Hi im Steve Clemons and i have a question is there a way to protect free speech on line while fighting misinformation and disinformation lets get to the bottom line. A lot can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on it shoes the saying might be a few centuries old but it certainly rings true today anyone anywhere can publish anything and if it catches on theres no stopping what it can do either for good or for evil so how can people be protected from the nefarious manipulation of information and the disruptive promotion of false hoods by governments and organizations or should fake news be allowed to compete in an open market with real news fortunately we have 3 people in the room who have the answers to these questions melissa ryan a digital strategist strategist who studies online toxicity and extremism and writes the weekly blog control all right delete i love that name jody westby a legal expert on privacy and computer crime and the founder of global search cyber risk and Jennifer Brody who has worked on programs combat online dissent from ation and works at the Digital Rights group access now thank you all for joining us today where you have some fun with this one i think so let me just start with with you melissa censorship or free speech how do we draw that line between what we see is the you know my right to say what i want to do and the question of basically becoming the source of conspiracy theories and false is i think its really important that we consider the frame of speech and who social media empowers the Tech Companies have consistently made policies that empower the already powerful so what happens is for the vast majority of us not only is our freedom of expression limited but our right to be safe and free from hate and harm and we have been scared so that we have some judge said oh the the less powerful people get get you know certain safe space to do this and you more powerful people dont get that i mean im. Sort of interesting how you draw the line in a tangible way in an understandable way yeah i mean you really have to think about how many people dont have free speech because theyve been driven offline entirely or they have been the victim of violence that started online i think facebook and the hang of genocide is the most prominent example but you know here in the u. S. We certainly have folks that have been driven offline because they were harassed to the point where they had to radically alter their lives and the focus of this free speech conversation always seems to center on white men of a certain age and it leaves you know women and people of color who have been disproportionately the victims of harassment no ones really talking about their speech i want to go to something because this is a big issue this is a big issue politically in the United States right now and i think its a big issue in the rest of the world where i think in very no matter where youre out youre trying to find that Tipping Point that Inflection Point fascinating exchange between Mark Zuckerberg the c. E. O. Of facebook and congresswoman Maxine Waters lets play that each month 2700000000 people use your products thats over a 3rd of the worlds population thats huge. Thats so big that its clear to me and to anyone who hears this list that perhaps you believe that you are above the law and it appears that you are aggressively increasing the size of your company and are willing to step on over anyone including your competitors women people of color youre on uses even our democracy to get what you want you have opened up a serious discussion about whether facebook should be broken up now before i get the Mark Zuckerberg response jodi which is basically saying is facebook youre acting like youre your own country you have your own rules you have your own Gravitational Forces and you dont have to behave in an accountable way let me give you all the power for a minute and youre going to fix facebook and youre going to fix this what what should be what we should should we be doing well the 1st thing we should be doing is the f. C. C. Should start taking a look at Mark Zuckerberg they are the only ones that has any power to do anything about him to remove him from office to check what he does within the company and so far all theyve done is chase a lawn musk and have left Mark Zuckerberg alone when the company is notorious for the 1st thing he wants to do is make money the 2nd thing he wants to do is then say. Oh were sorry we apologize we recognize this later than usual and then now well do something about it and make a promise so when he has a 3rd of the worlds population he does have a huge amount of content coming over his network and that as we know well from the Senate IntelligenceCommittee Reports in the investigations that that social network particularly facebook has been abused and so now we are seeing him in the crosshairs so one thing that he should be doing is he should be informing people when they see things 1st of all the monitoring against their terms and conditions and inform. People and he should be removing content when it violates the terms and conditions not only from facebook but his other sites like instagram so something doesnt Carry Forward on another site but he is in a huge power position and so far our government the Regulatory Agency that could do something has done nothing what i wanted i want to hear what Mark Zuckerberg said but i want to just come back in a moment after we do this when you when you act when you talk about money its important because hes the c. E. O. Of a Public Company and you want musk is the c. E. O. Of a Public Company as well and so part of that is i find interesting is how they how do we look at c. E. O. s have a certain responsibility that responsibility traditionally hasnt necessarily been for the public good though they may want to pretend thats the case they have a bottom line responsibility but listen lets listen to Mark Zuckerberg. Chairwoman our policy is that we do not fact check politicians speech and the reason for that is that we believe that in a democracy it is important that people can see for themselves what politicians are saying political speeches some of the most scrutinized speech already in the world. So Mark Zuckerberg is making the case that he wants political speech out there in a political speech for which hes being paid to put on his sites of course but he wants to create an open market so that the public can look at what a politician is saying and that people can judge it in whether its true whether its false good and have that competitive arena but weve got some news that just recently jack dorsey the c. E. O. Of twitter sees it differently he writes weve made the decision to stop all political advertising on twitter globally we believe political message reach should be earned and not bought why a few reasons so it was a tell me what you think about jack dorsey message versus Mark Zuckerberg well i mean its interesting Mark Zuckerberg the frame of that hearing was we know weve messed up Everything Else but please trust us with your money because facebook wants to start a crypto currency in all of the tech platforms they have broken the public trust in such a big way i dont think facebook realizes how big of a problem they have with ads people have an expectation that when they see a political ad that the information will be true and that the network or the platform will be a gate keeper and keep false information out facebook doesnt seem to understand this twitter who ive been a huge critic of im not always a fan of the way they do things i think they see the writing on the wall i think theyve seen how much terrible press facebook has gotten for their ads decision and decided that they want none of this that its just easier not to take that ad money than to constantly be in the position of Fact Checking political ads jodi well facebook has done a very clever genius. Tactic here when they invited the real media to come on to their site and they would pay them. Because most people were starting to look at facebook with a bit of a question about the legitimacy really that we should note for the for the global viewing audience that facebook is started the Partners Program yes for americas leading media they have they started a Partnership Program where they invited the wall street journal usa today Los Angeles Times a number of the leading newspapers and press as well as some smaller ones and they are paying them to put their content on their site so what this effect is is it legitimizes facebook site as a legitimate news source and therefore i think will be. Harder to do to weed out all the fake news thats in there and all the misinformation so i think it was a genius move on his part even paying them because he will now continue to make money because they will be people will still be coming there for legitimate content but its going to be harder for now for people to discern i think between whats real and not what is not real and that decision is already controversial too when you consider that Breitbart News was one of the outlets that facebook chosen and great breitbart you know it is has a long history of of muslim propaganda hate speech we know they had from a buzz feed expose in 2017 we know they were in constant communications with notorious all right figures about coverage so facebook is already facing just intense criticism for this new partnership there is a whole areas. I find very funny hes basically they went out and advertised on facebook with some fake ads and this this fellows name is Adrian Hampton but originally mike gravel the former governor of alaska was running was used to be running for everything he was running for president had gone out made took down an ad that said that Lindsey Graham senator Lindsey Graham a staunch conservative certainly not supportive of the new green deal was a big advocate of the new deal and they took that ad down and what this fellow hampton did who raised the money put this he filed to run for office to run for governor and hes now challenging the facebook norms and rules and hes got that ad up there again what do you think about that is there a kind of civil resistance to be sickly take on i mean i dont know what control all right delete does but is this sort of you know one of the shenanigans that you guys might have. Well were a weekly newsletter so i write about all of these issues and one thing that we were going to write about this absolutely weve covered a lot already and one of the most interesting criticisms was. Facebook wouldnt define who counted as a politician when they announced this policy someone made a joke on twitter if it was a New York Times reporter of thats the sound of a 1000 edge lords running for school board because if anyone is a politician you can actually abuse democracy to get it to make it so that your ads wont be fact checked we know theres already some do platform dont write figures running for congress there are 3 q. And unbelievers running for Congress Facebook is now in the position to determine is this person a politician are they not you mentioned admiral Hampton Facebook said oh youre not really a politician because youre only running for office to prove a point theyre going to be forced to make a decision over who is and isnt a valid politician politician on facebook over and over again as long as this policy stance. If your world where youre trying to provide access to those that dont often have it sure whats happening there because i know you work lobel you know it well so i see access now where i work where a global nonprofit defending and extending the Digital Rights of users most at risk on line but you policy work you do advocacy work we also have a Digital Security helpline thats a Pro Bono Service human rights defenders Civil Society can reach out if they feel that theyre threatened on line so i know in some cases and with others who you see internet blackouts happen yes is there is there a case to be made that maybe we need to live with the chaos and the false news and the real news and not empower a government to call for the government to begin law is jodi what i think separ burke is doing 2 things right to give him credit one is he standing strong against government intrusions on encryption and so thats a good thing 2nd is when he says we have freedom of expression and if we flood the marketplace with thoughts and ideas then theres more out there and thats when truth rises to the top hes right thats always how we view democracy weve never been shutting down the speech maker we just bring it been giving all the people speaking the truth the voice as well but theres an interesting nuance here and and people get confused around it and that is what trump did with Cambridge Analytic and the data that they gathered and how they did it was perfectly legal. It was perfectly illegal for a foreign entity or government to do it to try to influence our election so we can have political candidates that can try to sway the opinions and views of a voter and that is ok in our country so when we Start Talking about someones lying well sorry but all politicians lie we know that so so part of it is sorting it out but its also realizing what is the difference between our politicians lying and how do we know its our politicians and its not actually a Misinformation Campaign that sponsored by another country and so it gets very confusing for the public to sort this out i think so who regulates that. Well we have a federal law that prohibits the federal election laws prohibit foreign interference and this is your comment about the f. C. C. And others. You know as i listen to you that the f. C. C. Has to do with zucker burbs voting power and that no one lobby when his board can control him the only entity in the world that can control him since securities and Exchange Commission is a Public Company the federal Election Commission has the Regulatory Power over the laws that govern foreign interference although i would point out that the federal Election Committee commission right now is not functioning because right now we just dont know yet so when people ask who is right and who is watching this were going to be as i go to put something on the table to import which is the nefarious actions of foreign governments how do we mitigate that particular state bass players well the 47 countries have been identified that have used state sponsored groups to attack political opponents or activists and thats twice from last year or twice the amount from last year so we have a steep upward curve on people using this to exploit but what we do about it we have a big problem because President Trump and and. Senator mcconnell in the senate dont want to do anything about election. Security or regulating any of these activities so i dont see unfortunately anything happening in the u. S. From a lot of lawmakers are going to be a regulator or a court that your knowledge what is the United States doing abroad or we disrupting anyone of course i mean i use we in the american sense i know we have a lot of global waters so its use that for a moment but when you look at not. Was this russian virus that was released created tens of billions of dollars of damage its a fair. Asin eating story to look at what this computer model where of virus a cheap but what was fascinating about this is that this this small where was based upon american motor and it was you know the american model where so i guess my question is from the best of your knowledge where does the United States stand in terms of being one of the malicious players in other countries well look and i think the New York Times did a really good article on this we have played any interfered in elections around the world as intelligence activities and as covert activities for decades but that doesnt mean that its ok and it doesnt mean that maybe were doing that in our National Interest because were trying to overthrow the way tarion reach team or were undertaking actions that we feel are in the best interest of International Law and democratic principles so you have to look at it in that whole context but i just set that aside because all governments do when you say that i get goosebumps jody and i love your job because it would come back to mind is what we begin to do internationally can be kinda happened domestically and i remember j. Edgar hoover and the f. B. I. And the wire taps which were learning about more and more and various dimensions that we saw of. Of wiretaps without warrants which was a part of our history and theyre very near near history do you worry about a National Security state here where every digital moment in our life becomes a risk i worry about every moment becoming in our lives becoming a risk i also worry about domestic attack actors here who have learned from Malicious Foreign actors and have adopted those tactics i think the rhetoric this is the all right crowd the all the all right crowds were who are your who are your biggest villains in that story in that story i mean honestly in this cycle im really worried about what the trump camp. And in the various independent actors democratic and republican you see the Trump Campaign is the villain i see them as one of the villains yeah and who else i would worry about all the various independent expenditure groups again we have an f. E. C. Thats not functioning we have Tech Companies for the most part that have said that youre allowed to say and do whatever online there are no rules and when there are no rules bad actors are going to be bad to have its your experience in this in terms of youve been watching the nexus between Technology Cyber behavior and the National Interest for a long time im really interested in the question of how we begin to frame this in a more mature way i mean we would always like to wave a magic wand and so you everybody be respectful everyone play nice but thats not going to happen in the real world is not a combined world the real world is groups pursue their Interest Group are doing but how can we really set in place and move the needle to get a more responsible behavior set of behaviors here more accountable behaviors and then as we look at this problem globally because what is happening here today is happening in elections in europe happening elections in asia happening elections in africa happening elections in latin america and we see the scene patterns of players no one seems to have yet risen above that so whats the secret pathway to a better environment if we take the situation is that is and say were on the eve of the 2020 election then i think the 1st thing is to have an Awareness Campaign recognizing fake news helping people understand when i was in school it is where you got to consider the source and you know people would challenge us is that a reliable source for your reporting so one is to better inform the public about the fake news and to also then to get the social Media Companies to take socially responsible. Actions so for example the Trump Campaign went on facebook bought ads and they were getting all of this Voter Registration information claiming that the person hadnt registered or its its registration was going to expire and then they would finally kind of send them to a Voter Registration side but it was kind of a scam to get peoples information so that kind of tactic should not be allowed that should clearly be a violation of facebooks policies and so they should be aggressively monitoring what theyre doing if they dont want to monitor whats happening to meet their terms and conditions then do what twitter did and just ban the ads. But then theres another part here that the public doesnt understand and that is theres a huge private sector role in our elections private Sector Companies are largely the ones involved in Voter Registration theyre the ones that program most of the Voting Machines for every single election theyre the ones that tally most of the votes theyre the ones that do the polling and theyre the ones that do the reporting of the votes and people dont understand that they think all the votes are within our Election Officials in these towns and communities and they arent and those are very serious points of exploitation and so i think that we need to there are some things we can do about that and there are things we can do in this cycle to just this is a prime moment were on the learning curve with technology we have to step up and teach our public thank you for jennifer its just the last couple minutes we have like hear from each of you what you think. Would be the most important thing which what is the most important lever we could push to get to a healthier balance between expression and responsibility. Great question and i think. A big piece of this puzzle that we havent touched on today is addressing the lack of Data Protection laws right this information misinformation is so you know malicious and problematic because it is a hyper micro target and if companies are only collecting x. Amount of data that its reasonable for them to collect then right because this information has always existed its new and right and theres new tools so that would be your area jody i think the f. C. C. Should begin an investigation into Mark Zuckerberg and consider removing him from office from his company that was the most powerful message to every social media platform around the world thats a big zinger melissa what youre saying or i think we need a new social contract with Tech Companies i think we have to push them use every regulatory and legislative solution we have to push them on political ads to push them on speech and push them on again protecting the vast majority of their users i really appreciate this conversation if i had my own singer i would probably say i want to look at the consumption and i want people to become better critical thinkers to look at everything skeptically and learn how not to get their passions and emotions hijacked but but we can we can debate that later i want to thank you for all for being with us jody westby c. E. O. And founder of Global Cyber RiskJennifer Brody legislative math manager of access now and melissa ryan editor of control all right all right delete and c. E. O. Of card strategies thank you so much for being with us great conversation thank you so what is the bottom line despite more than 2 decades since the information revolution its easier than ever to hijack peoples emotions and inflame their passions human nature hasnt changed just because technology has changed and the importance of education and Critical Thinking has never been more crucial but all of us are going to need some new rules and private companies are going to need guidance theres no easy. Around it we all share responsibility for protecting speech and penalizing those who would lie and manipulate and that is the bottom line. Of. A story 1400 years in the making. A story of succession and the leadership. As jesse that tells the story of dispute and division of the hall. The count of episode 2 on a just. 3 months the prime minister. Mission is to deliver british on the 31st about trayvon and making this country the greatest placed on a person to function is delayed but for how long follow the drama of bricks it on aljazeera cannot deal with committee unless you deal with the gap you decide oh i disagree with that this sounds like the laming the public the country for the actions of all of their seeming anybody these people well trained as much a part of all of the Islamic State machinery as he had been very and the inspiration of populism those are teachers join me mehdi hasan as i put it up for questions to my special guests and challenge them to some straight talking political debate aljazeera. I. Thank. Peter told me in doha the top stories on aljazeera a former rebel leader has been sentenced to 30 years and prison by the International Criminal court. Was convicted of 18 war crimes and crimes against humanity committed between 20022003 Catherine Sawyer has more now from goober in east and democratic republic of congo who was indicted back in the mother didnt think of it only i read into it that he then that because he was very quite well protected up to both of you eat 3 every game but in q one just