm
finally, there is a lot of work on the civic engagement side, helping people to remind them to register to vote, to know who is on the ballot, different perspectives in terms of where the parties and candidates stand and even reminding them it is election day and to go vote. when you go back to the first one and how that might be excluding the platform, you have to look at the different areas of the platform. you have to look at the ways that there -- what they might be doing. we look at that in threes. we want to be sure that people have the right information about the election, we want them to feel safe expressing themselves and that they are motivated to participate and turn out. it means we're looking at everything from information. people sharing things like republicans vote tuesday and democrats vote wednesday, and how to we make sure that is not
12:32 pm
platform. how do we make sure people are not creating any time or they could be impersonating a candidate or political party trying to spread a message. what are we doing in terms of, one thing we see a lot of is people registering url's and just transposing two letters and making a site look like it is the new york times or cnn or bbc. because those are trusted brands but they are actually sharing stuff they just made up. on the safety side, we want to make sure people aren't bullied for sharing political positions on the platform. between thethe line political speech and political discussion and bullying and harassment. if i asked each one of you, you might have a different way you would draw that line. we want to make sure our
12:33 pm
platform is not used to instigate off-line violence. there is a lot of work on account security, making sure folks are using to factor identification and a strong password to make sure their accounts are not hacked or taken by somebody. on the turn outside, i mentioned those specific engagement projects. when you look at all of these, you have got to be looking at it as, what can you do to prevent the behavior from happening in the first place. the issue immediately after the election wasn't the russians or anything. it was about fake news sites from macedonia, people doing it to make money. is reduce theid reach of urls where if you click on them, they are going to a page -- trying to reduce the economic incentive sharing the content on this platform.
12:34 pm
we are doing what we can to identify this activity could one thing that happened in the special election is we were looking for content that was getting a lot of reach in the u.s., that came from mother countries. we found a handful of url websites for macedonia that we were able to blackhole and make sure people could not share on the platform. it came from those monitoring efforts. we are looking at what we could do to be better on enforcement. this is one of the trickiest areas, fascinating questions coming out on how we should be handling some of these issues and even if they are issues and trying to identify them. and how do we do that in a quick way and in a way so we're thinking about the consequences, so we are -- trying to be thoughtful in making decisions and making about how they will not just impact democracy in the united states but how it will
12:35 pm
impact the entire world. and then we do a lot of research. for every election internationally, we start working about one year and a half to two years out, researching countries to identify what election risks they might see and how they might be civic we engaged. engaged -- civicly engaged. all of the things we're trying to do to tackle these different problems. i keep going on for a long time about a lot of different stuff we are doing. i'm happy to answer questions but i will say this too close. these are the conversations we want to be having. everyone has made incredibly valid points and questions and criticisms of our platform. these are the conversations we need to be having.
12:36 pm
necessarily just want facebook making one decision in google making another decision. these are conversations we have to be having collectively, to be thinking about what are the right ways we should be handling this, where is regulation, the right answer, versus companies like ours making those decisions. this. we do more of i hope we keep having these. i really appreciate you letting me be here. >> thanks to everyone. we have a lot of big stuff on the table. everyone did a good job of getting the big stuff out. i will try to narrow a little bit weird and what usually happens when you put these issues on the table is in each of these remarks, you have big tensions. katie is talking about how we crackdown on bullying without cracking down on speech. removeree we, you know, inherent shallowness of online interaction without turning away from online interaction
12:37 pm
entirely. we should beying sober and reflective and not rush into anything but say theycally, let's were trying to meddle in the election or a genocide was going on. you would want to act rationally . i heard you are doing pretty forcefully that rule by algorithm could be worse than a tear and a gold dictatorship and yet also, we want to make sure algorithms do not crack down. everyone has very dynamic tensions right at the heart of what you are saying. guess one thing that could narrow a little bit, what is one thing you could unambiguously get behind that could help right that we don't have to wait for congress to do, what is something you think the platforms could do, that society culturally that you
12:38 pm
could be ready to get on the ground with. if you want to do the political ads, that is yesterday. >> we announced it act in october. it took us a little while to not only just build it but to think how we wanted to define what it political is. to going the advertiser through an authorizations process and add a disclaimer and those ads go into an archive. that was something we felt was important to do in the legislation. now, depending upon where those end up going and where the
12:39 pm
rulemaking goes, we may have to adjust the product depending upon where that happens. we think the transparency part is the thing we are to do more of an keep looking to at least help right away. >> it is something that can and has been done. do you have something you would get behind as something you could do right now? thing i would like to see, this relates to twitter i have beencebook, personally confused by twitter pluses rules as to what constitutes each speech that will get people band. it does seem to be an arbitrary element to it. rather capricious at times. there are people band from things i find abhorrent that seem to be in violation of the accounts thatr really should not have any place that remain untouched here it
12:40 pm
and a little bit of clarity as made. these decisions are it would be useful from the perspective of someone trying to analyze it from the outside and perhaps from users themselves to as to how oneidea should behave online. >> the thing to think about is is not just clarity on what our standards are. it is something we have been attempting to do more of. how the conversations we are happening is not just clarity ot our standards within companies e it is ours or twitter and how policies evolve. they do evolve. they are really long. how we understand that and how we are getting to it. it is important for both parts of that. >> one thing i policies evolve. see, a tension from that is, if you want transparency, if you
12:41 pm
want a lot of platforms, keep it light touch. one question is how could a go out and affirmatively say we are making these value distinctions. maintaining an appearance of neutrality. >> welcome to democracy. to be a lot more transparency about how rules are made in what is and is not acceptable. even the best ones, i'm very hesitant to let certain private companies decide what free speech is. made in what is and is not acceptable. as alice is pointing out, we're spending a most 11 hours and it might be 12 hours, i don't know. what is the internet that a forum and a public space.
12:42 pm
if they are deciding what is and is not acceptable, it calls in again, who are the arbiters of free speech. more transparency, and i was just thinking about this any -- the other day with the amazing implosion of -- implosion of roseann on twitter, certain people are on twitter who should not he. there are consequences for what roseann did. did not than >> certain people had been banned for saying certain things you look at wanda sykes and you yes.ike i do not think he has used mother effort -- effer before. >> it comes down to who makes those decisions. is it a representative of the american people? is really accelerating quickly.
12:43 pm
mccarthy'sin comments the other day, should republicans keep the majority in the house should he become speaker, i think there will be rapid movements on those things. >> then, from a civil libertarian point of view, you get the question of, do these companies have first amendment rights? >> exactly. where do you find the right line? that is something we are struggling with. where do you draw the line? where do certain freedoms start and stop? there are not unlimited freedoms . at the same time, it goes back, democracies are messy. no more than not possible. >> right. that makes sense. spirithe seat -- in the
12:44 pm
of transparency, we have been working on a project of social media practitioners across both sides of the aisle in conjunction with the democracy fund in the university of chicago. we have tried to come up with principles all of us could agree to. it gets back to the original question of, is there something we can unambiguously agree to? it goes back to the dialogue and making sure we are on the same because it is nuanced. one thing that came up that we , closep all agreeing to like there to be a working group with many from variousties interests to have these conversations. and to acknowledge that transparency is an issue, that
12:45 pm
having an open and honest dialogue and knowing that not every single decision made will be perfect because there will always be dissent, but because that may be a place to start, continuing and encouraging dialogue. >> it just comes down to transparency. who is doing what and who is paying for what and where they come from. i would say massive and dramatic transparency. >> yes. i have principles unanimously endorsed from the project. it was interesting which ones, there were 20 two items unanimously endorsed by everyone and there were a lot more that were not. i think it is interesting which ones were not comfortable and which ones work. it seems on the face of it that citizens should have the right to view personal data and social media practitioners should treat content crated by minors as off-limits. that was interesting
12:46 pm
was it was unanimous from right and left take place in europe. >> that was interesting. i would think people would have a problem with that. do you have a sense of why that was ok with everyone? to explain what that is? >> as best i can. feel free to correct me as i understand this. datawns the data and whose , who owns the data, is it individual that the data has been shared on and the ability and right to be forgotten and have all the data for various platforms. that goes back to individual rights. the interesting debate i cut out howy opening comments is are we viewed by various companies online?
12:47 pm
has consumers or human beings and citizens? i think there is a difference of what expectations are depending on how we are viewed and defined by social media and tech companies. where europe has come down has been more toward your -- human beings and citizens and where we we in the united states, have been more consumers. i think that is the debate moving forward. human rights. >> and a lot of european countries have human rights and we do not. i think, you know, one? uninteresting that we do not have, and i wanted to read because as a was saying, my think it is interesting what ,eople did and did not support there is a cultural shift in how we think of stuff. of thes the wording
12:48 pm
principal. social media platforms should recognize their role while for-profit corporations should acknowledge and unique impact on. on in that vein for a couple of more sentences. have support and half opposition. why something like that could be controversial? it seems like something everyone could get behind. >> i think i voted for that. mark would actually know. >> the thing that concerns me little is going back to a deeper question. are people doing what they should do or what they can do? i think there are responsibilities that various companies and organizations have to be responsible citizens. so i actually do agree with that statement. >> i would as well.
12:49 pm
i think it is important to acknowledge context and history that we come from. i think there are and also that we are not independent actors as much as we wish we were. there are certain things that wield influence. social pressure being one. being on facebook is a thing. that is where a lot of human interaction takes place. is it fair to say i could just turn it off completely #a lot of people do and a lot of people would say that is not 100% an option either. >> i have had the conversation with friends. >> i'm a big practitioner of twitter. twitter is my thing. debate to withdraw completely. and i like no, you ostracizing from a very real part of psyd. everything not taking place i doe or on the internet,
12:50 pm
not think that is a solution. i look and i go, i think that is the wrong solution to engage in. how could we actually have we bumpy being messy, and each other disagreements. how will we solve these things off and online because you do call into question what the future of our democracy is. and disagreements. how will we solve these things we have toinethis is something figure out and what we realize is we will have disagreements. among all of us appear, there are probably things we agree on and things that most of us don't. i will respect for disagree with you and what does that look like off-line and off-line. will does not look like i respectfully disagree with you. >> right. i said i to someone on twitter. >> and then it does seem that
12:51 pm
some point -- at some point, the platforms have to step in. i do not want to hog too much time. i had to do with the alt-right on the american conservative union. somehow, milo got invited. so knowing that george just wrote aunion. somehow, milo got invited. book, i think there are certain lines to say all right whitet another form of supremacy or whatever you want to call it. understanding that is inflammatory, and you would that ishat unacceptable. at the same time, it is really being -- is being pro-life that inflammatory? it is one thing where there are certain things where i completely agree that -- absurd and ridiculous things at the same time.
12:52 pm
there are many that are very strongly pro-life. ec twitter and these guys, it is one thing, where do you draw the line? , 99% supportism this and 50% support this. is that something we are comfortable for how we draw lines? >> it is the majority and then the minority does not have a voice. >> i would describe myself as a free speech purist when it comes to ideas. i think certain radical views should not necessarily be banned as long as they do not cross the
12:53 pm
line into harassment. that is an easier thing to manage concern ideologies that are out of towns. i think that alone would go a views to stopping things like to stopping things like the all right, which grew not so much because it was pushing an ideological agenda with the use of things like trolling an online harassment, and attack from platform perspective without -- >> and yet, milo was banned on twitter for harassment but not cpac for harassment. to be clear, that is one of my that the reason he was uninvited was over something that 99.99% of people -- i thought we missed having a real and rigorous debate. we in democracy have to figure that the reason he was out how to have a rigorous
12:54 pm
debate. i think in some of this debate, we were silent because we didn't have an honest debate about why milo shouldn't be invited. >> if it looks like a duck and a damn a duck, it is duck. i think part of what would be helpful in the whole a damn duck. dialogue, and i think it made the principal list, we have to learn how to self police ourselves inside of movements. i thought this is where the could takee movement the stand we did in the day -- back in the day, to say i'm sorry, right here, alt-right is not inside that. they tried to do it in 2016 and it did not work. >> there was something i read whenweek looking at
12:55 pm
politicians self police on their and in terms of comments, -- in terms of self policing in the language they will or will not allow, they end up having a more productive dialogue. pagehave got my facebook and the people commenting on it, if someone is harassing someone else, it is stopping it or moderating it. for the friends and doing it when welling things out think it might be wrong or going over the line, the trend of the conversation here is showing that like we are not going to be line andraw a clear say we done. it will have to be a constant debate. ad, it a political issue
12:56 pm
is not a political ad but it will take us time to find the right spot where the line is an figure out what does and does not work. i think a lot of times people want a nice and clear answer right away when it will actually be a debate figure out where it is and get there. >> i want to get. -- i do not want tonot want do a gotcha thing because they will all be mistakes. do you have a guess as to why this has happened?
12:57 pm
>> yes. the big thing was the name bush. i am sure, i would have to look
12:58 pm
12:59 pm
1:00 pm
1:01 pm
we had this debate going back and forth and we had this in the panel. is social media rooney democracg , -- ruining democracy? no. over the last however many decades, are we losing a commonality among who we are as a people and i think what social media has allowed us to do is everyone gets a little microphone to announce to the world what they believe and feel
1:02 pm
which was not the case in the past. it goes back, the whole thing about stepping completely away from facebook and twitter, that is the wrong response and the shutdown is the wrong response. i think we're in a time where there will be a messy figuring things out but i have a hard time accepting when he completely shut down things that that is the right approach. >> interesting tension is you mentioned in your opening government and other governments. the interesting tension is they are the ones that have the power to shut us down. where do we make decisions where we want to make sure we are giving more voice but where do we also want to make sure the government is in trying to use to stifle other oppositions and potentially getting us -- threatening us with a shutdown if we do not take the action? it is a very interesting tension. commercial things aside, we want
1:03 pm
to stay up because we believe it gives an opportunity to have a voice and participate. so you have got to find the balance. to stifle other oppositions and potentially getting>> yes. and then is it truly freedom of speech? not every government treats facebook with the freedom the u.s. government does. move to a q&a portion. i will read these things and we will get going. please wait to be called on, we for the might phone so everyone in the audience and online can hear the question. announce your name and affiliation, however you want to interpret the word. thatthat is pretty much it. we have a question here, if we could get a microphone. right down here. good. as instructed. >> good afternoon. carl with net choice. the wall street journal announced today there is a new , if you act like a
1:04 pm
human, you get kicked off. it is only for pets. that is content moderation at its forefront. beds onritten to our this issue in the past week. looking at it from a libertarian heart of we are in the cato and robert leedy had a great article in 2016 about libertarianism and the right to discriminate. how do we balance our libertarian views and policies and not get into the politics by advocating the private businesses must do or not do something that they may not feel as best for consumers, users, or their business? >> i think a lot of people could take that. do you mean the government or as a society? libertarian advocates. ok.
1:05 pm
because i think there is a distinction between what the government compels companies to do and what advocates request that the companies do. >> to get the ball rolling, it does not seem to me there is a first amendment concern with a site that wants to mimic pets. that seems a weird thing the company can be allowed to do. whatever floats your boat. >> i think you could take this a lot of different ways hear it even on fifth, we required real names on profiles. i cannot be mickey mouse. on a profile. but i can do it on a page. one interesting area is potential he, the scale question. that andnt to do pretend to be a pet, there are a lot of other websites to do that in.
1:06 pm
if you want other types of interactions. the question is companies like ours and others get to a scale peopleou have a lot of and there are different norms that people are wanting. it is a very hard one to balance. >> and yes. there arento the mix, times when 99 .9% of people would appreciate a crackdown on some, it is just a message -- a question of what is that time. right there. >> american legal news. my question is why is mainstream media not basic we talking more about our judges and the corruption in the court and that our judges police themselves, we cannot get a fair trial to purchase buy breakfast, lunch, or dinner.
1:07 pm
when you try to reach out to a story,r to tell the everyone is petrified to admit in our really going on courts and our jails and report on it. >> i guess i will take that one. from the media. i do not know why everyone is preferring to talk to what is really going on. i do not take that to be the case. here.on right >> thank you for the question. i have been working for a decade on violence against women as human rights violations here it we are having a horrible problem in the courts. victims sexually and physically abused children are being handed over at a rate of 70%. i have been trying to get the news media in europe, i work globally and we have 7 million
1:08 pm
americans abroad. people are coming to me with the problem all over the world. we cannot get the media to do it. there are all sorts of moms going on to facebook. they have facebook pages and campaign spirit i am up on capitol hill at the state department at the white house. all of the experts know about me and my research. it really gets into the american democracy going back to the. in movement. >> i think we have a way to address this with regards to social media. you are talking about violence against women. there was recently the act that essentially in order to protect online, it basically forced that page and these types to shut down. that is the closest i think we have come to a frontier of first amendment adjacent regulation that we have seen, that congress passed a law that said if you
1:09 pm
are posting this kind of thing on your site, you have to shutdown. craigslist took a big hit. dooley on this panel have libertarian concerns about that or is trafficking the thing where you say, this is graven of a risk that it is worth taking the head? >> i do not think there is a debate on that. >> there is. >> i'm saying if there are really sites that are pushing -- question issue is not that the sites of his advocating -- >> but it is being used for that and if it is prison to be, then i think you have grounds to be able to shut that down. >> facebook has been used for all kinds of horrible things. >> yes. at some point, you have to decide. >> does it meet community standards? there is a wide spectrum of what that applies to, but i think we
1:10 pm
can -- >> i think that is one of the things we are constantly trying to get better at, how to find these things quickly to take action on them at the scale that and makingating on sure you are taking action in the right way. >> i think most people can agreed is better for the platform to do it than the government to do it for them in most cases. tie. >> my name is justin. i like to think outside of our borders. it is nice to see a young panel and i hope when legislators attack that they can solve with more young people. that would change a lot of the debate. seeing outside of the united states, you have more languages than facebook ever monitor.
1:11 pm
how do you expect where his speech could be banned but it is not banned under the first amendment, holocaust denial would be. how do you juggle this being service in the united states, having users around the world? in germany, if somebody puts a test if it is seen outside of him the country, that is one way we have been looking at it it is difficult and it is something we trying to figure out. is except when brazil is in thent from what is middle east versus canada or the philippines. the other interesting thing trying to tackle this is there for peoplences inside the country and what they feel is ok and acceptable versus other countries and other societies and what they might
1:12 pm
is ok or acceptable. which one should we be listening to and which 1 -- how should we be fighting the balance? there are definite pros and cons to each approach. not an easyst answer. >> in the middle. >> hi, i am hannah, and in turn here. my question was going back to the earlier discussion on how facebook and other social media companies suppress conservatives, new stories during the 2015 election, how do you think we should hold social media country -- companies accountable and decent there should be consequences for the companies for example the government getting involved? the think it has gotten to point where listening to some
1:13 pm
conversations taking place, i point you to a clip of kevin speaking last week, about real belief that conservative voices aren't social media, it is not a random member of congress. he is well-positioned as republicans keep the house. some point, representatives are saying ok, is almost like they have given enough time for social media companies to figure it out. i believe they have strong questions about it and like i said earlier, they will take an aggressive approach after the first of the year. -- basically say if you cannot police yourself, there will have to be. it kind of comes back to human nature. if you cannot police yourself, you will get policed by someone else. i think that is where it has gotten too. i am not saying it is easy, to be clear. at the same time, i think there
1:14 pm
are certain things where we have to have a debate on who has -- who really controls the internet and who are the guardians of free speech. there is enough time for people to figure that out. think younnot, i do will see some of that take place p to what level, i do not know, to be clear. a socialng this to science perspective, i would note that before we want to get the government involved, we should reasonably consider how matters from a real world perspective. that is, where the people who would have voted for trump had they seen one more conservative ad in the facebook feed? >> whatever the number is, it is almost surely too much to matter. which care about questions of fairness but do we want to have the government go down the
1:15 pm
rabbit hole but ultimately, in of -- inin consequence consequential in the big picture. >> something like that and something in that range. i went to google passes political innovation. >> it was fascinating actually. backhought occurred to me that these companies will have the ability in many ways in the future to manipulate elections backbased on what people see ad don't see in how they make decisions. that to me is a concern. while i think george has a valid point about how the hubble blue about-face gets overblown, i'm concerned about the future and how things tend to accelerate.
1:16 pm
where going down a path we have to have the conversation now or 20 years from now, we should have a conversation about who is conjoined the internet and freedom of speech, free expression in a public forum, which is the internet. at -- as a republican at facebook who has been there for a while, a couple of things you have a whole panel on the topic. there are a couple of different atthings to unpack in terms of where people might see this. one is community standards and what we're allowing and the platform which has been a big part of the debate here. some of the decisions we've made for the platform of what we allow and do not allow, some people disagree with it. they are decisions on the algorithms in terms of types of of what isnd content
1:17 pm
getting a reach or not hear the decision we made earlier this year around showing more content from friends and family, the pure amount of content that appeared on facebook in the last couple of years has sky rated -- skyrocketed. you would not be able to seal the content you are eligible for yourself and your feet. that is a conversation to be having. people initially think, you self correct what you see in your feed but what you see from that, everyone has different preferences in terms of what they want to see and what they do not want to see in that is a valid to date. there was no company out rather be at as a tech company or as a republican. i've been in numerous conversations with mark and there were numerous times when we could have pulled out and not gone to the public convention when there is pressure to not go there when president trump was the nominee.
1:18 pm
it is controversial. something mark makes sure we are a platform for all voices. he is very committed, making sure there are rooms when decisions are being made, differing ideological background and racial background and gender background on all of this. i know this is my own personal opinion. we have a long way to go. takingomething we are very seriously. i personally feel it as a republican. >> one more thing, i was laughing actually, hey, mike. we were laughing the other day about, wouldn't it be funny for , have themley interacting.
1:19 pm
a different worldview and a different perspective. i think that would be extremely healthy. i am talking about moving companies out. interacting with people really haven't been outside of the corridor, there are different people out there and feel strongly about the use -- about these views. >> anything that leads toward assumption were social media is all of the thing our lives need to happen, let's not do that. i totally get it, that is where it happens a lot nowadays. a
1:20 pm
one of the favorite books, he pulled a quote out that says something to the effect of, we do not all have to be homage but more homage than we think we should be. pulling a little bit away from things where we find ourselves falling into, it is always a healthy practice. >> i will put this on the points. things where we find ourselves falling into, it is always a healthy practice. companies, a lot of this suggests there is not ct of this suggests there is not -- and that there might be as much if not more bias on the other side.
1:21 pm
there are a lot of different ways to look for the data. and then i would, there is a debate about the fact that this stuff does not matter. companies, a lot advertising matters.
1:22 pm
all that stuff. , it assumes that there is inevitability to the permanence of some of these platforms. >> my response back would be i do not think if everyone played
1:23 pm
by the same rules, and how we are approaching this, there is an argument to be made coming look back at the situation were at&t controls all of the telephone lines, and then western alert -- western electric filed all of that equipment. andas a complete vertical we are allowing companies, whether it is youtube and all of that, we can all of these integration spirit we have to have a conversation of, have we allotted the point where there is not really where these come and go? if we create a level -- level playing field, and if there is true competition that allows it to come on and really be able to compete, great. all for it. but i was a right now i do not think we have the dynamic based on what i am seeing in the rules and the regulations and i wouldng in place
1:24 pm
argue we do not have free market competition and we have to examine that. tip the question to the three of you, the comparison to the newspapers and the tv networks of old, as you say, that was editorial discretion. their approach to with we do this or not, is, does it meet our standards and is it good? that is not a standard social met -- social networks use. people are coming out and saying, we are putting our values first and acting more like a publisher. are we ok with moving a little the direction of the social network, acting like publishers with editorial discretion? >> i would say if we're going to
1:25 pm
redefine for moving to platforms or publishers, we go back to what i talked about earlier. publisher of content, tv and radio or whatever, a telecommunication company, the world has changed. that was an argument in my opening statement. social media giants have become that. we have to re-examine how we in the rules by which they play because they are not playing by the same rules as everyone else. i we may want -- may not want to withld definitions regulations of different ways. he talks about regulations have to look different. we look at a couple how it shoue your socialn import
1:26 pm
network into a new platform or a that is different .egulation >> i'm just saying is the environment online, on the internet, because google is controlling 75%, is it really the ability to compete? that is my other question. i'm not seeing it. the015, meerkat was like best thing since sliced bread. part of the reason it was going too fast as you could use twitter and import your twitter contents into that and that grew like crazy and in twitter was like no and they shut that off. it would have been interesting to see what if twitter had shut that off in what would have happened because they are getting way off the curve because of the live streaming on that. i think that it's a great
1:27 pm
example of thinking about like, how can you be thinking of -- thinking about this and what is the type of regulation. >> yes. question right here. >> my name is jeff. my question is in regards to industry standards. there is discussion about that. specifically, a forum, the global counterterrorism form, or tech companies meet on the west coast once in a while and it is not quite a good job over the last couple of years of adjusting the issue in setting up standard spirit of was wondering if you rank any of those successes could he applied to the issue of speech more broadly or the issue of terrorism. is that just he on the pale, clearly removable, or our lessons from that that could be applied? and isons can be learned
1:28 pm
think you are starting to see some efforts pop up. intellectualre the integrity space, there are organizations popping up. the difficulty we are all seeing is having the mood -- move at the speed we're moving and trying to have the conversations as we are trying to make decisions in real time. the elections are not stopping and they are always happening somewhere. and trying to bridge the gap between people who have been around for a long time who are very smart and may not understand tech issues in the way the technology is being used, there will be a bit of time in terms of reaching the gap in order for us to have the common understanding to help us solve some of these issues. -- ive fast with stable will always say. that is all the time we have got. thanks, everyone, for the
1:29 pm
insightful questions. there will be a lunch upstairs. everyone is invited. restrooms are on the second floor and lunches on second floor. thanks. [applause] [indistinct conversations] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018] [indistinct conversations]
1:30 pm
1:31 pm
1:32 pm
1:33 pm
announcer: commencement speeches, all this week, tonight at 8 p.m. eastern, apple ceo tim cook, governor john kasich, governor kate round, and , alsossman luis gutierrez betsy carter come -- betsy devos, and the atlanta mayor. this week in prime time, on c-span and and on the free c-span radio app. sunday on q&a. patricia o'toole discusses her book, the moralist. woodrow wilson and the world he
1:34 pm
made. we see a lot of psychological literature about wilson, i have read it, but i have the sense that it reduced him to edible tangles.- oedipal some people have said that his stubbornness in later life was a reaction to his father's strictness, and they can point to one story where his father made him revise something he wrote many times. wilsonpositions are that resented this, but he was a good boy and he put up with it. mention, ind every the letters to his father, they are worshipful. he never had an unkind word.
1:35 pm
announcer: sunday night at eight eastern on c-span's q&a. announcer: now a discussion on mental health and the criminal justice system. panelists looked at judicial reforms in indianapolis and heard from the cities that the -- the city's deputy police chief, director of public health and safety, and a criminal court judge. this was hosted by new york university law school's center on the administration of criminal law. anne: we are going to get started. you know what they do at my three-year-old's school? this, anybody else have that two fingers? i want to introduce this next panel. i think if i set it to most of the folks sitting in the room today, when you think about criminal justice reform, where is the first place you think about? i don't know that anybody would say indianapolis. we are in new york city and i


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on