Transcripts For CSPAN2 James Steyer Which Side Of History 20240712

To talk about this topic. Explored in a new book by 104 speakers today. James steyer. Hes the ceo of Common Sense Media. Advocacy organization for families and schools. This program is being held in association with Common Sense Media. Jim is the editor of the new book, which side of history, how technology is reshaping technology in our lives. It offers a collection of essays and how technology is affecting democracy and the society and our future. This available for books are sold. His jointed today but one of the contributors to the book, frank. Hes a writer of the atlantic and author of two books himself. Contributions will focus on the new era. We will discuss that and much more here today. Before we come to the conversation, one final note before we start. You have a question for either jim or frank, please post in the youtube chat box or the facebook Comment Section target and they will be to me during this program. So lets go ahead and get started. First of all, congrats to both a new book. Lets go ahead and get started with the big picture. What is start on a larger level limo started zooming as we get a little deeper. So when we talk about, really spend an hour on this topic alone. Danielle we talk about the Biggest Issue related to these massive Tech Companies. In this moment, im curious to know what concerns you most about the growing power of big temTech Companies. Jim go ahead and started that one. James steyer thank you daniela and welcome everybody. Two things come to mind immediately. First of all the most important election of our lifetimes. And im over 40 now so i can tell you this is really important election in my opinion. Technology is playing a huge role in the selection. In any cases, there are people who are using it to undermine some of our democratic norms. So just in the context of the 2020 election, technology and the role the handful of really Large Tech Companies absolutely paramount. In the second thing is as you know, the ceo of the common sense, Advocacy Group in the United States have well over 100 million users the focus mostly on the impact of technology and the children. An on their kids education. So what we are seeing at this point is in a covid19 era were doing shows like this on the zoom screen, our kids are going to school on zoom screen. Their lives are being shaped by technology and by screen information for unit and for any hours a day. So whether it is our democracy or the kids are the future of our economy, this really is a question of the x essential society. And honestly, which side of history are the Tech Companies on. Frank i just want to say congratulations to jim. This book is the most comprehensive examination of tax they play in our lives and our personal lives and our democratic lives and economic lives. And truly starstudded cast of contributors. It is a really terrific and important volume. When i think about tech. I think about the the view, talking one of these things that just is essential human drive that humans produce tools to mae our lives better. So we created tools wherever we go and whatever era. And this becomes an extension of ourselves. The hammer is the extension of the arm, the factory is an extension of upper body strength. In the tools that we create now our intellectual tools that are extensions of our brain. In the problem is to me is that the companies that operate these tools the control the intellectual processes operate in an invisible way we are not really fully aware of all of the forces that they exert on us. So they have tremendous power to manipulate human beings. As making our lives easier is how they sell it. So they alleviate the burden of choice. So when it comes to picking a restaurant or charting a route to get from point a to point b. We really appreciate that. When it comes to things like structuring democratic conversations or structuring a marketplace, the invisible becomes danger in tight democratic. So what i think about the big Tech Companies and their role in our lives. I worry about other shaping, not just everyday life not just government and policy and marketplaces but how they are visibly and profoundly affecting the course of the species because we are merging with these machines. We talk about the date when something is planted in your brain and were already wearing them in our wrists. And something the bridge of your nose. But the the days when we merge with machines. The more profound sort of way is just around the corner. Unless we set up the rice sorts of rules and frameworks. Not just giving ourselves over the machines. But ever to be companies that run and control those machines. Danielle is a great way to explain that frank. And there will be questions along the way that talks directly at this and specifically about your chapter which kind of discusses this in a more profound way. I want to quickly touch on something given the moment we are in. I know since the 2016 president ial election, we have learned a lot about the World Technology and roll it is played in our democracy. Weve learned a lot since then. A lot has come out. Were still learning i think. And what we have seen is a little bit of two things. We have seen further division of our country. Thats happening within politics on its own but obviously we are sing this sort of amplified through technology. And were also saying these companies desperately try to curtail some of this. How well they are doing. I dont know but i am curious on both of your opinions. Do you think it is getting any better. If youre still looking at 2016 versus where we are now. Have we gotten any better. James steyer i would say is no part in 16, square the probably the biggest adversary that we have, russia manipulated our election on behalf of one of the candidates. Thats an absolute disgrace. Imagine if we had set in 2015, when we were in high school or college, that the Biggest International adversary would manipulate her election. With the access to one of the two major candidates for president , is mind boggling. The more importantly, what are the Major Companies in america facebook. But thats exactly what happened. By the way, that continues to happen to the state. In the second thing that happens again im going to put her point to figure significantly and facebook and instagram. Theyve also spread division. When youve looked at the formation of White Supremacy groups and militia groups. In the justice mornings in a plot to assassinate the government, the governor of michigan by some white supremacist, militia crazies in michigan. That was on facebook. As with the group formed departed something in some ways, was worse in 2016 because we didnt know about it. But in 2020, we know about it. And some of the companies are doing nothing about it. Other giving lip service to it. By the way they are profiting massively at the same time from people who are trying to use those platforms for misinformation disinformation as you mentioned daniel, division. It is a really interesting moment. And the companies themselves, bear enormous responsibility as do the politicians who in some cases have actually encouraged them to miss dropped. But through a democratic norm standpoint, this is unprecedented. It is a clarion call to all of us no matter what her political perspective to be involved. Frank what you think. Frank i think it a micro level, there are certain things and you will now. When it comes to russian interference. I think that if facebook or twitter the Tech Companies, they see some sign of it, going to jump on the problem because they do not want to be tagged the same sort of way they were in 2017. But i think a lot of what they do to kinda point to the even bigger problem, to take this position on the day, the one hand, and kind of grateful that facebook is taking action here. And that they are doing something to try to camp down on the conspiracies the said are spread through their machines. And on other hand, if you gotta say, theres so much power invested in these companies, so there is then, unprecedented source of ways. And who decides with decides what is a conspiracy and what is not a conspiracy. A couple people who are not democratically elected departed they have extreme profit interests. But i think the biggest problem, the concentration of power in the other big problem is its broken the world of the way in which were not going to be able to quickly repair it. That is theyve destroyed authoritative institutions. The guardians of truth. So media and the institutions are so distracted in the world. Theres a reason that conspiracy flourishes friends not just that it is coming from facebook but that facebook wrote the institution that we are actually the primary byways of truth to the public. Danielle actually i totally agree. It and you talk about it, i will i think it is a mixture of politics and tech. Sort of destroying the trust in institutions. So great point. And actually very important segway to when i was going to ask next which is all of this has already happened. People have already are sorted down the rabbit hole, the genie is out of the bottle. The groups are forming and they will continue to form. Like facebook has already openly admitted in sort of like an arms race like to stay ahead of this. Which i dont know if you can stay ahead of it. Im curious, when we do now. I these technologies they exist. They will continue to exist in some form. I think we can be as idealistic as we want to be but i cant and we cant just say okay everybody throughout your laptop. When we do now. Through a very simple. It and think youre starting to see this happen. And if i do say that run the most Important Organization Advocacy Group in the United States is not globally is actually done several of the things. First and foremost, completely deregulate in the environment for the past 15 years and has been a joke. So the Political Leadership to glean washington dc advocated the response ability. Allowed this as frank and i and you describe happened in a vacuum. With a complete and utter pathetic behavior of washington dc. Both sides of the aisle. They failed to regulate anything. Even though a Public Square was literally being turned upside down. Any of our democratic and economic norms. So number one, you can do what we did in california. Landmark privacy act, the first privacy one in 20 years in 2018 is not the law of the land. So thats an example that we have to have government relation. Any on the electoral results, youre going to have a chance, level and for everybody because we passed the journal there and along gdp in your, you never privacy regimen that all Companies Really have follow. But you need to prep federal privacy law. A big falsity platform account ability loss which we need to talk about. The idea that the Tech Companies are not treated like the publisher. Danielle you were for a publisher. Its and why by the way. Common sense media is a publisher which is hundreds of millions of users. I am responsible for what is on my platform and so his fortune digital. So you will have to see number one, a clear set of regulatory structures. Because the companies themselves are incapable of self regulation. In second going have to hold Companies Accountable for their errors go through regulatory structures but also public training, we done a campaign of the past couple of months, called stop paid for profit. Monthlong advertising boycott by any of the largest advertisers in the world. You are going to have to put pressure at the court levels because theres been such an accumulation of power in a small handful of hands. But the public is just going have to step up and play the roles. I think were starting to see that. Youve really seen that in this election much more than in 2016 or in 2018. The public have to become more aware of the impacts of tech on our societies. Call for thoughtful regulation. Up at the roles of government, and Corporate Responsibility than a role every Single Person in the audience to hold the situation accountable and get us to the place who want to be. And those of the three things i say need to happen. Frank. Frank i think its situate ourselves the pandemic where everything, all of the problems of society have become exaggerated. In some ways, easier to see. Cc the way in which a lot of formally public responsibilities and then become vested in private actors. In the government has failed and so any ways over the course of this pandemic that the ended on, google becomes an institution in which the public actually has greater faith in a lot of ways than their own government. And i think that needs to be reversed. I think 30s to be a reinvigoration of government and restoration of state and public institutions. I think there needs to be, theres a report that came out just the other day is one of the most significant documents produced by government in a very long time. And congress in a very long time. If not been published, lesson 2090s out, president ial election. It would been all over the front pages. So the you provide us a blueprint for what the next administration could do with big tech which is theres going to be some form of breakup of a least some of these companies parted and something that we dont need to fear, something that we should welcome. And i think it will actually produce greater innovations. I think it will be healthy for the democracy. But i also just want to have five, there is, i think we actually need to have the paradigm change the way that we individually act. So that what needs to happen is we have been passive consumers in the school big scheme. And i think you promoted Common Sense Media. And that i would say, is a time for us to behave more actively as citizens and also to reserve greater control over technologys role in our own lives. We need to be countercultural about this. You see it happening. Its one of the things that unfortunately will i will thrust upon us. We are so utterly dependent on technology rated and presume and web acts in all of these technologies that allow this to continue but on the other hand, we also see how tiring it is to live a life on greens and our screens. And as much as it is wonderful to have these tools, we cannot allow it to become salt whole vice. That requires us to a search greater control. James steyer soy of a stanford professor for more than 30 years. I have a class right now on election to thousands. And its on zoom. It is not the same thing in front of a Live Audience of the thousand kids. His 2000 people on zoom screen. So this past monday night, my guest work john hennessy, the former president of stanford. In the wellknown tech journalist who and expert on technology and elections. So cara who is thoughtful enough and outspoken at the top of the list in my opinion, said that john hennessy, the chair and google alphabet, john, you are going to be broken up. Google is going to be broken up. Why dont you face the facts now. Its going to be good for you by the way. Going to actually be even more valuable at the end of the day. But is really an interesting moment. She said it in front of 2000 people. She said youre the moisture and used to run this university. When a cute face the facts for able going to break you up. It should be broken up. Facebook should be broken up. Enforce to take up with what is happening and instagram. I thought it was one of the most and john hennessy, he smiled and laughed. He said it may be the truth. So the congressman needs to report. So for the first time that we have dealt with some of the confrontation of power issues. The fact that in an unprecedented way in American History, small handful of companies have achieved a level of impact and dominance on our lives and institutions, unprecedented in American History. So how we address this will determine which side of history we are all on. Frank can i just one thing. I think that in terms of appreciating the state, i think the book does an excellent job of this is that what is at stake is actually almost spiritual. It is about maintaining autonomy but also protecting the communities and preserving institutions, at the most basic level as we have seen the way in which dependence upon Technology Comes to interfere with familiar life. The kind of draws us apart. Even when were residing in the same cubicle spaces. And to protect the thing that we really care about, once they are gone, they are gone. We cant dance around the ultimate stakes. And again, the pandemic example, i stroll down my main street in washington and icy all of the stores gone. All the amazon packages. And this is not some game. We all know that in our core. I want to have, my life is richer if i have five stores. A local marketplace i have interactions with people who dont look like me. Who there are vendors who actually care about what the street looks like and are trying to in prove that. I think as economic structure going into this next administration i think we need to talk about some of these core values as we remake things. Danielle you actually drove right into the regulation. Obviously you touched on antitrust jim i know jim you have a particular stamp on this. Cover everything we been talking about. It was a real controversial thing right now. As of those who dont know what section 230 basically does is allow the Tech Companies from being held liable for unit two other users have. So it is not facebooks fault. If so that is a way that section 230 is benefiting the Tech Companies. Jim, i think you are actually not a fan of section 230. So lets talk a little bit about that. James steyer in the book, i wrote a piece about section 230 with my colleague read and a good friend bruce reed. For Clinton Obama and Vice President bidens chief of staff. Very knowledgeable. What you just explained daniel is right. Section 230, in 1996, when Mark Zuckerberg was in diapers any google, when they were in high school. Guys, they set this law. Basically, the purpose of section 230 was to prevent certain kinds of pornographys and other stuff on the internet. But also in an nothing to do with what was immunized. It was designed to protect the internet from bad behavior. In immunized Tech Companies do treat them as publishers rated but is you telling the spread unlike by the way, what abc or nbc comcast, a print radio tv publication, responsible for what is on their platform. So no one said anything about this and 24 years. Ive been going to various senators. Once we make the break on privacy. Want to talk about this as well. Once we make that landmark privacy act which is the law of the land in america. Over the objections of some of the largest Tech Companies in the world. Based in california and you can see that we can do this print so we can be fully glass two three years. Reimagining section 230. So heres the deal. If you need to be held. We should treat the large tech like facebook and instagram users the same way we treat large Television Cable radio and print outlets. You should have standards and practices the content on your platform. You should have teams who control that. Even if it is user generated content. If you do not inure to the standards should be punished for that. Held liable for that. Is a fairly simple concept. Its how we operate in all aspects of our society. That said, i made law professor at stanford. I am well aware of the fact that you do not want to have a position where government is regulating speech per se. But there is a very positive way to completely overhaul section 230. I have a piece with bruce in the book called why section 230 is bad for kids. And how we can change it. By the way, i think we will change it in 2021. It just requires a change of regime in washington. Because, congress and by the way, donald trump yesterday i believe tweeted to section 230. So you have people on both sides of the political aisle. Josh hawley and some of the other most conservative centers in the country are calling for the use of this repeal or complete overhaul of 230s well. In the claim that the media Tech Companies are biased against them. I think that is complete baloney. That said, its going to lead to a massive overhaul initiative happened a decade ago by the way. This was all preventable. They do not deserve immunity anymore and fortune deserves it. If you published a speech in violent stuff a fortune platform. Susan happy medium here. It is more people on both sides are going to have to come together. They will have to re class this structure will have to have a confident in functioning commission here as well to enforce the law. Im optimistic that you will see section 230, massive change. I think you will see privacy Even Stronger than the california law. And i think you will see that era of finally regulating the Tech Industries with common sense awful projections that benefit the public and our democratic norms and institutions. That is just around the corner. Do you agree frank. Frank i do. We need to dispense with some of those tech dreams about the way the internet functions because we know the power is concentrated. There is no free speech on the platforms is partially true. As a platform that governs the rules. And rather have an uncountable Corporation Setting the rules, we need to have is a set of public minded standards so there is some form of democratic accountability to the ways that the Public Square is structured. Danielle i want to challenge you because anothers a pit lot of people probably watching this insane that but you know, both on section 230 and on antitrust. It pulls these companies away if we put these new regulations way it is not going to be the same. Mark would be a look to go on facebook and say my opinions. Theres a lot of people who already believe that there covering things unfairly. And there are a lot of people are also concerned about breaking up of the tech and what that could cause for possible security and possible disability to abuse the services we have today. Curious to that kind of pushback. James steyer i think youre going to have a robust public discussion i think youre going to need are in the phrase, a commonsense solution to to this. Going to be asked to have some of the most thoughtful people in the country with looking at longterm best interests of this Society Needs platforms. Similar not true that youre not going to be able to put up your own opinion on suffering thats not true. Maybe limitations of whether or not you can put hate speech on or certain forms of violent content that would violate any First Amendment norms under existing law that cover all of the other platforms and expression in this country. So any of those fears are there. And so part of this as we not have the discussion until very recently. The fact that youre using the term section 230 is ironic to me. Having serious. We been talking by this issue in privacy since i wrote talking about facebook in 2012. Two years ago, we said section 230, no one knows what youre talking about. They can be part of the supermarket and make 700 fizzling the last six months that the public authority, the policymakers that we actually have no regulation. Im very optimistic that if you have leadership, by the way it will require national leadership. But if we have thoughtful common sense national leadership. I believe we can address all of these regulatory ways away will make and have everybody allow for diversity in the public discourse. And abroad variety of opinions but in the way that is much healthier for our democracy. Do you agree frank. Frank i actually, i think the way i think about it is that i have faith in our ability to create democratic standards and creates more democratic structures. I also have faith in the market and in the companies ability to innovate our ways out of these problems. I dont think youre going to be animated unless there is significant public pressure on them to change. So once you start to, i worked at microsoft and how they evolved in response to the government antitrust case in the late 1990s. I think that was one of the most underrated episodes in american political economy is a microsoft is a company that behaves incredibly badly. Now worried about the governments breaking them up and they started to behave more responsibly as it relates to consumers. And then they started to behave like more mature publicly minded company. They were less abusive of the power that it had. And i look back over the course of American History and what you see is you have a series of communications monopolies buried in with the government very successfully is an prevents is monopolies extending themselves into the next round. So they cant control the next two things. The post office, First Communications monopoly in the government said no, you cannot get into that telegraph business present at Western Union come in some government help they established a monopoly. And in the telegraph business. Bent Ulysses S Grant was going to nationalize it so we were restrained when it came to telephone business. And you had at t of course which operated under a. Massive constraints from the government and the government prevented them from getting into the Radio Business and so on. And i think that is really where we need ultimately to the government to do in the biggest picture which is to for the next set of innovators to come around and produce technology that theyve had better securities than working now. But a more responsible way of curating the Public Square in the facebook model. So what a great and i will tell you that if i have to work with all the people who work with the Tech Companies whether they like it or not, they respond common sense. As a difference in leadership of some of the companies for example. Google, obviously one of the Massive Companies here. I would say leadership at google now and john hennessy, the board chair, says that the new leadership has much better sense of the Public Interest. The been very important. They have a huge dominant role in education in the United States. Our audience knows it or not, basically most teachers in the United States particular Distance Learning are using google platforms. Because they expect to the degree to which google just one example reaches in so any aspects of her life, they dominate education. The bar for the most part company. I am optimistic, thoughtful regulatory structure on top of it. People who run google will see that as a public good and really investing that in a positive way. And think similarly, you mentioned to party to the ceo of zoom, suddenly you never heard of it a year ago but everybody now knows that it is. And eric, and a member event very successful businessman. Look, we know them well because their part of the platform called while in an open schools that was google. So they had big privacy issues as you may require. They had a huge privacy problems a person we went directly with eric and people on the company because when the number one Privacy Group in the country to help them address that issue. I am optimistic with a good framework about Public Interest oriented regulation, coupled with more leadership from some of the companies that we are going to get product. We keep calling out facebook. Funny because they more than any other Company Actually think it is the leadership in the structure governance structure one person has singular control all of the decisions. I think theyre the ones of the most troubling so far. But philanthropic lady Mark Zuckerberg and his wife have been very awful. So perhaps theyll come around but i think there might have be hammered big time before that really happens. Frank and i have one. Danielle frank i actually want to get to the next chapter. Frank we really quick. I think the danger is that if we create a regulatory structure where we managed to concentrate Corporate Power and create an annoyance with government with the power is in turn contacted by a regulatory window that is. We end up going into chinese sort of direction where that relationship becomes an exploitation of. James steyer i agree. Danielle im going to quickly get to this excellent frank. We do have questions coming in from our audience. So i want to leave some time for that. I think its really important that we talk about your chapter of where we are headed. So everybody watching or listening, frank, write a chapter in james book but deep space. Really just want to read this part. His height troubling. So with everything we talked about, the misinformation and all the problems. He says soon this may seem like an age of innocence. Charlie live in a world where i routinely deceived us but not so far in a collapse of reality. Hes talking about obviously dissemination a deep state. Weve already seen some interesting ones. And luckily we not seen that completely pickup and take over our lives yes. Receiving the manipulated videos already play a role in the selection. Leading up to the selection. Be seen several other videos to make it appear that something happened to make it appear whether the time was slowed down or sneaky sleepy joe biden, that was a video that was manipulated. It and i am curious frank, could you tell us in your thoughts, how far are we away from convincing deep state sort of causing this real societal damage that you are talking about rated. Frank i think it does connect to everything were talking about in the beginning about this trust of authority how we do not know, hustling ago if you look at the last couple of president ial elections, there has been some piece of visual evidence that is played a decisive role in shaping the narrative of the election about the outcome. So the mitt romney 47 percent video. On the axis of the hollywood video. And there is something about in a world where people dont trust the media so much anymore. Theres something about that there very similar to of those videos, raw authentic the causes people to really trust them. Or Something Like the george floyd or any of the other videos, those recorded instances of Police Brutality have been so profoundly important to mobilizing Public Opinion and creating a key change. So i worry that one last thing we can can all agree upon will suddenly disappear. There will be nothing capable of rallying the public to believe something happened. So if we can no longer, i dont know for that faraway really to creating convincing holy convincing deep take videos. On the cusp of that. Its one of these Big Companies and commercial interest in producing it, it can happen i think relatively quickly. We are prepared for it. Like Everything Else were talking about, there is no thoughtful structure for dealing with the problem. So once our ideals of shared reality can fully start to collapse. Really do think it is challenging the very foundations of democratic discourse. We then agree on anything. If we cannot agree on what is real and the ability. Danielle were already having a problem with us. It reality that everybody has a different reality depending on what theyre either watching eating or even just seeing on their own and in their own vacuum so to speak. Suet that is actually very bright. To some extent, a more robust real tory scheme would align to go out to a platform that enables the to be taken the platform. Theres absolutely a liability structure that could be for both regulatory purposes but also individual liabilities. If you are able to sue, like in france piece about nancy pelosi, deep fake video, if nancy pelosi and the right to sue facebook for that. Im sorry, you have a huge liability issue there. The companies will clean it up. This marketplace working. There also individual legal ways to go after written to return to a much more normal regime. But we have to have a regulatory structure in place. Danielle okay, flowing to get to a couple of quick audience questions for fourway get to closing thoughts. Because i have a feeling well going to have a lot of closing because. But i will just one of the lessons they come in. The first question is why does more propaganda from russians matter and others are coming in from other political parties. I dont know if anybody has an answer. Frank everything a lot about russia and manipulation. I think with russia what were they have done in regards, exploit something preexisting party theory explaining or creating this polarization and exploiting platforms. They understood the weaknesses of facebook in some ways using it in a way in which it was designed and is score. Facebook is manipulation machine where the platform is trying to manipulate its users into spending as much time of the platform as possible by riling up their emotions and the russians were using it as intended. I think it is okay to establish a hierarchy of things that we care about. And things that we should all agree with is for a Foreign Government to be able to come into our country and try to manipulate the political ecosystem. In order to undermine the foundations of democracies. I think while top does a lot of horrible things, i think in the scheme of things, we should all be able to read that is that the russian interference unfortunately because of the president , were not able to agree of the interference. Frank think insectivore. I actually think it is read by a foreign adversary. We would literally respond if it werent for the leadership of our country. And that they were benefiting and having a unique and it was to explain this relationship. I dont. The snapped of warfare against our country. And in normal times and under normal leadership we would respond is inactive warfare. Very different when Foreign Government adversary goes after us. Danielle another question coming in. It was like that i am assuming about moderation content moderation. I am not fully sure. Why so much focus on nationalists including the tiny when far left fanatics are attacking them are ignored. James steyer ideally for creating rules for the internet there would be politically and ideologically agnostic and we would be able to establish sort of what is out of bounds because of the distortions that is somehow harmful to the common good or democratic good in the way that we achieve. I do think it is hard to establish any sort of equivalent right now just given the level of right wing conspiratorial thinking. You have a president who must condemn and that is festered in the way that it has. I cannot say that its all the same and happening in employees across the board because its not. James steyer i agree, agnostic rules. But you seen White Supremacy groups and others much more active in conspiracy groups. Yes it should cut across the board and relate to everybody. Danielle the next question again is on content moderation related to last question braden jim i think you actually already kind of started to talk about this a little bit. Its a concern about who decides what is true or not. I dont know in the future, if this person is just asking like what is true or not. Especially if theyre on pilot messages where is unclear. And i think you had also mentioned a little bit about regulation and possible rules. These to get into this gray area of what is true and what is not. And what is the line of halftruths. Is that fair. Lets explore that a little bit. James steyer my reaction is when it comes to the problems we are talking about, this is an issue for the Corporate Responsibility. Then i am a ceo of a very large platform that will have designers of today. Not responsible for what is on the platform. So Mark Zuckerberg and those of our responsible. And so i think that when you get into government determining what is true or not, you got a slippery slope the work not going to be able to get to. All company so should have the responsibility to moderate whats on their platforms rated by the way, theyre coining money, trillion dollar corporation. They have the ability to do moderations. By the way, will there be controversial decisions. Yes. But the big bucks in the big power comes big responsibility. It is this something all the platforms need to be responsible for and held responsible for. But i dont think youre going to get government individuals to determine what is tour not. But all other publishing in the 20th century, we found a very confident but his work very well Broadcasting Television and radio, and you can basically establish that you do that for social media and the internet as well. So im confident we can do that in a thoughtful and common sense play. But theres a response ability of these trillion Dollar Companies to do the jobs. In some cases simply cannot do that. Frank i think one of the reasons him antitrust, if you create greater competition and decentralized world, and what one social media platform does does not necessarily shape discourse across all platforms. So what may be acceptable in one place is not necessarily acceptable, youre creating different ecosystems with people have different comfort levels about the way in which the platform is governed of. I think ultimately it is a lot of power to concentrate in the hands of these corporations. I think youre right we have created regimes in the past that show that it is possible to impose certain rules that require these companies to act more in the common good. But i think these mediums are also very different than broadcast mediums. It is harder to create those rules. The nature of a democratic system, social media environment that people will say stupid things and theyll promote theories about the world that are untrue. It we cannot stop that. And more should we want to tamp that down entirely. There are certain things that do cross the become Democratic Society and deep takes a good example of that. Where there is maybe not an entirely bright line. The lines we could establish it is important to establish. Danielle our next question is from the audience. Why are the restrictions and even censorship actively over Electronic Communications coming from actions normally most concerned about restrictions and censorship. James steyer i think it is a fair point. If i interpret the questions, you could been a cardcarrying member of the acl view yesterday now suddenly youre calling for these private corporations to tamp down on speech. I do think there is at some level probably of inconsistency there in terms of our values. I think that we do live in an era where speech is under assault from any Different Directions whether it is workplaces where i have a tattoo or a very tshirt. I could get fired from my job. If i post something on social media the my employer does not like, i can get fired from my job. I think we need to be extremely conscious of preserving and protecting speech at large. Frank common sense and censorship. Danielle very good. Frank, this excellent maybe geared towards you. It what is the latest you have heard about videos or similar tech to protect from deep take. Frank i would be mass grading if was pretending like it was an expert on various Technological Solutions for these things. I kind of pray that these things get innovated and that they exist in the ways for us in corporations to leverage their ingenuity to create systems that ruthie sings out and create clear determinations. What is wonderful, i dont really believe this is possible but to have these kind of algorithm make things, the adjudicator of what is real and what is not real. Its kind of a dream. I think that ultimately some of these things are actually. Tough calls. Then require human judgment. Because there are deep take parties. That should be protected speech. Should not want to see stepped out. It might be sensitive enough to come to root out the example so just picked up to born of human beings who can then adjudicate the trickier cases. Danielle another deep take question. Not sure if youll be able to answer because its. Specific. His National Security apparatus involved in states guarding against deep thanks. Frank i can comment broadly on what i think the National Security apparatus is involved in. And i think that after the 2016 elections, there was cooperation between Tech Companies and the fbi. It was very slow in developing but its developed and i think theres a lot of communication back and forth. This really necessary for the Tech Companies because there is a with the cia or flag to come crossed the attempts by the iranians of the russians chinese to manipulate platforms. That human intelligence is always would be more useful than what the investigators on the platforms of the algorithms of the platforms are going to be able to root out themselves. We need that cooperation ultimately to keep platforms a step ahead. Danielle got it. It in the more general question, going to ask this last question before we get a closing question which will serve help wrap up the whole thing. An audience question do some political factions today want all opposition silenced on media. The sounds like your opinion on what you think here. Speech of the main but it should not happen. That would be my reaction. There may be some people who believe that but have extraordinary traditions of free speech and democracy in our country. Some of them have been under assault that should not be the case i hope the wisdom and common sense will prevail. That is my reaction to that. Frank one of my favorite pieces of writing john milton, tract john milton, the epic poet original enlightenment thinker wrote about the virtues of speech. Now ultimately we do need to be tested by things that we cant stand. And then i do worry that as a society whether it is because its a bubble or because of gun culture the papers orthodoxy, we cease to be exposed to those things that we find disagreeable. I do say that we cant set limits of our disagreeable speech because some speech does cross lines was okay to create communities where there are boundaries for what is acceptable and unacceptable speech. But i think that the nature of Democratic Society and the nature of a Political Society is that sometimes you have to accept your position is not the winning position. You have to accept that there are people who you coexist with who abandons that you find, are despicable. It is just how we get along. Danielle and i do want to end it on question that allows you guys to sort of thing for the answer a little bit a lot more broad and rough up sort of what we have been talking about today. Curious as to how you think technologies impacting the change in the upcoming years. How you see that broadening. Dc more, are we headed in a good direction. Should should we be concerned. What is changing in the upcoming years and sort of related to these broader issues. Sue and frank do you want now . Frank yes. I think theres a sense of inevitability that we usually have about technology that these iron laws these trajectories that we could go along theres an certain destiny that technology carries us along. I think a lot of what were talking about is retaining a sense of human a democratic regency in the face that as we rush forward into the future, i think its important not to russian important to ask questions about things, a facial software. Cant just necessarily assume that is good that it will work out the rules were eventually will keep the things constrained. I think maybe moments where we need to get the structures in place before the Technology Actually arrives otherwise it will be abused forever. So everything were talking about today is about creating structures and roles for the Talk Technology store for the human purposes. James steyer a. Optimistic in the long run and yell because i think we have a very resilient democracy and society i think we need a healthy balance in our society that protects the longterm interest of families in our democracy. The Tech Companies have a huge role of our son playing in this medley they will do that if we keep the pressure upon them. I think the government clearly has a role to play in step and regulate and think they can stop taking an action in a good election result in less than a month. And that will lead to very positive longterm changes. These are challenges but nothing more in Society Strong enough to meet them. The vast majority would like a carefully moderated thoughtful median tech environment that permits free asked russian but balances it with norms. Including things that balance, it is been missing. I think until very recently. I think it will company if we contagion, this we as citizens of people ourselves are going to change it. Ultimately it is up to all of us. Consumers, parents, young people, educators. Technology leaders. And at the end of the day, we all want the tech and ourselves to be in the right side of the history its time we are. So that is my final remark. Danielle it is a great way to wrap up. It is all the time we have for todays program. Once again, what thank the Commonwealth Club and Common Sense Media for putting this program together. Thanks again to jim and frank. And how technology is reshaping democracy in our lives. And think to frank, for your expertise and for being here as well. The club close soon be posting this video on its website, www. Commonwealth club. Org. Im danielle, Fortune Magazine and this is Commonwealth Club program has now concluded