court issued a final judgment dismissing their claims. >> what about ashli's family, can they just accept this and go on? >> i don't think the lever accepted. to say that they were distraught would be an understatement. they, i, think truly believe that tom salas killed their daughter and they are never going to let that go. >> an idea once so deeply engraved, sure enough will not go away. and tom flawless and his children make a life as best they can. >> that's all for this edition of dateline. i'm craig melvin. thank you for watching. thank you for watching >> this sunday, democracy disrupted. >> stop the steal! >> social-media platforms are reshaping our politics. >> we try to do what this sunday, the one-month sprint to iowa and new hampshire begins.

>> acknowledging a very different trails. >> they are the most powerful forces fighting for our attention. >> the approach of work without political violence -- >> it's technology that say is fueling misinformation and polarizing content for clicks and profit. >> a safer, free speech sprekting more enjoyable social media is possible. >> this morning, we're going look at how the technology companies built platforms connecting the world that are now challenging the very foundations of democracy. >> conditioning congress is concerned about what big content we see. >> you used this power to run amok.

you have used it to silence conservatives. >> we do have national security concerns from the fbi's end about tiktok. >> democratic senator of minnesota and republican congressman mike gallagher of wisconsin will discuss what congress can do to regulate social media. joining me for insight and analysis are "new york times" technology reporter cecilia kang, carlos carbello, former homeland security jay johnson and elizabeth knoll lan brown, senior editor. welcome to sunday and a special edition of "meet the press." >> good sunday morning, happy new year, 2023 is here. this morning we're taking a deep dive into the social media platforms that profit from grabbing on to and monday he tiesing our attention to the tune of billions of dollars a

year and with almost no regulation. 64% of americans believe social media is a bad thing for our democracy, two-thirds of the country. creating polarization and division. the business model depends on persuading you that you and your way of life is somehow under attack to buy your time and attention as whistle blowers from the companies have come to capitol hill to defend it. >> i'm reminded of a conversation with an executive when i said i'm confident that we have a foreign agent and their response was, well, since we already have one, what does it matter if we have more. let's keep growing the office. >> rather than address the own research, they choose screwing the company over keeping people safe. >> i came to realize the

devastating truth. almost no one outside of facebook knows what happens inside of facebook. >> 85% of americans say social media makes it easier to manipulate people with misinformation. we've seen it. one 2019 report tracking a dummy social media account set up to represent an anonymous conservative mother in north carolina found that facebook's recommendation al dough go rhythms led her to it in less than a week. then the tlif anti-vaccine groups that the president called out last year. >> what's you message to platforms like facebook? >> they're killing people. >> facebook was used by members of myanmar's military in a campaign as a tool for genocide. social media platform, facebook to twitter, gasoline on the fire at the capitol attack on january 6.

79% of americans say the internet and social media made americans more politically divided, growing shares of both republicans and democrats say members of the other party are more moral, dishonest and closed minded than other americans, perhaps because thoenl hear about the other party via social media and not normal interactions like we used to have in the presocial media world. and social media companies are profiting off of americans' anger online. starting in 2017, facebook's al go rhythm treated angry he moejy reactions more val unl than likes. anger generates clicks. and clicks generate profit. what's happening on social media is the equivalent of using the same pipes for your drinking water and the sewer system. >> the better you are at innovating a new way to be divisive, we will pay you in more likes, followers and retweets. >> has partisanship me existed social media? yes. have you ever wired up the most powerful artificial intelligence

of the world, pointed at your brain set to show you the most enraging content on a daily basis and the longer you scroll, the more you get. we have never done that before. >> we're experimenting on a great america. and the business has never been bigger. when pugh began tracking social media adoption in 200 5shgs 5% of american adults use one of the platforms. now the number is 72%. 82% of americans are on youtube, 70% on facebook, four of the companies have more than a billion worldwide users. that's more than the population of every country in the world but two. none of the companies has if many insentive to change. social networking sites brought in more than $72 billion last year. >> the reality is our country is deeply divided right now. it's important to look at the big ideas that might influence the way that tech evolves in the future. and more importantly, to build a

strategy that does not rely on government intervention for our success. >> it's noorn they're able to speak freely within the bounds of the law. >> we invited all of the platforms on to this broadcast. simply have a conversation about the fust the platforms and what can be done here. we did receive statement from tiktok and we got links from the other companies. the last real legislation that spells out who is legally responsible for content on the internet was signed into law 27 years ago. the last century. 1996, only a fifth of americans ever booted up the world wide web. section 230 says no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a

publisher or a speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. in other words, these companies are not to be healed libel for content a user posts on the sites and can't be sued. the minute they use an algorithm, do they become a publisher? this was written before the al al go rirnlgs took hold. none of them had passed. 24 years ago, 46 states reached the largest settlement of civil litigation claims in history and toeb companies changed marketing practices and paid states more than $200 billion in rest constitution. when we realized products are toxic for us, we pass laws to change them and we hold companies accountable and in a court of law to force the change. facebook whistle-blower and former data scientists became one of the greatest sources this century when she turned over

thousands of confidential company documents. >> the government took action. i implore you to the do the same here. >> they're not alone. what are they afraid of? sth. >> when you look at the history of facebook stock price and i did this before i came out, facebook stock declined on the nasdaq and more than 5%, about

25 times, 27 times. overwhelmingly those events were when something came out that demonstrated fab was going to have to spend more money on safety. facebook is scared that if we actually had transparency, if we had accountability, they would not be a company with 35% profit margins, they would be 15% profit margins. >> so you took this job in the civil integrity team. what is the specific motivation. tell me about it. >> back in 2016, i had a very close friend who helped me relearn to walk. i was very ill. i was paralyzed below my knees. over the course of the middle of 2016, after bernie sanders lost

the primaries, he fell down a rabbit hole, he became more and more radicalized. watching him drift away at the same time i was working on the algorithms of pinterest. i would see the glaring deficits. the they would have these things like a carousel under every post. they show you other posts. can you tell they're bafrpged on clicks because the extreme version of whatever you saw. you click on an article about the election. it shows you the pope endorses donald trump. and it turned out it was whole macedonian misinformation factor going on. cottage industry of the little blogs to make the fake news stories. and facebook was just asleep at the wheel. so when i got offered a chance to work on specific misinformation, i thought back on that experience of watching these deficits, of watching p person who i really cared about spiral into world of alternate facts.

i said this is my chance to do something. what are you just finding is that how often they change the algorithm. and to me it shows you they know what is happening. like they can do this. but you were in the similar position. do you feel as if they wanted you to succeed? >> one of the best civic responsibilities available in the industry. it wasn't until they dissolved that unit immediately after the 2020 election that i realized the company wasn't committed to this enterprise. that if you want to have successful change in enterprise,

you have to appoint a vanguard. you have to have executives that say these people are the future. they're going to lead us in the right direction. and when facebook dissolved civic integrity, i saw they were not willing to make that commitment anymore. >> you said something in your statement, you saw facebook encounter conflicts between the own profit ands/or safety and facebook consistently resolved these conflicts in favor of its own profits. give me an example. >> one of the most effective things for reducing misinformation is a simple intervention. it is free speech centered. if you look at a chain of reshares, so, alice writes something and bob shares it, friend of friend reshares it, it lands in dan's feet. alice didn't zoe dan. dan doesn't know alice. she could be sending misinformation. you're outside of that social context. if you said, hey dan, you need -- if you want to share this, you -- you have to copy and paste.

you have to make a choice. you can't just knee jerk reshare this. >> make an effort. >> yeah. >> be intentional. intention alt sharing. that is the same impact on misinformation as the entire third party fact checking. it doesn't choose which ideas are good or bad. it says let's have humans make choices, not just reflexes. that reduces the amount of content spread in the system. decreases profits. and facebook declined to make that choice. >> all of their business models so this was taken away, this would massively change the company? >> the way to think about safety on social media platforms is very small choices where if you make them and you .1% of profit, .2% of profit, the problem is these industries are so sensitive to growth that when

they don't grow at the level the market expects, the stock price crashes. so they're afraid to take even a small action because they will decrease the profit of the company. >> i want you to react to nick. he's done a host writing. and this is one where it feels like he may have well used the shrug he moejy. easy to blame everything on algorithms. we need to look ourselves in the mirror and not wrap ourselves in the false comfort that we're manipulated by machines all along. hey this isn't on us, this is society. we're just the mirror. >> nick cleg wrote an amazing post in march of 2021. he said it takes two to tango. you know, you're blaming us for algorithms, you chose interests, they chose the interests n march of 2021 they have already run the same study four times where they took a blank account, this is an account that doesn't have

any friends or interests and they followed some center right, center left ush use. all they did is click on content facebook gave it. follow groups facebook suggested. in two weeks, twhent from, you know, center topics like fox news to white genocide just by clicking on the content. the algorithm pushed them in a more extreme direction. our information environment does have consequences. >> we compartmentalize tv and radio. this is much harder to compartmentalize. >> it is also a question of when tv is on, if you tell a falsehood, other people can see it and respond. on radio, everyone can hear -- has the same airwaves. when it comes to social media, can you spread lies very visible and facebook is resistant even minimal efforts at transparency that may allow us to reconverge. >> so what government regulation look like? >> i'm a big proponent of

transparency as the first step. i think people aren't aware ofd. social media companies for 20 years, remember, there were social media companies before facebook. they bring more people to the table. the transparency act which was recently prosed i think is great first step. >> when you say transparency, should the government have to approve an algorithm? >> we are such a basic level of understanding right now, what i really want to emphasize is this is like we're back in 1965. we don't have seat belt laws yet. and we're just opening the pages of unsafe at any speed and saying oh, my gs g.ness, there are all these ways to clear out safer platforms. we're at that level of understanding. so what we have to have

transparency so we have enough conversations about how to move forward. >> should government be focused on user protection, consumer protection rather than trying to regulate the companies? >> i think -- that's a great question. other industries are kept safe because there is something i called the ecosystem of accountability. remember, facebook stock price is down 70% right now. that is because of citizens like mothers against drug driving. right now that entire ecosystem is missing because social media companies hid the information. and so when we talk about should we be protecting users, we are so far at the beginning that it is difficult to even put everyone at a table and say this is the menu of what is possible. let's negotiate what the floor looks like. >> i know you don't have as much insight in tech companies. should we assume that this

algorithm thing is similar to at which time eastern tiktok and youtube? >> 100%. the most important things that elon musk can do to prove he wants to have a public square is he can publish the algorithms. >> open source. >> yeah. open source it. he had more help. it would be cheaper for him and more profitable. companies like tiktok have the exact same problems. tiktok is it designed around being censored. it comes from china. it is designed to amplify things so much theenl a few pieces of don't make up our feeds and they manually screen those. we deserve to know what the policies are. they're influencing what information we get to see. >> all right. i have a couple lawmakers on here, we'll see what they have to say. thank you for coming in. when we come back, what can dong o. congress do to regulate social media? our guests both have some ideas

and their both here. r guests bo and their both here.

as a business owner, your bottom line is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts. saving you up to 60% a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.

. >> though lawmakers in washington have talked about a moment of truth for social-media companies, they seem to have lacked some urgency. each party is worried about a regulation hurting t lawmakers have talked about social media companies, they lack urgency. they're worried about a regulation hurting their side and benefiting the other. joining me now is amy klobuchar of minnesota who introduced lots of legislation to regulate on line with advertising, address problems with social media algorithms and reigning in big companies. and mike gallagher introduced a bill to ban tiktok. welcome to both of you. senator klobuchar, i want to start with you. i want to start with something just how powerful the social media lobby is in this town. look, i put up that list of legislation there. a week ago you thought you had a bill that was at least going to -- was designed to help journal us tick organizations

big and small. to get properly -- to get properly funded by facebook and all that. similar law in australia. you thought it was a done deal and gone in 24 hours. how powerful is technology? >> so powerful that you literally can have a bill that got through the judicialry committee with strong bipartisan support. can you get promises from leaders that it's going to be major end of year bill. then within 24 hours, it's gone, it's vanished. one company, two companies in this case facebook and google, by the way, google made $66 billion in one quarter in advertising but we're going to lose one-third of the nation's newspapers by 2025. we had such strong support for this bill. but they just make a few calls and they just say, hey, you know, this is going to hurt us like they did in australia. the difference was in australia, they're government stood up and said, no, we're going to do this and say you've got to negotiate

with these news organizations to give fair price for their content. it happened. and they have a better system in place. right now in the united states of america, these companies have basically started dominating our thought processes. and i think the work france has done is incredible. it's about making them trans pair ent. that's a bill we have. and it is about getting compensation for a news organizations. finally, it's about getting rid of archaic law 230 that gives thim immunity from lawsuits. >> section 230 here, no provider or user can be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another content provider. this was all passeded in the 90s. it was passed when it was for somebody going into college sports. yeah, there was crazy stuff in. there it makes sense for that. this was prealgorithm.

this is pre, sort of pre -- before the iphone. we didn't know what was coming. can this be amended rather than gotten rid of? >> yes, you can amend it on focus on certain kinds of speech misinformation, disinformation. all you're saying is we know people are going to put stuff on your alleged town square. your network has limits in place and standards. that's different thing. >> if you change the news feed, your news feed versus my news feed, isn't the company a publisher? >> let's start facing the facts and stop tending their a little company in a garage. maybe one day they were. but now they are a mega company. this is starting to happen all over the world. it is time for 2023, let it be

our resolution that, we finally pass one of these bills. we have gotten through the committee the first bills that since the unt net began to finally take them on. had. >> let me ask you about polarization. a democrat may think is this going to hurt our status online and vice versa? >> actually even more insidious. >> support from small businesses all over the country for this they ran over 150 million and much more in ads. all across the country.

>> if you support a bill like this, this is kids stuff. >> so you felt like -- >> this is almost like you were being exhorted? >> this is how it's working. >> it is goej change. it's only going to change if the people of this country say this is enough. this is corrupt. you have to do something. put some rules in place when it comes to social media and they've got to be libel when you have situations where literally deranged people are believing their stuff and going in and taking a hammer and bludgeoning the husband of the speaker of the house or hundreds of thousands of blog post that's are allowed to go through with massive capital that they used to create an insurrection. at some point when they can't control their own platforms and making billions of dollars in from the american people and over, as you point out, two-thirds of americans say it's hurting our democracy, come on, congress.

stop hiding thinned and get something done. >> would it -- look, let's be realistic. the toeb companies changed after being hit with hefty lawsuits. more than government regulation. >> yes. >> facebook is being sued in some places. do you think the behavior would change? >> yes. because then in order to continue, they have to put safety measures in place instead of sending out sweet little notes about all got work they're doing. they have to do something. and so that's going to change section 230 which was developed for a whole different moment in the internet is an answer. the other is taking on monopolies so you can allow competitors to come into being, they would have different bells and whistles on privacy and the like, regulating on line political ads which they're still escaping despite the

federal election commission. this is a bill i had with lindsey graham. there are many, many things question do here. but we need more time. we need votes. >> would you like to see someone that targets online ads saying they can't target online ads? >> i would like to see major work. i want to look at that exact bill. and this bill that we have requires disclosures, disclaimers, you know who is paying for them. in this last election, over 30% of americans say the number one reason they voted democratic including a whole bunch of independents and moderate republicans was democracy. and it was voter suppression, yes.

it cause people to do what they've done. i just think it's a major issue. i'm not giving up. i'm not giving up. i'm going into 2023 ready to go. >> your passion comes through. senator, thank you. >> thank you, chuck. >> let me bring in congressman mike gallagher. i want to start with tiktok. you call it digital fentanyl. it is owned by the chinese government. but explain why you call it digital fentanyl. >> well, it was the commissioner called it digital fentanyl. i think the comparison is apt for three reasons. it's highly addictive. and destructive. and we're seeing troubling data about the core owive impact of constant social media use particularly on young men and women in america.

it is also digital fentanyl because it ultimately goes back to the chinese communist party. it is owned by byte dance and it is controlled by the ccp. we have to ask whether we want the ccp to control what is on the cusp of becoming the most powerful media company in america. that is very troubling. and so i was glad to see my colleagues in the senate pass in unanimous fashion a ban of tiktok on government devices. i think we should do the same in the house and expand that ban nationally. but this is not about misinformation with tiktok. i want to get more at your concern, and i'm curious. this is not about misinformation with tiktok. i want to get more of your concern. i'm curious, are you more

concerned about the chinese government having our data which one might argue they already do, or are you more concerned about the fact that this -- that the algorithm can be turned on or off to say what they want to say in any moment to billions of users around the world? >> you're right to suggest that predates tiktok. i remember getting a letter after the opm hack because my military records poernlly would have been compromised. that gives them enormous leverage any time an american is operating in china or something our intelligence community needs to do. i'm concerned about. that i'm concerned about tick to being's ability to track your location, track your keystrokes. i'm concerned about the lack of transparency around the algorithm which is addicting kids.

if they start censoring the news and tweaking it to determine what the ccp deems fit to print? >> is this something with tiktok that you think -- can they create an american version? or do you think there is just no way to split this company up? to protect americans? >> i think one acceptable outcome -- this is allowed in the bill that i have which is a booip big with my colleague. so here you have not only a democrat and republican working together. but a bears fan and packers fan working together on this issue, chuck. it would allow for a sale to an american company, that option was explored during the trump

administration. oracle explores a version of that. microsoft fell through. i think there is a workable solution there. what we don't want is some solution where there is a data sent in singapore but the ccp and fight dance retain control. the devil is in the details. but i'm open to having that discussion with tiktok. i really want to have that discussion with the biden administration. i don't think this should be a partisan issue. i want to wshg with them. i think the senate vote that we were talking about earlier is evidence this isn't a partisan issue. >> what is your level of concern about the russian investment into telegram and the daudy government's investment into twitter? >> i guess my broad concern of which both of those are part is where we see authority began governments exploiting technology in order to exert total control. it's most prominently and

perversely expressed in province. but they're exporting that throughout the rest of the country. they're using that to shut down the protests we're seeing in china right now and it's my belief that is a model that will not stay in china. that is a model they're going to export around the world. another thing we do around here, chuck, is insist on basic reciprocity. for example, chinese diplomats, the propagandists are all over at which time eastern facebook pushing propaganda attacking america. when at the same time, of course, american citizens aren't allowed access. i mean chinese citizens are not allowed access to the apps in china. there is no level playing field. if your government doesn't allow citizens 5:00 tes to the platform, we're going to deny your government officials access to that same platform. i think that would be a useful step to apply not only to china but also to russia. >> look, you're not somebody that wants to see a lot

government regulation. but what is the best way to regulate social media? is it to make them -- is it to get rid of 230 and let the courts have at them? like, you know, no more special protection? is it a new law? is it algorithm transparency? what is in your view acceptable regulation? >> i do think more transparency around the algorithms is necessary. i like what senator klobuchar is saying on that front. my only concern with a 230 repeal it is may accidentally increase censorship on social media, in other words, that the platforms are now libel for what people that use them say, would they not just kick people off pro actively? you're able to bring your network to whatever platform that you like combined with neutrality in the stack where in contrast to twitter or facebook

which are private companies that can have different content regulations, amazon web services, for example, kind of the infrastructure of the internet couldn't deny someone access to their services just they don't like their political belief. i think that's kind of the framework i have in mind. i'm open to having that conversation. i listen to your interview closely. i love to go over, across the hill and talk to her about her ideas. >> just to put this -- is this a case of regulating the companies or protecting consumers? like should the focus be more on consumer protection or more on trying to regulate the company? >> for me, it's the latter. it's consumer protection. and one thing that we don't really think about is, you know, the complicates user agreement that's we all just click automatically. perhaps it's unreasonable for us to expect your average american citizen -- >> there is a great spoof about that. >> yeah, that's right. but we in congress should do a

better job. we should communicate that in a way that they understand. i think there are a variety of things to do. when it comes to our kids, i think, you know, listen, the government can't raise your kids or protect your kids for you. i have two young daughters. it's my responsibility to raise them into healthy adults. but there are certain sensible things question do in order to create a healthier social media ecosystem. >> we made credit card companies cut down the amount of parra graphs they do. i think we can make social media companies do the same. mike gallagher, thank you. go, pack, go. republican from wisconsin. appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective. when we come back, social media seen as mostly good for democracy across the globe. but not here in the united states. here it is seen as much more destructive. we're going to go inside the numbers next. ctive. we're going to go inside the numbers next s has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support.

why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric. qunol. the brand i trust.

. ♪♪ >> welcome back. "data download" time. social media's impacts are felt all around the world. but pew research center's new welcome back. social media's impacts are felt around the world.

pew research center's global attitude survey shows the chutes is an outlier in how americans perceive social media's impact on democracy. bottom line, americans are a lot more skeptical. social media's impact on democracy a bad thing? 35% around the world say it's a bad thing. here in the united states, 64% say it's been a bad thing. how about whether it's made us more divided? are we now less civil? 46% globally agree with that. 69% believe that here in the united states. and how about social media? does it make you more informed? globally, people think it does, 73% versus americans at 64%. but despite our skepticism as americans, we're only using this more and more. look at this, i'd like to know

who the 16% that don't use social media r 84% of folks under 30. 81% 30 to 50. even 60% of those folks, 50 plus. so we may not like it. but we're becoming more addicted to it. up next, social media has already changed us and our politics. so what is the best path forward? our panelists will discuss. t pah forward? our panelists will discuss

. >> back now with a terrific panel. new york times technology reporter cecilia kang, coauthor of "an ugly truth: inside facebook's battle for domination," former homeland security secretary jeh johnson, former republican congressman carlos curbelo, and senior editor at reas magazine, elizabeth nolan brown. welcome to all of you. cecelia, i want to start with you because you've written this book on facebook. it does -- kara swisher >> i want to start with you. you wrote this book on facebook. it does -- it has a sort of a take on facebook. mark zuckerberg didn't know he was created when he started

creating it. and that sort feels like what all the social media companies. they are starpted with good intentions and it got out of hand. it lost control. >> yeah. there are two guiding forces. they wanted companies that would grow and grow fast and grow big and scale to point where they're global and they would have historic and lasting impact. the second thing these are businesses. these are companies motivated by profits. the business model is built on the idea of getting eyeballs and attention to serve up to advertisers. and to make money that way. and that, i think, is -- if you miss those two important points, you sort of miss what is happening here. >> they never -- what i want to get at is they never thought, hey, we're going to be trafficking misinformation. >> they never did. >> that seemed to shock them. >> yeah. i think a lot of the companies are built oftentimes by actually sort of young male idealistic entrepreneurs with big dreams and they got lots of funding.

and their idealism is what really attracts the funding and a lot of interest by engineers that want to work there. they do want to change the world. but they're not motivated to look around the corners for potential problems because their eye is always on growth and eyes have always been on really growing that business model. >> elizabeth, would you argue is the problem the companies or is the problem us? >> i think that the problem -- a the lot of things that get blamed on social media are human problems and social media makes them more visible, yes. >> more visible. do you accept the idea had a social media may ramp it up, accelerate issues? >> i think social media, things people don't think about is they help suppress a lot of the bad content. without algorithms, we would be seeing a lot more hate speech and offensive content. i think that they do a lot of good for the average person on line. >> jay, when you were at hoenl land security, you just beginning to deal with this misinformation issue. how did you tackle it then?

and looking back, how you would tackle it now? >> looking back at the 2016 election and i should mention as a lawyer, i have clients -- >> yes. you work for a firm that does -- represents some of the social media companies. >> made that disclosure. >> yes. >> this was the trojan thors in 2016. 2016, i as secretary of homeland security was very focused on potential cyber attacks on the infrastructure. i declared election infrastructure to be critical infrastructure. turned out that wasn't the issue in 2022. the trojan horse was the extent to which the russian government invaded our american conversation. and it spelled out in the mueller indictment, but this is

an issue we have yet to get our arms around. it does implicate free speech. >> i feel like your national political career encompasses this moment where we went from social media good to social media problematic. is that fair? >> yeah. i think one of the big problems on right is that social media has sewn a lot of distrust. the right feels under attack by big institutions and the big companies. they represent mainstream america. and because dwoent really know exactly how these companies operate, it breeds a lot of conspiracy theories. they're raising the curtain on everything that twitter d it hurt our democracy because it diminished trust in society. >> social media in my view accentuates the point that our greatest strength as a free and

open society is also our greatest vulnerability. it's no coincidence that at the same time the rise of social media, more people are participating in the process. >> that's an important point. our voter turnout in the last decade has been going up, up, up and up. >> 66%. >> one might argue that voters in this country start voting when they're worried. that the democracy is -- >> there's that, too. >> you have this person called trump that got everybody's attention. but through social media, social media raises political awareness. look at how president zelenskyy is using social media? >> i want to start with you. if we're going to regulate this, should we come at it consumer first or company first? >> we need to consider consumer's first.

i don't think regulating it in the terms of companies being big is a good thing. we see facebook, twitter, power is in new things coming aloss. i think that the market will take care of unseedy needs and if dwoent overregulate because when there is so much regulation, only facebook can keep up with it and entrenches facebook's power. >> well, it is -- none of the companies want regulation. i mean, i was talking about it. it is astonishing how fast facebook killed that bill. it was a done deal. and the defense authorization bill. it was done. and then it got stripped out. >> yeah. >> yes. you know, i've seen dozens of bills be proposed on regulating technology companies and none of them passed. and i really don't think that regulation is where we're going to see accountability first. i agree with elizabeth. consumers will vote with feet. we're seeing facebook see the losers that -- users are not using the site as much and

visiting as often. >> you would like to see 230 gone or amended? >> i think regulating speech is going to be hard in general. i think getting rid of 230 is going to be very difficult. i think republicans and democrats agree that it needs to be revised in some way. but for very different reasons. they come at it completely polar opposite reason for why. and as far as 230 goes as speech, i think what you're going to see is more individual lawsuits. you saw, for example with, the lawsuits against alex jones by the sandy hook families. you saw dominion voting machines, the company sue fox news -- >> this is not holding the tech companies, it's going after the individuals that use the tech platform. i think users, that will probably create bottle necks potentially in the spread of the

information. how is information getting suppressed? >> i think you make a choice. we were talking about this earlier. i want to make the choice. hey, i want some -- i want some use of the algorithm but i want to pick and choose. >> i think it's great when they let you choose and chronological order. but again, i think that is something that users need to demand. it can't come from a top down mandate. >> you were asked should government approve algorithm? i think that comes close to regulating speech. very interesting exercise. if you put in to your phone a well known right-wing common yator and brick replacement, you get a site from the anti-defamation league arguing

that he should be deplatformed. >> and interesting way when you come to that. this is a terrific panel. thank you. a special meet the press minute looking back at the first time this program looked into this emerging technology. looked int emerging technology.

. >> welcome back. before there was facebook, twitter, or tiktok, blogging was the earliest way for people to share content gr there was facebook, twitter or tiktok, blogging is the way for people to share content and build communities online. blogs were still a novelty in the world of campaign politics. at least here in washington. in my first ever meet the press appearance, tim russert asked me to explain how it was being used in that cycle. >> here to help us is chuck todd. what is a blog? >> blog -- the actual term itself is short for web log. it is, you know, you drop the w and get the blog. i'll describe what howard dean's blog is. it has the most traction and

attention. it's essentially like bajtal bulletin board saying this is what we're up to today. this is our message today. these are some of the things we're doing today. and then it allows a section to comment about what's going on during the day. this is where you find out who the bloggers are. >> yes, i used to have a big head of hair. that's all for watching. happy new year. we'll be back next week. if if it's sunday, it's meet the press. >> we're learning more about the security failures during the january 6 attack as the former u.s. capitol police chief gives