are in session with upcoming hearings. on wednesday at nine: 30 a.m. eastern on c-span3, countering domestic terrorism testimony from leaders from homeland security and the fbi before the house intelligence committee. on thursday, live on c-span3, covid-19 and the next steps in the response with testimony from rochelle walensky and dr. anthony fauci before the senate health committee. on friday the memorial service for retired army general and former secretary of state colin powell, live from the washington national cathedral. watch next week on the c-span networks, or you can watch our coverage on c-span now, our new mobile video app. also head over to c-span.org for scheduling information or to stream video anytime.

c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> washington journal continues. chris riley, the internet governance senior fellow at the archery institute. good morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: remind our viewers exactly what the r street institute is question mark -- is? guest: it's a nonprofit free-market free tank -- think tank. we have a lot of different issues and we are happy to be part of the elegy and innovation team. host: where does it get its funding? guest: a mix of sources, which is pretty typical of d.c. organizations. during my time -- [indiscernible]

we are supported entirety by the knight foundation in my department. host: you are the public policy director for mozilla, remind us what that is in tell us how your work there translates to what you are doing at our street? guest: i had the pleasure working there for almost seven years i was the first public policy higher for the corporation status. this is the taxes, and nonprofit foundation. in that perspective i was inside the tech industry but in a rare role that allowed me perspective to look broader than just the products i was working with and really build a team and a strategy of making the internet better. this is what i have built my whole career towards, trying to make the internet better through work at the intersection of public policy, technology, and law. it was natural for me to go from

one to the other. the think tank style is a deeper investigative dive on these rapidly evolving and i believe very important technology issues. host: we have your background, let's get into the topic that we have you here to speak about. tell our viewers exactly what the facebook papers are and why they are important. guest: perhaps we should call them that meta-memorandum now, with the corporate name change. at this point, several whistleblowers and former facebook employees who have taken some materials with them and made them available to the securities and exchange commission as well as newspaper reporters. most recently, and the most prolific was from the employee frances haugen, who captured most of which are internal screenshots of the workplace tool, facebook's version of

facebook, used by employees in what had been a very open internal culture commentary. the net result is that a lot of integral research that has been done it facebook over the past few years on these products and society and around the world, not just in the united states, but also some extent instead internally and the effects that those had on engagement and on how those represented, that research is now in the hands of the u.s. government and many different investigative ab that's -- outlets around the country. host: how did that information get out of facebook? guest: i don't know exactly what mechanics were involved. i believe a lot of it was screenshots taken from an internal computer. facebook actually internally has had a very open culture where a lot of information is free to

share and employees were allowed to express anything on any topic and communicated with each other in a way that i think has many positive aspects to it. it used to be commonplace within many different technology companies. most of whom have since locked down a bit, there is some interesting coverage and facebook may take the same trajectory. host: what were the big takeaways from what we found out from the facebook papers and the testimony? guest: i think what this has revealed, at least from my perspective is not substantially different from what many of the things we have learned about the effects of a social network at the scale of facebook over several years. it's an increase in scale rather than substance. as a recent example, prior to these papers really becoming widely known, there is an investigative journalist here in

california that showed on september 22 through some research that they were doing that post of the far right afd party in germany are appearing three times as often as other parties in the german elections. what we are seeing is really detailed evidence of the outputs and outcomes of the recommendation engines that are powering how and what you see when you use facebook as a user. as a facebook user you are connected to hundreds or maybe thousands of people and the amount of information available to you is vast. long ago, facebook and many other companies similarly situated were shifting away from presenting that information to you and built an extensive recommendation engine, the algorithms, which i they're working on your behalf in the background to sort and

prioritize information for you. we have learned a lot more through the papers about how these worked and the research that facebook has been doing internally to understand how these worked in the real world. host: i'm glad you brought the word up, we hear it over and over, the algorithm. can you tell our viewers what they are talking about when they talk about the algorithm and what it actually does? so what they see on facebook and social media. guest: it's a hobby horse of mine as well, prior to public policy i was in computer science and as a grad student in johns hopkins in baltimore i taught introduction to algorithms twice. i consider myself an expert on the subject. the algorithm itself is the formula, the recipe that underlies the code. facebook has written extensive and thoroughly researched technologies that seems to say

you like this post from a democrat. he liked this other post from a democrat. maybe you want to see more content aligned with democratic interests. it's that kind of learning that happens in the background based on data from a variety of sources which ends up powering the kinds of things you see and what you don't see. host: what's the worry that congress has about what facebook is doing? guest: at the end of the day, it's any powerful system that we don't have an understanding of and belief in control of that i think powers seen in the backlash. i am phoned saying that 20 or so years ago, when members of congress and policymakers used the word computer commit might be 30 years ago. they used to use the word computer as a synonym for magic or even black magic. it was a force that was not

understood operating in ways that exerted clear power over the world. but they didn't know how to get a handle on it. this is better with the word computer. but the same dynamic exists around algorithm. the idea that when we talk about the algorithm it is this scary and powerful apparatus operating in the background about which we will never have a detailed understanding or ability to control. there's a big element of fear going into this. it's understandable area we need to invest in technology expertise. progress has been made on that. more would be helpful. the recognition of the power of this system, because it is a system that runs on 3.5 billion people around the world, coupled with this gap in understanding hand a perceived lack of control. host: let's take a break to remind our viewers that they can take part in this discussion about the facebook papers and the future big tech.

we are opening up our regular lines. for republicans (202) 748-8001. for democrats (202) 748-8000. for independents (202) 748-8002. keep in mind you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media on twitter and on facebook . chris, one of the complaint about facebook is how they reacted to january 6 and the push on disinformation. first talks about what was said about facebook and what they did following the insurrection of january 6. i want to read this to you. facebook discussed developing a stream and measures to limit

misinformation, calls for violence, and other materials that could disrupt the 2020 presidential election. both former president donald trump and his supporters tried to stop joe biden from a declared president on january 6, 2021, facebook employees complained these measures were implemented too late or stymied by technical and bureaucratic caps. -- hang ups. how much do we look at facebook and say you should have done more on january 6? you already have procedures for this but it doesn't look like they worked. guest: that's right. i look back at the incidence of that tragic day and say yes, i think facebook should have done more. i wish they had done more. there's a deep challenge, institutional myopia is a real problem, inherent no matter the institution, size, scale, how many sociologist work on staff. it's hard to figure out how to draw very sensitive balances

like this by yourself. it's not something that needs to be the forever situation. we are talking about speech, that's why the balance is important. you don't want to air on the side of restricting speech too quickly. free expression is important. it's protected strongly in this country but it's a universal human right. companies take it on themselves to celebrate free expression as well they should. we are talking about a careful balance. it's difficult to draw precisely correctly in every circumstance. it's hard to say how do we prevent that thing from happening? looking back, i wish facebook i don't more to trigger some of these circuit breakers and other methods. it's my hope that the development of professionalization within the safety field, we have seen this over the past year, two separate 501(c) six is focused on trust and safety to improve shared

knowledge. i look at the emergence of that, as well as outside research advocacy groups and tell the dynamics that will help give us that perspective to avoid the bad consequences of institutional myopia in the future. host: social media companies like facebook and twitter issues -- insist they are not media companies and don't have a responsibility for what people say on their platforms. you agree with their contention? do you think there should be some regulation of what companies like facebook, twitter, and instagram and other social media companies can put out to the world? guest: you are talking about one of the hottest issues these days . that section 230 in the united states law protecting facebook and companies like it has intermediaries from being liable for the actions of their users. i believe there is an important

distinction to be made between companies whose work and business is centered around facilitating expression of others. in contrast to media companies, many of which are successful that work to cultivate the content that comes out through their services which is much more hands and direct. i think it is probably correct that historically there has been a level of action for intermediaries. the same is true in europe, there is a similar law in the european union that protects intermediaries from being held liable for the actions of their users. however i think it is right and proper to consider what will government can play at this important point in time. to put more emphasis and perspective on investing and responsibility. i think this distinction is important and should be preserved. there's a role for government to be engaged. host: let's let viewers take

part, we will start with gilbert , calling from raleigh, north carolina on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. chris, i wanted to get your thoughts on the issue regarding facebook and how they have been perceived and investigated around suppressing information on their platform regarding legal campaigns in support of candidates and belief systems that they believe in. mark zuckerberg foundation rights million-dollar checks towards democratic candidates, this is an issue that has been going on for long time and has been investigated. do you see facebook really doing this? is anything really happening with all these investigations? are they being broken up or

regulated? and other social media companies, i'm skeptical. i think they have a lot of politicians in their pockets, lobbyists, spending millions of dollars and i don't see anything happening. i could be wrong. i would like to be wrong. guest: i'm not sure what evidence or stories you are referring to. my understanding of facebook is that they have a number of serious, excellent, well credentialed political veterans from both parties operating internally. i know there senior policy leadership is closely linked to the republican party rather than the democratic party. i don't see a particular bias in the outputs of the company from my perspective. there is a difference between intentional actions and the ramifications and repercussions that can arise from these complex systems. i knowledge there might be cases where we see that. i mentioned earlier that in

germany the far right party has three times as much visibility than the other policies. i don't believe that was an intentional decision by facebook to promote the far right party in germany. it was a consequence. on the subject of investigation. i think facebook is being actively investigated by a number of different federal agencies, including the a security's and exchange commission, obviously. understood to start calling it the meta-memorandum. that's appropriate at this point in time. as well as a number of agencies outside the united states. some have broad regulatory powers to have more of this internal info which should give us a clear picture of what's going on and what was intended to go on. host: so were not saying whether it's true or false, you don't think they are pushing out far right material, but if they wanted to, could they? are they a private company, this

is not a government owned entity. if they wanted to be more liberal or more conservative, is that their right as a private company? guest: i agree. they have every right under the law, american law, to take a stance on political issues, on any or all political issues. we have seen quite a lot of companies adopt an explicitly progressive position and it's really made -- i don't think facebook has done that. i think it's harder for a company to do that. a company could not do that secretly. they would need to be very overt . facebook more than most, there's quite a lot of -- -- whistleblowers coming from the woodwork if the comedy were trying to secretly take a stance. host: roger is calling from raleigh, north carolina, on the republican line. good morning. caller: my question relates to whether or not facebook is

subject to -- i think it's the 1934 federal broadcasting act. i can't member the name of it specifically -- remember the name of it specifically, or the patriot act, things like that that govern to the extent to which the government can monitor what goes on facebook. also to what extent are facebook groups actually private? guest: that's an excellent question. the law you are referring to is the 1954 communications act, the provision set up the federal communications commission as a regulator. i've spent some of my career working at the fcc. there's a robust debate still going on among scholars and researchers in the community about how to approach the internet as a whole. not just more traditional feelings at this point, like

communications companies, but all of the emerging technology. from my perspective i think there are three options and i don't have a particular preference. one of them is to regulate internet companies, especially those that feel a little bit more like communication services including social network services. there are many calls for regulating those under traditional communication clause -- munication laws paradigms. in united kingdom the regulator has been chosen to implement a duty of care law to try to govern online content and limit the harms. they have chosen their equivalent to the fcc. that is the government body to look at an implement this creed united states went more towards the federal trade commission, a general competition and consumer protection regulator. it determines -- depends on how you interpret it.

there is also a call for a new third kind of agency to challenge and not except the past paradigms. there are pros and cons to any of these. i don't senior legal pathway to have a statutory law of the sec or its existing authority could be used to govern this kind of online activity. so when former president trump issued an executive order trying to pressure the independent agency, the fcc, to step up, i do others did not feel that was something within the law as it was designed for the fcc to do. host: are you saying that any regulation of social media will require a brand-new law and regulation instead of using the ones that we have on the books now? guest: that's an excellent question. and no that's not what i meant. there are many pieces within existing law, there is a well-established body of law

that can be used to go after some of the concerns and practices we are seeing as harmful. the federal trade commission has broad authority and could do a fair bit today. has done a fair bit in the past with privacy expertise. there is work that can be done without loss coming from congress. i feel like the ceiling of what we are looking for as a polity right now, the more tailored and finessed governance mechanisms and the kinds of limited but effective government intervention called for now probably does require additional statutory work. host: we have popped around a bit, but let's get into it, the fact that facebook has changed its name. i want to read from a washington post story that explains what facebook did. facebook changed its corporate name to meta on thursday moving to distance itself from a social media business and world in

crisis and rebrand itself as a forward-looking creator of a new digital world known as the meta-verse. mark zuckerberg urged users to think -- to adjust their thinking about the company, which he said had outgrown its ubiquitous and problematic social media app, a platform that will continue to be known as facebook. instead, he says the company plans to focus on what zuckerberg described as the next wave of computing. a virtual universe where people roam freely as avatars, tending virtual business meetings, shopping and virtual stores and socializing at virtual get-togethers. what does this name change from facebook to meta mean, does not mean we are seeing something different? when we open up facebook on our computers and phones? guest: it does not mean that but it means a lot of different things and i'm still trying to process my own understanding on how to interpret it.

but i don't think it means any changes or future changes to facebook as you experience it now through your phone or computer. maybe 10 years from now when you're more likely to use it three virtual reality headband such as oculus which will be called something else. i view the name change is an indication of where facebook plans to focus its research and product energy, away from internet-based services, smart home-based services and more towards these immersive technologies. augmented reality, virtual reality, as a way of defining its identity and trying to predict the future of technology and developed for that. host: is that what mark zuckerberg means when he talks about a meta-verse? a virtual reality thing that we have not seen yet or is this already in the works and they will debut in a couple of years?

guest: both. at the number of different things. i watched some of but not all of the presentation. there was such a broad range of technologies on display. i was a little surprised. i remember one example distinctly, it was a surgical training virtual reality, where floating avatars were operating. that technology is virtually here and there are many kinds of virtual reality training and simulation exercises very similar to that in use today. on the other hand, the virtual -- struck out. to simulate world activity -- real world activity you have to have something with feedback, gloves or a bodysuit so where you press against the wall you have to create the mechanism that presses back against you. without that physical touch face interaction you can't simulate

these sorts of activities. dribbling a basketball, you could imagine a future where you have a smart glove that wishes against but we're years away from that. particularly if you imagine the kind of indirect haptic feedback necessary to stimulate sensing and have that. that technology is very far away . it's a broad mix. and it's an interesting strategic choice to put a single label on this category of technology as meta-verse and dive all in. this is a term that comes from science fiction literature. it's used to describe a digital future, one where we as individuals may have flashier experiences but where we see power concentrated and abuses of power and human rights on display and more rampant. and that perhaps harkens back to science fiction literature.

and hopefully that's not a prognosis for our future. host: let's go back to the phone lines and talk to michael from mississippi on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. i appreciate you coming out mr. riley about the big tech and all. i wanted to share with the public that one of the hardest things -- i'm 71 years old, i really enjoy the electronic world that has come around. i've seen it happen, it's been great. but i was shocked, the biggest thing i done recently is get off of facebook. i stopped twitter. it was not necessarily because they block certain individuals that had the right to be on there and have their opinions, but i felt controlled by this

non-formed entity. i kept seeing the disconnection of people, especially children. that they are focused on this electronic world that you have spoken of, and the tech sensations that make you think you're in the real world. i have laughed at the particular folks on big bang theory that they live dungeons & dragons in various things but when it comes down to the real world they are literally incompetent. i'm seeing a trend. it's disturbing. guest: i didn't mean to cut you off. i'm so glad you made that intervention. it brings up two important points i want to make. the first is the ability to disconnect from facebook and i have many friends who have disconnected from social media services including facebook and

twitter. it's frankly a privilege that we enjoy that many people around the world don't because in many parts of the world facebook is where you do business. where you find essential services. it's a joke that in many parts of the world people see facebook as the internet and they don't see a distinction between the two but it's not a joke in many parts of the world. that's a broader policy challenge and what we are talking about today. but it's important to understand how central facebook is in many parts of the world. and particularly to look at this in contrast to the reporting i have read in the newsletter indicating how much lasting an investment has been put online. the second point reflects some of my earlier commentary, power and how powerless -- and how power is felt and perceived online.

i very much believe at my core that the reason we are seeing the so call pushback against tech is because we at it -- we has internet users have lost the feeling of agency the early days of the web had us sitting behind the keyboard of the master what we could do. you could type in any website and go to it. the information was at your fingertips and it was in your power to go and find what you wanted. and you could create any website. you are not just here to consume what was being packaged. it was yours to go find. and that feeling is very powerful to us as human beings. is very powerful to our economy as well. for a variety of reasons we lost that feeling. some of it goes back to these recommendation systems and as much information as is available to you through facebook and the services, you don't have control over what you see and what you get from that system.

host: one of our social media followers has something they want you to comment on when it comes to facebook. this followers as facebook has been used to incite violence against political opponents in myanmar and other countries use facebook during the election for the right wing always seems to benefit and the truth suffers. the israeli election was another example. they want to know if you can comment? guest: i'm very familiar with my time -- with this from my time at the state department. this is something to be concerned about. and the reference to the german elections in the afd come i think a lot of this honestly relates to some of the revelations from the latest whistleblower papers. angry engagement and more hostile and charged engagement gets more attraction on these platforms. some of that is intentional design choices to reward those

things for engagement. and some of it is us as human beings. we gravitate towards car crashes . it's part of our brains and emotional reactions that we need to understand and accept and figure out how to build with acknowledgment and understanding of and not just immediately reward whatever biochemicals are generated when we see angry things on the internet. i very much believe that there's a reality to that phenomenon and concerning one. something we need to figure out how to address. change needs to be made on that front more than any other. host: let's talk to peter, from valley college in new york on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. mr. riley, i agree. this is a very delicate subject. we are talking about freedom of

speech and people being able to's -- to say on facebook what they think or believe. the first amendment is important, very important. i see a similarity with c-span. i hear people calling in all the time and in my opinion, because truth is subjective, they are saying blatant lies about certain things. even some guests on the show. i see no corrections or -- corrections being made by the host if they know that it is factually incorrect. one of the big problems that they seem to have now is misinformation on facebook. what's the difference -- the only difference i can see between facebook, where you can reach millions of people with your opinions, whereas me going in my neighborhood and talking to my neighbors and spreading misinformation are either you

believe in freedom of speech or you don't believe in freedom of speech. that's the thing. a lot of people i hear, particularly conservatives make this complaint, they are being blocked because they said something on facebook on twitter -- or on twitter that the authorities believes is misinformation. but it is subjective. can you comment on that. guest: i think your point about scale is important. if you are going out and talking to your local community, you can say all kinds of things and there is an important pushback in your local community that doesn't happen in the same way on the internet. a lot of what we are seeing -- you are right, free speech is conical and fundamental part -- is critical and fundamental part. and expressed in local communities, the law is here to exert normative pressures on people to keep beach from

translating into massive scale harm. and those pressures don't exist online. i am occasionally very critical of some of the early culture of the internet community and how it has not held up very well. for a long time the perspective was there is no such thing as bad speech or harmful speech and the answer to harmful speech is more speech. i think that has been proven objectively false. i have to disagree with you, i think there are lawful speech actions that should not be held as legal under the law that nevertheless deserve some kind of nonlegal response as a means of mitigating the consequences. for example in the consequences of the january 6 riots. host: the caller brought this up and i want you to speak to this. he brought up free speech rights.

do you have a right to say anything you want on facebook, twitter, social media? is that a right or a feature that facebook has that they can take away at any time? guest: it depends on how you approach that question. i do believe you have a right to express, i don't believe you have a right to use facebook. particularly in the american legal context it is very clear the first amendment does not limit a spoke directly -- facebook directly. it protects facebook's ability to say and express. when facebook -- if facebook says i have decided -- we have decided we are going to be a republican company and we're gonna start blocking democratic clinical messages they have every right to do that. you do not have a legal right under american law to express your position on facebook.

you certainly have that right as citizens of a country. i hope we are in a situation where if a company like facebook decided to do that you would have other services and platforms and opportunities and goods -- a well-known researcher is popularly credited with freedom of speech is not freedom of --. you don't have the right to reach a specific audience or go through specific platform. i very much believe in that dichotomy. host: let's go to angel, calling from marysville, washington, on the democrat line. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm going to go really old school nerd and say that all of this talk about the cyber world happened way before the year 2000. i was a microsoft via chat nerd where we had our own world, you

could go in in 3d on your pc, it was not like with the headgear or anything. and you could make your own avatars and everything. and interactions with other people. this is stuff we're talking about like it's new, not to me, not to the nerd corner. but as far as the updated version of now with microsoft vc hat, and if you think about the gamer or world, everything changed after the year 2000. there was a big shift. microsoft vchat was infiltrated by hackers. it was too hard for microsoft to control it so it went by the way of the dodo. as far as the updated version of what it would be like now with all of the instant gratification

of instant messaging, instant video, it would make it scary i think. there would have to be some kind of controls because of the cyber bullying and all of that happened as of the year 2000. i remember that. the term troll came up. i had five websites over the year 2000 and had fun with the internet. it was a blast. i was part of that new genre of people getting into it. after that there was a shift, a definite paradigm shift where it became scary. host: go ahead and respond, is her timeline right? was it around the year 2000 that things went crazy? did something happen? guest: you could definitely look back in the late 90's and early 2000's and see these things. i was an avid fan of muds, i

follow diversity university were people of a similar generation may also remember. these were active social communities that were actively moderated by human moderators before there was the world troll -- the word troll, moderators would block people on platforms for a time. and i remember a virtual lecture on second life almost 20 years ago. a lot of these technologies have been around for a while. something fundamentally changes as things scale up. when you go from a few hundred to a few thousand users to 3 billion users you can't moderate everything in the same way. so you have automated moderation. you want automation to be playing a part in this. but how you work out the balance in this of speech in a platform at that scale is fundamentally different.

the transition from vchat and second life to meta-verse is maybe one of scale rather than substance or philosophy. and another thing that i took away from the presentation for mark zuckerberg was, he was speaking to audiences. u.n. die has potential users of the platform and he was intentionally speaking to people who wanted to sell things on that platform. virtual merchandise, creators and make businesses on the platform. it's not just the scaling up, it's not just the intersection and entanglement with commercial interests. host: speaking of zuckerberg and his change to meta, not everybody was impressed with the name change. alexander ocasio-cortez posted this on twitter about the change from facebook to meta.

meta-as in we are a cancer to democracy metastasizing global surveillance and a prop a massive -- propagation machine for boosting authoritarian regimes and destroying civil society for profit. 20 think of her criticisms of meta and facebook. guest: fix likely that no matter how many internal roundtables and discussions and processes that facebook did on the name, the idea that have never have occurred to them. as a term meta is maybe more on the nose than the comparison most commonly maize, which is the rebanding of the two bracco does the rebranding of the tobacco companies. and it's more substantive than when google changed its parent legal name to alphabet. meta feels like a not inappropriate name.

i'm not sure if meta-versus the right brand, given its association with the soviets and science-fiction literature. i had a conversation with some friends about the logo associated with it, depending on how you look at it looks like an amorphous and amalgamation videogame controller, oculus headset, the m and an infinity logo. from their perspective this makes it a positive rebrand. something that adds value to the identity and institution, not just a redirection in a shift away from facebook. host: our next caller is on the independent line in california. caller: good morning. chris, i was wondering, should facebook be liable for the murders in the crime that took place on facebook live? and one thing that i see, it

looks like a reboot from ready player one with the avatar situation. guest: i'm a big ready player one fan as well as a number -- as well as another -- number of other books. i don't think we can uncritically look at the future of technology. we are shifting to more complexity. we need to work to ensure more responsibility. as for liability, i do believe in the division that exists under the law. platforms should not be held liable for the users online, i think the consequences of too radical a shift from that framework and similar provisions in other countries would have harmful repercussions for the economy and the good that we get

out of the services. i'm very aware and engaged with the pushback of big tech. there's is definitely room for improvement. but nothing like holding company is liable for everything i happens. host: let's talk to mike on the independent line in florida. good morning. caller: thanks a lot. it's a fascinating time we are living through. i'm a slow adapter. i didn't get involved until the whole facebook deal. seeing how it -- oh everybody relies on it, industries, business, and how we can be taken away at a moments notice. but do we want the government to be telling us what they can do -- they should be held responsible, facebook should be held responsible. it's our consumerism that striving it. -- that is driving it.

the fact that the previous administration is such a media powerhouse. if you could produce a product that is totally made up. and the current one, feed us what we want to hear, doesn't have to be true at all. guest: i sympathize with your first point. anything that constitutes government coming in and setting the course of speech, whether it be for private citizens or companies -- but i do stand by that there is a role for government, including privacy regulations, ensuring that private data is being properly and responsibly handled by companies. consumer protection regulation is important and underappreciated. if it company puts in its content policy and terms of service that it will do certain things and it doesn't do it there is an opportunity for government action.

you told your consumers and users that you were going to do with thing and you didn't do that. maybe that's an appropriate role for government intervention that does not unduly intrude on free speech rights. host: we would like to thank chris riley, the internet governance senior fellow at the r street institute for coming on and talking about the facebook papers and the future of big tech. chris, thank you. guest: thank you. it was a delight. host: coming up next, open phones. you can call in and talk about whatever you think the most important political topic of the day is. you see the numbers on your screen. following that, our guest will be here to discuss a podcast focusing on politics, race, and culture from the latino perspective. we will be right back. ♪ >> tv every weekend features

leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books, coming up, jesse: takes left-wing activists and the policies they support in his book, how i saved the world. and a conservative podcaster, ben shapiro, talks about his new book, the authoritarian moment where he argues the progressive left is pushing an authoritarian agenda. the latest in publishing industry news with bestsellers and trends on insider interviews on new programs about books. and on afterwards, inside corporate america's social justice scams. an entrepreneur says corporate america is getting to local culture to increase profits. he is interviewed by a harvard university economics professor. watch book tv every weekend and

find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at book tv.org. sunday, november 7 on in-depth, alive conversation with ross douthat on republican -- republican conversations -- republican politics and conservative --. joining the conversation with your phone call, facebook comments, texts and tweets on sunday, november 7, live at noon eastern on in-depth on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. host: we are back with our open phone segment. that means you, our viewers, can call in and talk about what you think is the most important political topic of the day. our numbers are the regular lines. for republicans (202) 748-8001