Speaker 1: You're listening to this informed a mini series from There
Speaker 1: Are No Girls on the Internet. I'm Bridget Todd, so
Speaker 1: you might have seen that. On Wednesday, Facebook announced they
Speaker 1: were upholding their band at the twice impeached former President
Speaker 1: Donald Trump for now. Here's what you need to know. Basically,
Speaker 1: Facebook played a huge part in the January six insurrection.
Speaker 1: Facebook was the main platform mentioned by those involved. It
Speaker 1: was used even more than other platforms popular by fringe
Speaker 1: right wing types like Parlor. According to charging documents on
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, this is why we saw Facebook
Speaker 1: and other platforms band Trump On January seven's, the day
Speaker 1: after the insurrection. The band was enacted after Facebook removed
Speaker 1: two of Trump's post during the Capitol riot, including a
Speaker 1: video in which he said supporters should go home, but
Speaker 1: in which he repeated his false claim of widespread voter fraud,
Speaker 1: saying I know your pain on your hood. We had
Speaker 1: an election that was stolen from us. It should go
Speaker 1: without saying that this was an obvious lie. The election
Speaker 1: wasn't stolen, and this lie was the entire basis for
Speaker 1: his supporters storing the capital in the first place. Even
Speaker 1: though they banned him. We knew this wasn't permanent because
Speaker 1: despite being a billion dollar company, Facebook is basically incapable
Speaker 1: of making a single clear decision. Facebook pretty much threw
Speaker 1: up their hands and said they were not able to
Speaker 1: make this decision, hired the so called Oversight board to
Speaker 1: make the decision of whether Trump should be permanently banned
Speaker 1: or not for them. The Oversight Board upheld Trump's ban
Speaker 1: for now, but also said that Facebook should not have
Speaker 1: imposed an immediate suspension without clear standards, and said the
Speaker 1: company should determine a response consistent with rules applied to
Speaker 1: other users. So the whole thing was basically a massive
Speaker 1: waste of time and we're pretty much back where we started.
Speaker 1: The Facebook Board pretty much punted to Facebook and said
Speaker 1: that they should make the decision about whether to rene
Speaker 1: state Trump consistent with their policies. And now they this
Speaker 1: book has six months to figure it out. This is
Speaker 1: a real failure of leadership the Facebook Oversight board. It's
Speaker 1: basically just a way for Facebook leadership to avoid real accountability,
Speaker 1: you know, the kind of accountability that comes with making
Speaker 1: a decision. Facebook has already done so much harm to
Speaker 1: our discourse and democracy, and don't forget the kind of
Speaker 1: disinformation harassment and inciting of violence. It has been allowed
Speaker 1: to fester on their platform overwhelmingly hurts women, LGBT, hugh folks,
Speaker 1: and people of color. Now, many distractors might say that
Speaker 1: banning Trump from social media is a violation of freedom
Speaker 1: of speech, but Nora Benavidez, director of the US Free
Speaker 1: Expression programs that Pan America Foundation, says those people are
Speaker 1: just wrong. Let's revisit her episode if there Are No
Speaker 1: Girls on the Internet and listen as she gets into
Speaker 1: why banning Trump from social media is not a free
Speaker 1: speech issue. Today marks the start of Trump's second impeachment
Speaker 1: trial for his role in the insurrection on Janie Ray six.
Speaker 1: Here's Maryland Representative Jamie Raskin earlier to day at the trial.
Speaker 1: If that's not an impeachable offense, then there is no
Speaker 1: such thing. On the day Congress met to finalize the
Speaker 1: presidential election, they would have you believe there is absolutely
Speaker 1: nothing the Senate it. Now, it's clear that Trump continuously
Speaker 1: used social media to spread disinformation, including the repeated baseless
Speaker 1: lie that he won the election and that it was
Speaker 1: being stolen from him. That lie, as we know, culminated
Speaker 1: in his supporters attacking in the Capitol. But even before that,
Speaker 1: Trump has always used social media to incite violence, stoke tensions,
Speaker 1: and spread distortions and baseless claims. That is until January,
Speaker 1: when Facebook, Twitter and other platforms finally gave Trump the boot.
Speaker 1: But don't give tech leaders too much credit. They only
Speaker 1: did this after years of pressure from platform accountability advocates
Speaker 1: who warned that failure to act could lead to the
Speaker 1: kind of violence that we saw in January six And
Speaker 1: even now Facebook's oversight board is weighing whether they made
Speaker 1: the decision by kicking Trump off the platform, So it's
Speaker 1: possible that we haven't even heard the last of Trump
Speaker 1: on social media. A lot of people were questioning by
Speaker 1: banning Trump from social media, his free speech was being threatened.
Speaker 1: But Nora Benavidez, free speech attorney and the director of
Speaker 1: US free expression Programs at Pan America Foundation, a nonprofit
Speaker 1: that protects and promotes free expression, says that when it
Speaker 1: comes to understanding free speech on social media platforms, a
Speaker 1: lot of us are asking the wrong questions. I remember
Speaker 1: when the insurrection happened. It felt for me like total whiplash.
Speaker 1: There was still a kind of hesitancy, you know, concern,
Speaker 1: like what was going to happen in the lead up
Speaker 1: to the inauguration, and so that January six just somehow
Speaker 1: felt not too surprising but still very very jarring and
Speaker 1: um And in you know, the weeks that have followed,
Speaker 1: we've just tried to you know, be responsive to people.
Speaker 1: You know, people have questions like were the people storming
Speaker 1: the capital exercising their first and right? Did Trump have
Speaker 1: a right to be on Twitter and on Facebook? Um?
Speaker 1: And so a lot of questions have emerged that we've
Speaker 1: just tried to be ready to answer and to talk
Speaker 1: with people about what's really happening, because they're really really
Speaker 1: complex issues, so full disclosure. Like I have worked, as
Speaker 1: you know, work with organizations that have tried to pressure
Speaker 1: social media platforms two take disinformation seriously, and so a
Speaker 1: big part of that has been asking them to remove
Speaker 1: Trump when he, you know, tweets things that are insidiary
Speaker 1: or like inciting violence. And truly, I don't think I
Speaker 1: ever thought I would see Trump be banned from platforms,
Speaker 1: Like I remember when that happened, I was fully kind
Speaker 1: of surprised because I think I was quite used to
Speaker 1: the idea that, oh, he's just above consequences. Or accountability.
Speaker 1: There will there will never be any of it. So, um,
Speaker 1: you know, I was, I was quite surprised. What did
Speaker 1: you think when you saw Trump being banned from these platforms?
Speaker 1: The insurrection happened on I think Wednesday, and then the
Speaker 1: cascade of first you know, there were labels placed on
Speaker 1: a video of his there were then he was banned,
Speaker 1: you know, permanently suspended from Twitter, and it just sort
Speaker 1: of felt like this jaw dropping cascade where I was like,
Speaker 1: this is really happening. And immediately though, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I was watching on my own Twitter, people saying this
Speaker 1: violates the First Amendment. This is like an egregious assault
Speaker 1: on free speech. There was so much hate and confusion
Speaker 1: and frankly miseducation. And part of what you know is
Speaker 1: important to keep in mind is that Twitter, Facebook, those
Speaker 1: are private companies. And you know, I am a First
Speaker 1: Amendment lawyer, like I firmly believe in the ability for
Speaker 1: all of us to engage in open discourse to hear
Speaker 1: what other people think. But Trump has absolutely contributed to,
Speaker 1: if not been, the biggest super spreader of dangerous misinformation.
Speaker 1: Um that I think is absolutely information, you know, with
Speaker 1: the goal of kind of dividing us and making people
Speaker 1: believe these false narratives. Deep platforming is actually pretty effective.
Speaker 1: Booting Trump from social media almost immediately slowed the spread
Speaker 1: of false information on those platforms. Signal Labs found that
Speaker 1: false claims about election rigging dropped from two point five
Speaker 1: million mentions to six hundred eighty eight thousand mentions across platforms,
Speaker 1: and hashtags commonly used to spread election rigging claims like
Speaker 1: hashtag March for Trump dropped by nine point And it's
Speaker 1: not just Trump. A study conducted by the Election Integrity
Speaker 1: Partnership found that just a few dozen pro Trump Twitter accounts,
Speaker 1: including Trump's own account, where the original sources for about
Speaker 1: a fifth of misleading election claims around the election. It
Speaker 1: really goes to show you how just a small handful
Speaker 1: of accounts can be responsible for major k us on platforms.
Speaker 1: I was actually very much in favor of his being removed.
Speaker 1: I think what was necessary and really good was that
Speaker 1: data immediately emerged from a couple of researchers that found
Speaker 1: about seventy of the misinformation that had been on Twitter
Speaker 1: was no longer there thanks to his removal, along with
Speaker 1: the removal of about thirty seven others who were sort
Speaker 1: of the biggest influencers and spreaders of misinformation. And I
Speaker 1: think that we need data like that to be able
Speaker 1: to make the case again two platforms in the future,
Speaker 1: because you know, the big criticism was this just didn't
Speaker 1: happen soon enough. And I'm all here for the criticism,
Speaker 1: but I also think we need to lay the foundation for,
Speaker 1: like what are solid policy and community guideline standards that
Speaker 1: the platforms are implementing that then have data to backup
Speaker 1: that when they do that it benefits the health of
Speaker 1: the Internet. People were able to say, like, here was
Speaker 1: the measurable impact of banning Trump and and other accounts
Speaker 1: who were responsible for spreading this kind of thing. Here
Speaker 1: was the measurable impact. And truly what has been the
Speaker 1: down side? Less noise, less live you know, spreading like
Speaker 1: wildfire on these platforms. I I it's been interesting to
Speaker 1: see how there was such a quick benefit, like a
Speaker 1: quick nalus benefit, with like very few in my book,
Speaker 1: if any downsides. I think there maybe the downside of
Speaker 1: people who supported Trump feeling somehow more quote unquote like
Speaker 1: in air quotes, I'm doing this sensor um and that
Speaker 1: somehow their censorship right makes them emotional, driving them potentially
Speaker 1: to be more upset. And you know my work on
Speaker 1: sort of the psychology side of misinformation, and that I
Speaker 1: think we have to, you know, stay vigilant to the
Speaker 1: ways that people will be emotional to information, the way
Speaker 1: we are all emotional to news. I mean, our relationship
Speaker 1: to news is emotional. Um. We've seen the way you know,
Speaker 1: platforms hinge our interaction on our likes or dislikes, and
Speaker 1: so it's I think important to make sure we don't
Speaker 1: completely marginalize people that may actually be movable. Uh maybe
Speaker 1: not today, but down the line. And so I just
Speaker 1: I kind of have this like lingering concern about how
Speaker 1: we engage those that continue to believe alternate realities, you know,
Speaker 1: that continue to want to see Trump um. And it's
Speaker 1: really hard to read those people. So I just it's
Speaker 1: like a sort of weird gut instinct where I kind
Speaker 1: of wonder, what are they thinking about? How can we
Speaker 1: sort of call them in and and talk with them
Speaker 1: about these issues in ways where you know, if they
Speaker 1: had been unmovable before. Slowly, slowly, some of these Trump
Speaker 1: supporters are starting to see the cracks in that reality.
Speaker 1: I hadn't even thought about that, Um, sort of the
Speaker 1: kind of emotional response that someone might have to feeling
Speaker 1: the shame of you know, platform saying your ideas what
Speaker 1: you have to say is not acceptable here. I hadn't
Speaker 1: even really thought about that, and I think it really
Speaker 1: highlights to me that at the heart of a lot
Speaker 1: of your work with Pan America and just generally is
Speaker 1: empathy and sort of trying to remember that deep down
Speaker 1: we're talking about people. People are all complex. We we
Speaker 1: are all all humans are like driven by a complex
Speaker 1: series of feelings and motivations internally, and so remembering that
Speaker 1: these are not just users quote unquote with their people
Speaker 1: who have these complex emotional responses. I think that empathy
Speaker 1: can get lost in conversations about disinformation and how it
Speaker 1: spreads and what motivates people to spread it. Um. But
Speaker 1: I am grateful that though that that idea seems to
Speaker 1: be at the heart of so much of the work
Speaker 1: that you do to create off ramps for folks like
Speaker 1: this bridget I have to say, I never thought I
Speaker 1: would play even close to like the therapist role that
Speaker 1: I feel like I do sometimes. Um, you know, being
Speaker 1: a low are thinking about the law, thinking about legality
Speaker 1: on Twitter or Facebook, and yet being faced with people
Speaker 1: who ask questions and actually want to engage somehow. And
Speaker 1: I think that the the problem the Internet has bred
Speaker 1: is that, as we all know we're siloed, we seek
Speaker 1: out our own and difference of any sort, whether it's
Speaker 1: something we can accept and and listen to, or something
Speaker 1: we find so offensive and egregious like we simply want
Speaker 1: to shut it down and not hear it um and
Speaker 1: Trump I think went so far as too then when
Speaker 1: he heard things he didn't like, he called those lies.
Speaker 1: And the tendency, of course is to uh, you know,
Speaker 1: shut people out, to disengage, and that is not getting
Speaker 1: us anywhere. In fact, I think the idea that we
Speaker 1: never engage with people who are radicalizing, or that we
Speaker 1: never seek out others, has led to things like the insurrection,
Speaker 1: where we need to engage, We need to find entry point.
Speaker 1: And I think we need to have a kind of
Speaker 1: expectation setting where we're not all going to agree, but
Speaker 1: we can exist in disagreement and be civil and believe
Speaker 1: in each other's humanity. Um. Of course, if our disagreement
Speaker 1: is grounded in someone believing you or I shouldn't exist
Speaker 1: or have the same rights, that's different. But the level
Speaker 1: of empathy that I hope we can bring sometimes to
Speaker 1: our online discourse is something that can try to create
Speaker 1: space for understanding. UM And, I'm really glad that you
Speaker 1: see and talk about empathy in this way, that you
Speaker 1: see the value of those things that as someone who
Speaker 1: is a storyteller, you know, you focus in media and stories,
Speaker 1: like it's so critical to remember that even if we
Speaker 1: find it somehow offensive, like we have to find ways
Speaker 1: to engage and find each other's humanity, even if it
Speaker 1: sounds corny. It doesn't sound corny. I mean, I often
Speaker 1: it's it's you said that you feel like a therapist.
Speaker 1: And when I have these conversations about tech platforms, it's
Speaker 1: funny how often they turn they turned to sort of
Speaker 1: things that sound a bit corny, like empathy or you know,
Speaker 1: remind remembering there was a human at the other on
Speaker 1: the other end of the screen, things like that. UM And,
Speaker 1: I think you you really hit on something that is
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why I'm so interested in disinformation
Speaker 1: and making this show is that I feel that the
Speaker 1: thing that you just described as silos and sort of
Speaker 1: note people being closed off and all of that, I
Speaker 1: feel like we've gotten to a place where you can
Speaker 1: no longer assume it's it's no longer easy to assume
Speaker 1: good faith when you're having discussions on the internet. Right. So,
Speaker 1: when I first got online, the reason why I found
Speaker 1: such a freedom and love of talking on the internet
Speaker 1: was because it felt like I was able to reach
Speaker 1: so many different people, get so many different perspectives, and
Speaker 1: it felt relatively safe. Now I feel that that doesn't
Speaker 1: like that safety is gone right, Like, like when I
Speaker 1: have a conversation with somebody on Twitter, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: if there's someone who we can have a good faith
Speaker 1: disagreement or a good faith dialogue. It just feels like
Speaker 1: we're no longer able to assume good faith in all
Speaker 1: of our discourse online because the temperature has been turned
Speaker 1: up so high, in part by things like disinformation and
Speaker 1: you know, lies and and and violent rhetoric online. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna make it really personal. Sometimes I get retweeted on
Speaker 1: Twitter by people who then have a comment about my tweet,
Speaker 1: and often the assumptions, often wild assumptions people will make
Speaker 1: about more of me and who I am. UM really
Speaker 1: stress me out. And I totally totally know what you're
Speaker 1: saying where it feels like you may not be able
Speaker 1: to trust someone. UM. And so I often try to
Speaker 1: then engage with the people that retweet me, whether it
Speaker 1: is someone on frankly any side of the political spectrum, um,
Speaker 1: making these assumptions and in no way to defend myself,
Speaker 1: but just to open conversation. I've had really wonderful learning
Speaker 1: experiences where people will kind of turned down their temperature
Speaker 1: when I respond in ways that engage them with open
Speaker 1: ended questions, UM. Which is hard to do. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can't do that at scale every day. UM. And
Speaker 1: that's one of the questions that I think about all
Speaker 1: the time, is how we scale empathy. But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: those like little one offs that can help change or slowly,
Speaker 1: you know, bring people together and help their attitudes kind
Speaker 1: of move at a slower pace where they're assuming less
Speaker 1: about me or you. I think it's a great thing. Um.
Speaker 1: And the Internet has changed. I mean I remember when
Speaker 1: something like Section two thirty, you know, not to get technical,
Speaker 1: but when that was an exciting regulation to actually help
Speaker 1: people feel safer on the internet, to be able to
Speaker 1: like have conversations on blogs and the you know, the
Speaker 1: internet is just such a different place now that it
Speaker 1: feels so um You're always like just about to have
Speaker 1: a complete crisis on Twitter. That's how I always fee.
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, this could really go badly, and and
Speaker 1: we can't all spend all of our days, you know,
Speaker 1: having those meaningful, slow conversations. So I guess I just
Speaker 1: sort of wonder, like, how do we scale empathy? Let's
Speaker 1: pick a click break and we're back. I say this
Speaker 1: a lot. We need to completely reimagine how we think
Speaker 1: of the Internet, and that means we're thinking so much
Speaker 1: of the infrastructure around technology. It means creating a tech
Speaker 1: press that centers and valorizes empathy, not scale. It means
Speaker 1: building platforms that center people, not quote users or clicks
Speaker 1: or how much time we spend with our faces at
Speaker 1: a screen. Now, what I'm describing is a radical reimagining,
Speaker 1: and it might sound as big or as complicated as
Speaker 1: like smashing the patriarchy or ending white supremacy. But I
Speaker 1: believe that it's possible. I think there are enough people
Speaker 1: out there like you and me who truly believe in
Speaker 1: the power and possibility of the Internet and the power
Speaker 1: of expression. And I believe that when we come together,
Speaker 1: big radical things really are possible. And I know that
Speaker 1: we have the power to radically rethink the internet so
Speaker 1: that it's safer and more accessible and so that it
Speaker 1: works for more people. I totally agree. I mean, and
Speaker 1: smashing the patriarchy and ening white supremacy are also you know,
Speaker 1: valid and worthwhile endeavor. This is how I feel like
Speaker 1: all of it, just yes, and to everything, um, you know,
Speaker 1: the best tech emphasis, like the people who are working
Speaker 1: on innovation uh that I think are doing the best work,
Speaker 1: understand that these are not tech issues. They're human issues.
Speaker 1: And we're never going to solve everything by sort of
Speaker 1: abdicating control or brainstorming to what can be automated, what
Speaker 1: you know, AI can do, what the platforms can do
Speaker 1: better somehow to basically game our way out of what
Speaker 1: human are fundamentally now doing, which is why are we hateful? Sometimes?
Speaker 1: Like why are we bigoted? Why do people have an
Speaker 1: interest in trolling others? Um? And so I think that
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of the solutions have to be
Speaker 1: human centered, where we instead of just saying, oh, well
Speaker 1: the platforms can do X, y Z, or the government
Speaker 1: can do all these other things, like well, what can
Speaker 1: we do you know, like, what can everyday people do
Speaker 1: to feel more empowered? Like maybe they can build imagine this,
Speaker 1: like build an ecosystem of users and other people they
Speaker 1: enjoy connecting with. I mean, can you imagine the joy
Speaker 1: of actually thinking that your Twitter feed is an interesting
Speaker 1: place to learn things instead of just who has the
Speaker 1: best like breaking news hundred and forty character tweet. Um,
Speaker 1: that would be really exciting. I think so. I I
Speaker 1: love the idea, and I think they're just need to
Speaker 1: be more of us doing this, Like more of us
Speaker 1: committed to talking about humans and how humans fit into
Speaker 1: what we're doing as users, because really should go the
Speaker 1: other way around. If users don't come first, it should
Speaker 1: be people coming first. You're actually doing a lot of
Speaker 1: that work in terms of building more people who see
Speaker 1: things like that. You know, at pen you have these
Speaker 1: this weekly series where you, you know, are joined by
Speaker 1: other journalists and other thinkers to help people understand the
Speaker 1: role that we all play in making the Internet a
Speaker 1: better place. Um, can you talk about some of the
Speaker 1: steps that people, anyone listening could take to help make
Speaker 1: the Internet a safer and better place. Oh that's like
Speaker 1: my favorite question. Um, you just you got me. At
Speaker 1: the sweet spot. I'm like, here we go. Um, well,
Speaker 1: you know, we've we've looked at disinformation for years and
Speaker 1: everyone always asks what's the solution, and so kind of
Speaker 1: to you know, my last point, I think a lot
Speaker 1: of it. We have to focus on humans and give
Speaker 1: people power to you know, take control of what they're
Speaker 1: seeing online. So I always think it's best to, frankly,
Speaker 1: just start with understanding what you do when you're online.
Speaker 1: You know, like, how are you consuming information? Bridget? Is
Speaker 1: it on Twitter? Are you, let's be honest, are you
Speaker 1: going to Facebook? And are you clicking on links? Or
Speaker 1: you maybe privately just reading the headline that I shared
Speaker 1: or your other friends shared, Like let's be real, you know,
Speaker 1: like sometimes that's all I do. I'm like, oh, I
Speaker 1: can make a wild assumption based on what Bridget shared
Speaker 1: and I'm not even clicking the link. So just sort
Speaker 1: of like taking a pulse being honest with yourself. Are
Speaker 1: you going to Fox News? Are you going to the
Speaker 1: New York Times? Are you going to you know, news websites?
Speaker 1: How are you doing things? Are you listening to podcasts
Speaker 1: like this? I think it's good to know how you
Speaker 1: consume information. And then I also think with that, we
Speaker 1: should all start asking ourselves how we feel when we're online, like,
Speaker 1: are you feeling anxious when you read things? Are you angry?
Speaker 1: A lot of times disinformation will thrive because we're emotional
Speaker 1: and we often want to share things. We want to
Speaker 1: engage with people quickly, and so will accept something without
Speaker 1: fact checking it, without thinking about or asking ourselves you know,
Speaker 1: who wrote this, where did it come from? Why am
Speaker 1: I seeing it? So if you can just sort of
Speaker 1: pause like that is my number one recommendation. Pause to
Speaker 1: ask a number of things, but just pause, um, and
Speaker 1: from slowing down, I think we actually could all benefit.
Speaker 1: You know, we could potentially share less misinformation. We could
Speaker 1: also then think more carefully about what our own attitudes
Speaker 1: are based on what we're seeing. Um, a whole host
Speaker 1: of I mean, frankly, empathy could arise out of just
Speaker 1: slowing down and uh and getting to a place where
Speaker 1: we're not just liking, disliking, loving, laughing at things, but
Speaker 1: maybe where we're in a place of huh, I want
Speaker 1: to learn more about that. Yeah, if you could see
Speaker 1: my if you were in my kitchen right now, where
Speaker 1: I am. I have a post it note on my
Speaker 1: laptop that just says slow down. And it's just a
Speaker 1: reminder for me just in all the ways, because I
Speaker 1: can sometimes move too quickly, just in life, but totally,
Speaker 1: but I think that that the idea of just taking
Speaker 1: a breath, taking a beat has been so helpful. It
Speaker 1: sounds so it sounds so basic, but you know, I
Speaker 1: but before I started really thinking critically about the way
Speaker 1: that I felt when I was online, I would be
Speaker 1: moving so quickly. And then when I started to slow
Speaker 1: down a bit, I actually kept a little journal. So
Speaker 1: if I saw something that made me feel anxious, I
Speaker 1: would write that down. If I saw something that made
Speaker 1: me my heart race, I would write that down. If
Speaker 1: I saw something that made me laugh, I would write
Speaker 1: that down. And from doing that, I really saw the
Speaker 1: ways that I It's just like my brain chemistry was
Speaker 1: just firing so quickly and I wasn't even stopping to think.
Speaker 1: And I find that. You know when you have those
Speaker 1: moments where somebody tweets something and they like really wish
Speaker 1: they had it, and it's going by and they're like,
Speaker 1: oh God, I always wondered were they in that moment
Speaker 1: where they've just been seeing so many different takes and
Speaker 1: different jokes and different tweets. Their brain is no longer
Speaker 1: processing what they're doing, that they're just putting a tweet
Speaker 1: into the world without even really thinking about it. And
Speaker 1: so I really find so much value in almost thinking
Speaker 1: about using the Internet as a kind of meditative practice
Speaker 1: and an opportunity to really be mindful of how just
Speaker 1: how you're doing, how you're feeling. Are you anxious, are
Speaker 1: you emotional? Like what's going on? As opposed to something
Speaker 1: where you're just like mindlessly scrolling and not really not
Speaker 1: really being in charge of your you know, of your physios,
Speaker 1: your emotions and your brain and all of that. I
Speaker 1: if I could do away with one term this year especially,
Speaker 1: it would be doom scrolling, because one, I mean, when
Speaker 1: are we not doom scrolling nowadays? You know, like news
Speaker 1: is never inspiring. But also it's so passive. And part
Speaker 1: of what I think is really great about what you're
Speaker 1: explaining is that you have literally taken control of what
Speaker 1: you're doing, you know, to say, I'm going to proactively
Speaker 1: write things down, I'm going to question and reflect on
Speaker 1: what I'm feeling. Um, you know, sometimes just the sheer
Speaker 1: of feeling like you're in the driver's seat whatever it
Speaker 1: is then that you end up doing, if it's writing
Speaker 1: your feelings down, if it's deciding not to tweet, but
Speaker 1: just thinking of yourself as the one that's in control
Speaker 1: instead of doom scrolling, I think is so exciting for people,
Speaker 1: and it's a weird. It's almost like a mind shift
Speaker 1: where people once I say it. Sometimes in our trainings,
Speaker 1: people will say, I didn't even think that I could
Speaker 1: curate my news feed that way, and I'm like, yes,
Speaker 1: like we can choose, and it would be so exciting
Speaker 1: to be stimulated, not just totally freaked out by what
Speaker 1: we're seeing exactly. And I think that's something that I
Speaker 1: think that everybody can take away. You might not be
Speaker 1: able so just this week, we might not be able to,
Speaker 1: you know, topple the stranglehold that some of these platforms
Speaker 1: seem to have on our democracy, on our discourse. But individually,
Speaker 1: you can control how you consume social media. You can
Speaker 1: you delete Facebook from your phone and say like I'm
Speaker 1: only going to go on from my browser twice a
Speaker 1: day or something like that. Like we might we might
Speaker 1: not be able to control how these things show up
Speaker 1: in a larger way, but we can control how they
Speaker 1: show up to us personally how they show up in
Speaker 1: our household, like whether you take your phone to bed
Speaker 1: to doom, scroll Twitter before sleep or not. Like those
Speaker 1: are choices that that we have control over, not anybody else.
Speaker 1: And so you know, really trying to internalize that we
Speaker 1: do have some control, even though sometimes it feels like
Speaker 1: we don't. You're not going to be great at this overnight.
Speaker 1: You know, it won't be like suddenly you feel more
Speaker 1: excited or eager to be online and to find this
Speaker 1: healthier internet. But I think that it can slowly lead
Speaker 1: to other practices. And if you can start with slowing down,
Speaker 1: so let's say, just questioning yourself, you know, scrolling at
Speaker 1: a slower pace, finding than interesting articles and pieces of
Speaker 1: content and people to follow and connect with, then you
Speaker 1: may frankly start wondering other things. You know, you can
Speaker 1: maybe get better at spotting when a headline lacks context.
Speaker 1: You know, I've gotten to the point where it's it
Speaker 1: has It doesn't happen overnight, but you know, you can
Speaker 1: sort of be scrolling and you read a piece of
Speaker 1: content and you're like, huh, I would normally be really
Speaker 1: upset by that. Why would I be upset? Like could
Speaker 1: I explore what the underlying reason would be and when
Speaker 1: you slow down like that to ask deeper questions not
Speaker 1: just about my own reaction, but about the piece of
Speaker 1: content you're seeing. I actually think we all are training
Speaker 1: ourselves to have a kind of media literacy and digital
Speaker 1: literacy that everyone's going to need in the future. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Internet isn't going away, so we need that eventually.
Speaker 1: The other thing is, disinformation is a service for higher
Speaker 1: It's an industry, and disinformation is not going away. Online
Speaker 1: hate is not going away, So we all if we
Speaker 1: just a little tiny bit chipped away at and built
Speaker 1: up better and better practices, we could truly help create
Speaker 1: the ecosystems we enjoy that have less of that um
Speaker 1: and at scale. You know, it isn't perfect, but it's
Speaker 1: at least one piece of how we can help create
Speaker 1: something that's healthier and frankly less hateful. More after a
Speaker 1: quick break, let's get right back into it. I believe
Speaker 1: that the only way that some of these platforms will meaningfully,
Speaker 1: you know, rethink the role they've had in spreading misinformation
Speaker 1: and hate is if we make it unprofitable, right and
Speaker 1: so like, if it if it hurts your bottom line
Speaker 1: to traffic in hate and violent rhetoric and disinformation. That's
Speaker 1: the only way that I think that some of these
Speaker 1: companies will stop trafficking in it. I guess that I
Speaker 1: think that the way to do that can be so individual, Like,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to engage with it. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to amplify it. I'm not going to support it. If
Speaker 1: if I see that kind of thing online, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to, you know, I'm going to kind of divest
Speaker 1: from it. I think. I think I think a lot
Speaker 1: of that can be driven by individuals. I'm thinking of
Speaker 1: the headline divesting from disinformation. Yeah, all you should all
Speaker 1: be doing that. I think that's your article, Bridget. I
Speaker 1: mean I think the other I don't want to seem
Speaker 1: too corny and that, like, you know, humans are going
Speaker 1: to solve all of it, because I think the platforms
Speaker 1: have so much responsibility, and um, I think the future
Speaker 1: of minimizing how toxic the Internet can be in part
Speaker 1: is that the platforms have to begin informing users in
Speaker 1: better ways. And I don't know if you and I
Speaker 1: have ever talked about it, but I think that Twitter's
Speaker 1: very first step into putting labels on content really saw
Speaker 1: horrible moment from the media's perspective when people started calling
Speaker 1: these warning labels UM, because I think that that has
Speaker 1: such a negative connotation, and I think that labels and
Speaker 1: the platform mechanisms to slow people down are actually a
Speaker 1: fantastic measure that we should be encouraging and learning about. Um.
Speaker 1: It's the stuff that absent me teaching millions of Americans,
Speaker 1: let's say about media literacy. Platforms can help slow people down.
Speaker 1: So I think there's like this other piece also that
Speaker 1: can happen in tandem to you and me taking control
Speaker 1: that the platforms try to find ways to very you know,
Speaker 1: in a nonpartisan, careful, educative manner, slow people down, UM,
Speaker 1: and just do the thing that we're already doing a
Speaker 1: little bit, you know, question what we're seeing, UM, wonder
Speaker 1: if there are ways that we want to explore or
Speaker 1: learn more about something, um, if we know that it's misleading. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Even so you mentioned like when you share something based
Speaker 1: on a headline that thing that water has now, which
Speaker 1: I think is a great tool, but sometimes I feel
Speaker 1: kind of dragged by it where it's like, do you
Speaker 1: want to read the article before you read tweeting? How
Speaker 1: many times have you not read, be honest, because I
Speaker 1: every time haven't read it, Yes, and it's it's honestly
Speaker 1: is a good reminder And when I get it, I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: come on, I this is I'm retweeting an article by
Speaker 1: somebody that I know, like I trust them. But it
Speaker 1: is a good reminder to just like, what's the hurry?
Speaker 1: Why don't you just read it? You know? And it
Speaker 1: really sometimes I'm like, drag me Twitter functionality, But so
Speaker 1: you want to switch gears a little bit. As we're
Speaker 1: seeing right now that the officials are being held accountable
Speaker 1: for their role in either supporting or inciting the insurrection.
Speaker 1: Trump was obviously kicked off social media platforms. Senator Josh
Speaker 1: Holly's book was briefly dropped by its publisher, and kind
Speaker 1: of along the same lines of free speech online, I've
Speaker 1: seen a lot of people asking questions about what is
Speaker 1: commonly known as quote cancel culture. So what are your
Speaker 1: thoughts on so called cancel culture? As a free speech attorney,
Speaker 1: are these free speech issues? Uh? You know, I'm going
Speaker 1: to give you the short answer, which is it's really hard. Um.
Speaker 1: Lawyers will often say it depends and part of what
Speaker 1: I think is difficult is that cancel culture often seems
Speaker 1: to imply that you're going to be, in a way, um,
Speaker 1: canceled from an existing platform, you know, like from your base,
Speaker 1: which also then to me suggests that you have a
Speaker 1: base to be canceled from. Um. You know, you don't
Speaker 1: talk about canceling someone who isn't very well known. And
Speaker 1: I think there's this interesting power dynamic within the like
Speaker 1: paradigm of thinking that there's a cancel culture. I think
Speaker 1: it's more interesting, um to weigh what's at stake here,
Speaker 1: you know, when we think about someone like Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: was he canceled? Uh? I honestly think that he was
Speaker 1: legitimately taken off the Internet because of the real world
Speaker 1: harm his words online have, And that is not canceled culture.
Speaker 1: That is like a very deep, difficult old balance where
Speaker 1: all of us, whether it is regulators, policymakers, platform people,
Speaker 1: everyday users like you and me, like, what are his
Speaker 1: words doing to our world? It is a drastically dangerous
Speaker 1: step when he spreads lies, when he sow's discord, when
Speaker 1: he promotes hate, all of the different ways that I
Speaker 1: think the platforms maybe in being late somehow, if I
Speaker 1: had to guess We're thinking that it would not be
Speaker 1: that bad, not be that bad, and somehow the insurrection
Speaker 1: was that crack, that like breaking point where people realize, oh,
Speaker 1: online issues have real world harms, which has happened before.
Speaker 1: We've seen it when there are mass shootings. We've seen it,
Speaker 1: when there are acts of terrorism, you know, and like
Speaker 1: other types of bombings. Um. And what's fascinating in that
Speaker 1: moment is that I'm like, is that cancel culture? Like?
Speaker 1: I don't think that is. I think that that is
Speaker 1: a private company taking necessary actions to limit it or
Speaker 1: triage the type of real world harm that's happening. I
Speaker 1: think it was absolutely too late, and I always think
Speaker 1: that it was too late. At the same time, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is a public figure and was an elected official
Speaker 1: who was leading this country, and so there is also
Speaker 1: this interest in hearing unkno, you know, sort of unedited
Speaker 1: what he says. And so from a free expression perspective,
Speaker 1: I always wonder what is the most speech we can
Speaker 1: have with the least harm. I think we passed the
Speaker 1: harm point frankly some time ago. UM, But there's definitely
Speaker 1: I think we have to stay committed to having access
Speaker 1: all of us to various forms of expression, because free
Speaker 1: expression rights aren't just Donald Trump's right to say what
Speaker 1: he wants. We all have free expression rights to access
Speaker 1: what various people are saying. I have the right to
Speaker 1: then hear what you were saying. You have the right
Speaker 1: to hear what I am saying. And in some parts
Speaker 1: of the world, part of what we have to keep
Speaker 1: in mind is Facebook, Twitter. That's all the Internet, that's
Speaker 1: all people have. That's the only connection they have to
Speaker 1: what's happening politically. We are seeing right now in my
Speaker 1: and mar with the Internet being shut down. That is
Speaker 1: a political tactic to silence dissidents and dissent. And so
Speaker 1: it's a difficult question to answer when there are questions
Speaker 1: implicated in that larger one around who is speaking, what
Speaker 1: is the effect offline? Is it damaging when in total
Speaker 1: it seems to tip the scales towards violence and hate.
Speaker 1: I have to say, in general, I hate conversations about
Speaker 1: quote cancel culture because the concept just seems so disingenuous.
Speaker 1: When people talk about the importance of being willing to
Speaker 1: engage ideas one might not agree with it, always, somehow
Speaker 1: seems like marginalized people are the ones expected to be
Speaker 1: doing the engaging and arguing with people who are hell
Speaker 1: bent on misunderstanding you is exhausting. And if you aren't
Speaker 1: even able to talk about something with a shared set
Speaker 1: of guiding fat the sky is blue too plus to us.
Speaker 1: For Trump lost the election, then it can really get thorny.
Speaker 1: When the election happened in November and Biden one, there
Speaker 1: was I think rightly a kind of exhaustion. You know,
Speaker 1: people were so tired of fighting and eager to disengage
Speaker 1: completely um from what might be different. And I I'm
Speaker 1: with a lot of those people. I think it's really
Speaker 1: exhausting work to try to engage with people who disagree,
Speaker 1: and you have to always know that ultimately, you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of conversations will not be productive. They and
Speaker 1: it isn't on you or me to do the labor
Speaker 1: of teaching someone like someone else's teachable moment isn't necessarily
Speaker 1: my job. At the same time, I think like the
Speaker 1: crisis and the basic human crisis were in of how
Speaker 1: divided we are. Merits a very serious examination that we
Speaker 1: all need to sit with of like what is it
Speaker 1: where we are interested in disengaging all the time with
Speaker 1: anything different um And that permeates all of us. And
Speaker 1: so I think the thesis is, you know, why are
Speaker 1: we driven to do things that divide us? And then
Speaker 1: how can we overcome our own instincts to actually broker conversation,
Speaker 1: to find an entry point, even if it's little, and
Speaker 1: even if it only happens for a couple of minutes,
Speaker 1: Like that is the beginning of being able to find
Speaker 1: what I think is the antidote to disinformation, where we
Speaker 1: have a shared basis of facts. Even if you and
Speaker 1: I disagree on policies, like we can both look at
Speaker 1: a set of facts and say, yeah, that's what we're
Speaker 1: basing our opinion on. And we may different then on
Speaker 1: what we think needs to happen, but we can agree
Speaker 1: on certain things. And we have absolutely not reached that
Speaker 1: point of being able to agree on basic facts. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's exactly where I want to get us to. You know,
Speaker 1: we can disagree, but we are all on the same
Speaker 1: page about some basic facts. You know, two plus two
Speaker 1: is four, this guy is blue. We have a aired
Speaker 1: understanding of reality, and it's sad to me that we're
Speaker 1: not there. P You actually found that among Trump voters
Speaker 1: say that he definitely won the election. Another thirty say
Speaker 1: that he probably won the election. And this week Reuter's
Speaker 1: pulled members of Congress now that of them wouldn't say
Speaker 1: one way or the other whether or not they agreed
Speaker 1: with Trump that the election had been stolen from him,
Speaker 1: and two of them still say the election was stolen
Speaker 1: from Trump. So it's like we're not even speaking the
Speaker 1: same language. We do not have a shared reality, and
Speaker 1: it seems like such a low bar, but that's where
Speaker 1: I want to get us to a place where we
Speaker 1: have a shared reality. I mean, it should be a
Speaker 1: low bar, but honestly, there's there's also just like so
Speaker 1: much bigotry and hate that a lot of those kinds
Speaker 1: of civil discussions are not grounded in mutual humanity. So,
Speaker 1: you know, my civil rights background is like how do
Speaker 1: we have the most for the most people, and how
Speaker 1: do we maintain and protect basic rights for people who
Speaker 1: have traditionally and historically been marginalized in every institution. So
Speaker 1: there's this other piece that informs the work I do
Speaker 1: and how I think about miss and disinformation because I
Speaker 1: know that it affects different communities differently. Black and brown
Speaker 1: people are targeted with disinformation so that they are disenfranchised
Speaker 1: and believe their voice doesn't matter. So sort of in
Speaker 1: the middle of all of it, I'm like, I still
Speaker 1: very much have eyes wide open that some of us
Speaker 1: will be affected, targeted, and marginalized in more specific and
Speaker 1: acute ways that have massive effects on democracy. So I
Speaker 1: don't want to sit here like Pollyanna. You know, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's all gonna be great if we could just find
Speaker 1: moments of like factual shared belief, because some of that
Speaker 1: assumes that other people will believe you and I matter
Speaker 1: as much as anyone else. And um, and the reality
Speaker 1: is a lot of people don't think that. But some
Speaker 1: some are movable, Some are people where you engage and
Speaker 1: they are not like hateful people. Interest did in less
Speaker 1: for certain people. And that's the moment where I'm hoping
Speaker 1: to reach at least some pockets of the United States.
Speaker 1: So you sound pretty hopeful, oh, bridget I actually have
Speaker 1: a lot of hope. I mean, you know, when I
Speaker 1: was younger, I don't want to get to misty eyed,
Speaker 1: but like you know, I would work in the South
Speaker 1: with people like John Lewis and civil rights figures, and
Speaker 1: they always said that change takes a lifetime. It takes
Speaker 1: many lifetimes, and um, and this intractable issue of how
Speaker 1: we connect is one of the biggest issues I think
Speaker 1: of our lifetime. And uh, it's very slow. So I
Speaker 1: am hopeful in the sense that I see every day
Speaker 1: more and more people interested in doing this work. I
Speaker 1: see movement lawyers. I see amazing researchers finding data, you know,
Speaker 1: and trying to find ways to triage the way the
Speaker 1: Internet is making us all bleed. Um. And I'm very hopeful.
Speaker 1: It just it takes a long time, and for every
Speaker 1: step forward, there will be three steps back and then
Speaker 1: maybe two steps forward, um, maybe another step forward. So
Speaker 1: it's it's really just sort of like a dance with democracy.
Speaker 1: Where can folks keep up with you? And can you
Speaker 1: tell us more about the weekly trainings that pat America
Speaker 1: is running so people can always follow me an attorney Noura,
Speaker 1: I'm Attorney Noura on every platform, um. And then pen
Speaker 1: America has trainings around media literacy and disinformation defense almost
Speaker 1: weekly and that all is on penn dot org. Our
Speaker 1: next series is going to focus on black and Latino
Speaker 1: mistrust around the vaccination process and try to help walk
Speaker 1: people through why hesitancy is okay, why it's okay to question,
Speaker 1: you know, is the vaccine good? Should I get it? Um?
Speaker 1: And so we'll be doing a series around like disinformation
Speaker 1: and COVID later this month, and then we're also going
Speaker 1: to be doing work on how community organized ers can
Speaker 1: embed messaging in their work with communities. We really want
Speaker 1: to empower people to feel like they know how to
Speaker 1: talk about these issues when someone comes to them. So
Speaker 1: more to come Penn dot org. You can check it
Speaker 1: all out. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please help us
Speaker 1: grow by subscribing. Got a story about an interesting thing
Speaker 1: in tech, or just want to say hi. We'd love
Speaker 1: to hear from you at Hello at Tango dot com.
Speaker 1: Dis Informed is brought to you by There Are No
Speaker 1: Girls on the Internet. It's a production of iHeart Radio
Speaker 1: and Unbust creative Jonathan Strickland as our executive producer. Tary
Speaker 1: Harrison is our supervising producer, and engineer. Michaelmato is our
Speaker 1: contributing producer. I'm your host Bridget Tod. For more great podcasts,
Speaker 1: check out the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcast, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. Tw