hearings from u.s. congress, white house events, campaigns and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find information for c-span's tv networks and c-span radio. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. downloaded for free today. your front row seat to washington, anytime, anywhere. >> welcome back to washington journal. joins me. she is the columnist for the on tech news later. host: you wrote an article for the new york times, the headline is "why everybody wants to buy twitter." what is the answer to that? caller: it is a can vamping

property. it is enormously influential among politicians, among the news media, among corporations. on the other hand, twitter has been an under performer in every possible way. its user base is 1/10 of the users of facebook. twitter has relatively small revenues, it is smaller than the revenues of bed, bath and beyond. it has struggled its career with questions about the balance of expressions and creating a place where people feel like they can have a say and feel free. host: we will take call from viewers. republicans can call (202) 748-8001, democrats can call

(202) 748-8000 and independents (202) 748-8002 can call. what is the timeline for the sale? guest: in theory, three to six months where the lawyers cross all the teas and after those months, elon musk will be the owner. host: what is the immediate impact he will have on twitter? guest: i will have to be honest in saying that no one really knows. i know that we will talk about it this morning. the reality is that he has said relatively little about how he may change twitter. he has given some brought ideas. what he has said is that he

wants there to be room for people to say whatever they want on twitter within the balance of the law. he has talked about things like doing more to stamp out automated accounts that furiously tweet hard-core things that people like profanity. you will auto -- get these automated replies. he has talked about that. he has talked about open sourcing twitter's algorithm which is what they use to organize the tweets that you see. those are the kinds of things that he has talked about in broad strokes. but again, how that vision meets

reality is going to be hard to know. host: let's talk about what he has said about free speech and he of course tweeted about this. let's take a look at is tweet from elon musk it says "by free speech i say that which matches the law. i go against censorship. if they want less free speech they will ask government to make laws to that effect. going against free speech is contrary to the will of the people." what if free speech contains misinformation, disinformation, where do we think he is going to land on that? guest: we don't really know, he has not yet confronted those questions. everybody thinks free speech is an important concept. the question that anybody can

say anything as long it is legal. what do you do about things like profanity and pornography. those are the legal but many social media properties including twitter, trumps social network, they don't allow it. they severely restrict profanity and prone auger fee. --pornography. most users, they are outside of the united states. what if a government in turkey, these tweets from people who disagree with the government, they are illegal under turkish law but people who believe in

freedom of expression, that government is trying to use the law to suppress speech. what does twitter do in those kind of circumstances? that happens every day. just recently and the last day or so there was a columnist from a chinese property that complained it was being censored on twitter. but twitter says it was state owned media. this person believes that it is a suppression of their rights. it is a complicated question that are not answered that as long it is legal it is insured.

has elon musk said anything about lifting the ban on president trump? guest: he has not said that publicly. he would probably be willing or eager to let trump have his account back. many of the people that i have talked to that are not free speech absolutist, but believe in the free balance of expression, they also believe that social media companies made a mistake by removing president trump permanently after january 6. if elon musk allows trump to have his account back, the

people will be supportive of that move as well. host: one last tweet from elon musk, "twitter must be neutral, upsetting the far right and far left equally." we want to know what you think. anthony is up first from new york on the democrats line. caller: thank you for the opportunity. i have made this request to c-span in the past. there has been a whistle blower named michael klein in 2002. the lawsuit has been in court for several years and then barack obama was to grant

immunity to the telecom sector for cooperating with surveillance. it is unconstitutional. they used arbitrary state secrets rights. host: what does this have to do with twitter? caller: twitter has aligned itself with the government to undermine the constitution. the constitution trumps all of what they are doing now. it is unconstitutional and illegal. edward snowden has been guest on c-span. host: let's get a response. guest: his general question about the relationship between free speech and the government, the reality is there are a handful of american tech

companies that have a norman sway over these powerful tools -- enormous sway over these powerful tools. the people that make these decisions in these companies are not accountable to the public. i think those are understandable questions about the constitution and the bill of rights as a restraint on government power. it does not say much about the power of corporations. there are open questions about what do we do when we are in an environment where big companies have this kind of power that may be akin to government power but not the accountability of government. host: let's talk to troy from georgia on the independent line. caller: i noticed when trump was

running for election, and this is what reminded me of elon musk. how twitter has come under the microscopic. he was able to tweet and drown out conventional media. i think he had 22 million followers and i don't believe any cable venue at that time had that kind of a following. in my mind that put twitter on the radar. and i want to know what you think about that? caller: it is true, trump made

twitter -- put much more attention on twitter than it had before. he is not the only reason that twitter is an influential means of communication. the same way that twitter used -- trump has used twitter to bypass media. in the arab spring protest, people organized against what they saw authoritarian governments they used twitter and facebook and used social media in ways that they could not do in a previous era. it gives people a way to have a voice without getting permission. it is also true that trump put much more of a spotlight on twitter and gave it more

relevance in a way that twitter did not like because it brought all these questions about whether twitter is responsible for the things that he says. host: let's talk to mike from pennsylvania next. caller: my issue isn't just with twitter it is with social media and general. ever since this more liberal leaning government system took office, there has been more censorship on all social media. twitter, facebook, you name it. host: what do you think? guest: i have not seen credible

research on this. it is true that there has been an evolution over the past 10 years, over the past five years, a rethinking about what had been a free speech absolutist position. those principles are valuable. as these companies grew more influential, as they went global, they were confronted with these challenges. what does it mean when people use speech to suppress other speech or to do harm. an example, myanmar used facebook messages to denigrate the minority in that country and those sorts of actions, that use

of facebook to propagate genocide against the muslim population in that country. these companies on their own have made these decisions to put more rules around what people can say to ensure they are not drowned out by spam or chinese state propaganda and also to counteract some real-world harms where speech is used as a tool to suppress other speech. host: press secretary jen psaki was asked about the sale. "the president has long been concerned about large social

media platforms. the power they have over every day lives. the platform needs to be held accountable for the harm they cause. there needs to be fundamental reforms, antitrust reforms for more transparency and there is bipartisan support in congress." what do you think, where our lawmakers on this? agree, disagree, supportive? guest: it is all over the map. the interesting thing i hear from that statement, everybody including people who run social media companies agree they have too much power. where the disagreement lies is what to do about it. it is a very challenging question.

on the question of politicians in washington's have reacted to this deal. conservative politicians, republicans who want elon musk and want less moderation on twitter and believe musk will issue in this new twitter where there will be less moderation. there are other people who are worried about big tech companies having a lot of power. i don't think elon musk changes that. it is just swapping one billionaire owner for another powerful management team at twitter.

host: let's talk to susan from virginia on the democrats line. caller: could you speak to the subtle issues aside from the free-speech issue, marjorie taylor greene and the problem she had. a lot of people depend on twitter for all of their news. their worry is more than elon musk. it is the population of people that believe outright falsehoods. can you talk about that a little bit? guest: i didn't hear the entirety of the question but i got the gist. this is a challenge not only for

social media companies but for the world where what do you do in an age where everything, including truths is doubted. i think this is a challenging time for the united states and people in other countries where there is so much division and disagreement and you don't complicate the matters when you have these tools of influence that have different mechanisms than we have seen before. these are new companies, twitter is 16 years old and we are in

this environment where our american ideology is being altered by fall speech. what you do when these software algorithms make viral information that might be untrue but interesting. we know that lies can spread more quickly than facts and undermines that facts can be the curative's for lies. what can we believe and how do we win this one?

-- there is a law that dates from the 90's that people say is the bedrock of the internet and it says that internet companies that operate on mind. it gives them some immunity for moderating their platforms without being legally responsible for what people say. an example, if i say something on facebook you consume me but not facebook. there are advocates of this law saying that without it, you could delete posts that are

obviously inflammatory, spam, obvious harassment, profanity. the people who believe in that law say that it gives it away for the internet to exist. host: let's talk to gary on the internet line. caller: i am scared about these billionaires owning these companies. they don't seem to realize that they are above the regular guy on the street he was struggling to survive and make ends meet. the disinformation that is putting out there, people are soaking it up like a sponge and spitting it out in the

community. that 44 billion dollars could have fed the world. he could have taken that money and given it to food banks were given it to aid societies. there are people starving all over the world. do something more important than sending rockets up in the universe. host: let's get a response. guest: i understand where he is coming from. there is a question for people with enormous wealth, how are they using it? i don't speak for elon musk, if he were answering that question he would say that the companies that he runs including tesla and spacex, they have done an enormous amount of good for the world even if they are not charitable organizations.

electrifying our transportation system will be important to fight climate change and achieve these other goals for the world. space travel has been important for the u.s. and other governments goals in space. i imagine that is how elon musk would answer that question. he serves the world not through charitable donations but through the work that his corporations do. host: let's talk to willie and california on the republican line. caller: hi. i will talk about a law that you don't want to talk about. it started in 1770 six. the constitution of the united states and the bill of rights. our first amendment has been taken away by twitter. a duly elected president, donald j. trump was in the white house.

barack obama, joe biden set up a secondary white house. paul ryan was meeting at that secondary white house. our constitution gives us the freedom of speech and you want to say it gives people too much power to have our first amendment? host: let's see what are guest thinks. guest: i think one thing, the principles of free speech are important. the thing that matters, the first amendment and the bill of rights, it is about government suppression of speech. it does not speak to the issue

of corporations. the way that the law has been interpreted over 200 plus years is that corporations have more leeway than the government and mcdonald's can make rules about who can and cannot go into their restaurants and likewise, facebook and twitter are constitutionally free to make rules about what people can and cannot do on those properties. it is a real question about whether any corporation including twitter uses their leeway appropriately, and i am glad we are having this discussion. for a very long time the internet companies were given a pass, at least from the public

about what does it mean when these companies have enormous power over the ways that we communicate, the information received, the tools of persuasion. i am very glad that because of people donald trump the public is more engaged in these conversations. i am glad for that. the constitution is largely about government suppression of free speech rather than corporate suppression of free speech. host: kathy is next on the independent line. caller: i had a quick comment and then my question. speaking of money and elon musk, how about the millions of dollars for democrats and the republicans campaign? in the dhs hearing on thursday, alejandra may your cuss said she

-- the government is about to tell us what is and is not disinformation. that is standing in the way of our free speech. that is government telling us. thank you. guest: i am not familiar with that dhs announcement. on government telling companies what is the bounds of expression. we have seen that in other countries besides the united states. the european union just past the sweeping law for twitter to protect people, governments and

britain have rules about protecting children that puts -- it is different then free speech absolutist ideas of the internet. people like mark zuckerberg say i don't want facebook to be responsible for what the appropriate balance of expression, we are also uncomfortable with the government dictating the bounds of expression. it puts us in a pickle when we don't want companies to have this power. we don't want the government to have this power. but many of us don't want to have absolute zones including terrorist recruitment videos and spam on the social networks.

there will be a pickle in the united states given our history of discomfort with government telling people what they can and cannot say. host: you mentioned facebook. i wonder if elon musk's influence on twitter will affect others social media networks at all? guest: i had not really thought about it. i guess we will see. if and when elon musk becomes the owner of twitter and makes changes to how it handles what people can say on the platform, i am sure facebook, reddit and others will watch closely to what happens if things go well or it goes poorly. host: let's go to mary on the

democrats line. caller: i guess persuasion is the word you would use. if you can talk a soundbite and repeat and repeat you can persuade people to believe anything. we are losing our ability to clearly think. when you watch what is happening in russia with control, locking out journalists. we have lost something when we have lost local newspapers and investigating reporting and then we have people going on twitter with lock her up, stop the steal. nobody bothers to look. who is really stealing from us? guest: i understand mary's point. i think many of us feel

discouraged about division and the fact that many of us cannot agree on a common set of facts. the idea in russia that many russians because of what state run media has reported, many russian citizens believe that there is a war happening in ukraine even if their own family members have suffered in that war. the united states is not russia. we do live in a world where the power of persuasion can make people believe things that are untrue, persuade people to believe things aren't true. social media is one element of that. i think the question is really

about the challenge of the modern age. can we agree on anything? host: let's talk to ned and idaho on the independent line. caller: i come to this topic from a point of history. this is kind of a revolutionary. with the advancement of social media kind of similar to the revolution around the french revolution and the ones around that time with the printing press and all of that. the mass dissemination of information. we are in a new dawn where social media is spreading

information. talking about the arab spring, that was on social media but for a few countries, it did not and well. when it comes to this country and free speech, the first amendment, it is always under attack. free speech is always under attack, it always has been. you remember the movie, "the people versus larry flynt." the other thing i want to bring up -- guest: i don't know much about french history.

but throughout american history there has been a lot of struggling with the meaning of the first amendment. during wartime, there was government suppression of speech in order to do what the government believed was protecting the populace from the threat of war and the threat of germans in the united states. our 2022 minds we waited find that a violation of the constitution. our corporate news media is that much more powerful if that stretched the capacity of the first amendment because we have these corporations that have influenced over american life and belief and that might be an analogous. to where we are now. the first amendment has been a

constant struggle and we are seeing that now in a different form. >> this evening, we will show you debates. including marjorie taylor greene. that debate begins at 7:00 p.m. here on c-span. watch that at 8:00 p.m. eastern and also on c-span, online at c-span.org or watch full coverage on c-span now, the free video at. >> this week on the c-span networks. the house is not in session but the senate's meeting. tuesday at 10:00 p.m. eastern. pete buttigieg testified before the senate of commerce, science

and transportation committee. they will appear before the senate homeland security miti. live or on-demand at any time. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> for the past 20 years, dr. thomas fisher has worked in the emergency department serving the same southside community in which he was raised. he decided to write about his experience in a large urban hospital emergency room.

he says at the end of the shift, he was haunted by the confusion in the eyes of his patients. he asked a couple of questions. dr. fisher will attempt to answer these about the healing and heartbreak and chicago er. dr. thomas fisher on this subset of book notes plus. they are available on the free mobile app or wherever you got your podcast. >> at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office. >> season focuses on the presidency of lyndon johnson.

the march on selma and the war in vietnam. not everyone knew they were being recorded. certainly, johnson's secretaries now because they were cast with transcribing many of those conversations. they were the ones who made sure the conversations were taped as johnson would signal to them through an open door between his office and theirs. if i can't ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i promise i won't go anywhere. i will stay right behind here. >> presidential recordings, find it on the c-span now mobile app. order wherever you get your podcast.

next, a discussion about recommendations on changing. with the representative here. the chair and vice chair of the select committee on the modernization of congress. after the discussion, the panel debates the recommendation and other changes that might be needed. this is just over 50 minutes. >> good morning and thank you for joining us for today's event modernizing congress, moving the house forward . i'm editor-in-chief. before we begin i'd like to take a moment to clarify the modernization of congress to make this event possible. the house select committee on modernization of congress was created in the 116 congress and the pursuit of a more efficientand effective congress for the american people . as they begin to wrap up its