when obama was elected specially the kind of liberal intelligentsia the elites on the the west and the east coast they all said oh finally twitter is able. to generate. a candidate of the people. and finally social media is able to disinter mediate all the institutions of politics and produce a high quality leader and i think in some senses that was true certainly obama's smart use of social media broke through a lot of the clutter and then four years later eight years after obama was initially elected we have trump who shows the really dark side of social media so i think what obama and trump show is that social media itself like all these internet technologies are just technologies. that there's no reason to suppose that they produce either good or bad leaders i think social media produced in my

opinion anyway a very good leader in obama and then a very bad one in trump and. so to blame or to blame social media on the one hand or two so to demonize a or idealize it i think is the wrong way of doing nothing if there is just a tool that people outside of the united states seem like parties and facebook posts for instance which of which post partisan facebook posts are more sicked after news on the established media the question is why do you think people turn to post and facebook as opposed to the mainstream media space well right so now the question that reflects the echo chamber nature of social media which is a huge problem but it's not just a huge problem in america it's a huge problem world wide where people are. rich. reaching into that try

and when they use particular facebook but also twitter they use these scenes to confirm what they already think but it's also true of television. in america for work says let me let me just finish this point about a television in america you have an echo chamber television culture where the left watch m.s.m. b c and the right watch fox and it doesn't really give them any news it simply lectures them and confirms what they already think social media is part of that but to pick out social media and say that the parts of media. innocent i think would be a mistake the question is do you mean like the social media gives them what they want to hear it when more than the mainstream media well there's two kinds of people when it comes to. understanding the way either you want to understand the world and its complexity and then you read the washington post or the new york times over wall street journal which it gives or listen to the b.b.c.

which i think reflects the world in that complexity they all have political biases but not so dramatic that they shape their content or you want the world to conform to what you already think and then you then you use facebook or twitter or you watch fox and n.b.c. and everything you think is automatically confirmed the problem i think with digital media is it seems to be enabling that second category that second community but there are many other forces which are pushing that it's very disturbing because what you see is the disappearance of the middle the creation of these parties and camps and fewer and fewer people are actually opening to listen to other people's arguments on top of the about that it takes and it causes i mean you're on twitter yourself but you say you're a writer so you need to be in there sell any people who are freelancers and they also have to be on twitter how do you get away. within the action if it's

a must you work i mean are we going to get to a point when it's going to mandatory to have an account. we're doing magistri you mean on the law no no not on the law but like if we don't have a twitter friends this. i'm a media person right and i'm not technology friendly and i've been accused by times of not being active on facebook not being active well instead of because that's the thing to do do you think you got to get to a point where you can't be successful unless you are in that. i'm not sure i think there's two responses to that i think that we live increasingly in a freelance economy where media becomes our platform to build our brands now maybe you have a full time job so you don't need to be continually trying to get work but for many people using twitter or facebook enables them to get work whether it's in media or many other things. but i also think that there's a. it's beginning on the west coast and things always begin on the west coast

there's a growing backlash against social media and actually the smartest the most independent the most interesting people particularly young people are actually giving up social media and i think over the next few years what we're going to see is the only losers to be left in social media really. family are surprised by. that that's a debatable statement but can you what i think you have anything interesting in the sense that these things always work six to me and i know i've got kids who are bored with social media and most of their friends aboard the social media certainly facebook's. gone out of fashion then people are on facebook all people parents and grandparents young people wouldn't be caught dead on facebook now the question is maybe they'll go from facebook to instagram or snap chat but at some point i think this generation of so-called digital natives is just going to get bored of all of these things so i think and i've been saying this for years that the real reaction

to social media and technology is going to come from the digital natives the people who have grown up with this stuff and are just bored and discuss it and they just going to go back to the basics are they where they're going to go with something like artificial intelligence and connect their brains to a computer and i think what you're going to see is an interesting new book out called the revenge of analog you seen in the way in which this young generation is embrace final records you see in the way in which they now buy most skin pads you see in the way that they're starting to write letters again you're seeing it in the way in which the physical books survived against the digital book the digital book did well for a few years and now no one's reading on no one's reading on their kindle they're all buying books again so i think this new generation will rediscover analog and i think you'll see analog becoming increasingly fashionable in the same way for example is when you have more and more self driving cars you'll find the manual

cars will become more and more fashionable young people think for them so they're not stupid and there's always been this idea that somehow young people are all going to just immerse themselves in digital and do nothing else and i think that's a fundamental misreading of how innovative and independent thinking young people are so let's talk a bit about jobs for instance corporations like google and amazon killing off smaller businesses people losing their jobs to services like google or is this because the internet is a. that thing or it's because it's inevitable and it's a natural progression of knowledge. i wouldn't say either of those things the idea of internet being a bad thing is a reactionary statement the idea that technology is bad is i think an unwise position to take but there's nothing inevitable about it either what's happened

with the internet is that you've had the so-called network effect which lends itself to. a very small handful of companies dominating the economy one of the mistakes people made about the internet was that this suppose that democracy is ational people thought would create lots of companies lots of different innovators lots of different entrepreneurs successful entrepreneurs reality is you only have one winner in each sector facebook in social media google in. car sharing. amazon in e-commerce so what you have is a very typical really development but exaggerated in economics we had it in the industrial revolution with the emergence of monopolies and the way to respond to that is in the way we've always done historically with legislation. and to trust legislation the idea that.

technology is to blame for this i think is a mistake and then take a short break right now when we come back we'll continue talking to and cain internet entrepreneur and author. dangers of social media and internet in today's world stage. it is our view that i'll be here. much as a. little. high. on the.

by then got a session on the nod there in. by then is a shift that on. the clear nodded said i'm. going to learn more. songs certainly not so with. them you know supposedly how to get the pope multiple injuries among current america so for them to keep sophie hold the rock but the show's real you know mars on the phone to the book on the movement of a political social services so you're welcome to put in a moral sense of what month. hanumant of nothing left off allowed me. somethin to work. on long enough something outside of. the market alone to huddles look ma. no one up to now maybe i maybe i'm

a bit bored after. living in the us a child can choose an army course in school. with retired officers as teachers really don't. recruit will says to their future date is interested in go one in the military but we don't recruit ourselves and see. the pentagon as fun to go. program to boost interest in the military. still. but some veterans are willing to children a little more they ask me call of duty is a very popular video. it's playing. call of duty. call

of duty. to be told. just need more recruits. still exist. rico's treated as one. hundred three called. the island is controlled by the us government and some puerto ricans crave independence jello it was the almighty god you know it was. good at either way. still many do wish to join the us hundreds more leave every day.

beings. with the country at a crossroads anger of the island is on the rise. as one of the basic instruments to drive an economy but it can also lead to tragedy i did it i took the whole gist i came and met that the debt style game and in the spiral not. many lives have been broken excessive to the banks. the banks i didn't think of the. creditors people see no future bad face have become ill to job your relationship

breaks down you become a casualty is a lifelong trap or is there a way out of those actually trying to. to to build. a few more. now we're back with andrew cain internet and for an hour you test out upon the monopoly in the internet what's wrong with this giants if they are not going stale i mean they're developing all the time and monopolies are a bad there's two positions on the pizza tio very well value entrepreneur investor thinks monopolies are good things they're a good thing if you're a monopolist and you're the winner they're a bad thing because they don't enable innovation when you had a monopolist like microsoft. they destroyed innovation they destroyed small

companies google and amazon while they are innovators in their own way are also against innovation because they're trying to dominate their markets like any company would let's also mean the last time a clearing working on. cars and they innovate maybe they're doing they are. doing it in the context of their business they're doing it to make sure that we use their drug driverless the idea for example that google. who already essentially the big data business. owns many of the other categories of the digital market should also the control the self driving car business is terrified google already knows everything we do through our phones android and i think is eighty six percent of all users use the android platform if we all get in our self driving cars and they know where we are all the time they're not evil they're big they're

not big brother but what they'll do is continually. so the idea that google should control that entire platform i think is is. not only dangerous but also doesn't enable real innovation because google's interest is benefiting their search engine. it's not real innovation so what we need is a new wave of innovators new kinds of operating systems which are more open which enable more entrepreneur and more kinds of innovation you've touched upon an interesting topic which is. google already knows everything controls all the data. and other the american civil liberty union coverage that facebook and twitter actually provide it user data to police to create surveillance programs and then the social media giants are saying no you know no way they're banning developers from using the data for surveillance but i'm thinking using governments are going to give up on opportunities like that. let's be clear it's not as if twitter or

google is looking at your information or my information saying oh you know they're shopping today or they're doing something they shouldn't be doing the problem with google in particular is not that they are not even that they're snooping their problem is their business model the problem is they give away their search engine for free and this business model then requires them to essentially collect data which then they pass on to advertisers so the big debate today is business models i think i much prefer the business model of a company like apple which sells products and doesn't collect data so it's not companies that are bad what's bad a business models and the business model that i think has been a profound mistake in the internet and eventually will be recognized as a mistake is the free model where we get services facebook google instagram for free and by using them they acquire our data and then sell that data to advertising

that's the core of the surveil of this new what people are calling the surveillance economy and ultimately we're going to wake up to it and we're going to choose to pay for us services once again and protect our privacy. there is the topic of terrorism where she's very actual right now when you see. terrorist tweeting and calling on jihad whew we i don't think anyone here i don't think anyone. twitter or anyone else would say. that that should be i want to say aloud the question is first the whether or not you allow is not much you can do to stop it and it's pretty much all out there twitting everybody really allowed i'm in a study not allowed to. isis has what is less social medias in a world where they can have watching very carefully medias but they stumble out to post beheadings. you don't need to be allowed to post beheadings to recruit fresh people to go and fight for isis but i think what i need to twitter is made every

effort to close down. isis or accounts that are supposed to recruit isis terrorists i think again the question is wrong because the issue is again business models and media take you true for example we know that there's. a lot of dreadful content on new true headings which seems to get through the filter the problem with you true business business model anyone's allowed to post anything and the business model of view true which makes it such a profitable company is not hiring a lot of ad says allowing everyone to post whatever they want and selling advertising around. the traditional media model is to cure rate is to create gatekeepers have editors and professionals like you who will determine what will appear on it what we need is to convince and perhaps legally require

companies like twitter or facebook to hire editors to make sure that the content that's published on that network isn't offensive particularly when it comes to when it comes to terrorism in that sense you kill two birds with one stone on the one hand you can guarantee that the. content isn't offensive and on the other hand you create a lot of new jobs in india too but aren't you walking in the line there because i know already that there's legislative steps being taken to destroy this so-called dangerous contents were it content for example for facebook in israel. you don't see a potential abuse here i mean israeli army do is my post as dangerous but isn't that just an opinion. that's always true with free speech i mean this is been an ongoing debate for hundreds of years who's to say what people can say afraid should you be allowed to insult people should you be allowed to. say things which offend other

people it's an ongoing debate so this isn't new the problem again with social media is that a lot of content which everyone agrees shouldn't be allowed to be broadcast live beheadings for example is slipping through the cracks because of the business model of this media that doesn't have curators now facebook has responded in some ways adamant that this is going to shoot debates about fake news huge debates about . unacceptable content and what they did in response was higher six thousand more editors that's the only way you solve this only having human being manually watch a chick you have to look if i. if i slapped you in this interview or i started taking off my clothes or if i started chanting jihad these slogans this

wouldn't appear on your network because you would decide that it's inappropriate the only reason this will appear on the network is because it passes through the filters you were decided that i might be an interesting person to interview the problem with the you true business model. is anything can be put up by anybody and the more content that goes up the more money you chewed makes because the more advertising they sell around the less people they have to hire and have to hire people out you then have to hire editors so what we need is more balance what we need a more human curators who can say look this is terrible there's no way that we're going to allow someone to put a live beheading up there's no way we're going to allow our network to become a recruiting tool for isis. you know iran and it can only be done internally i think creating these heavy top down laws won't work it's got to come from within

these companies exactly as i read in the guardian internal facebook rules and i realize you ran that i just want to quote for my viewers it actually will allow users to last from a taps to harm themselves because it doesn't want to censor or punish people in distress or attempting suicide. yet why is that is because it's so creepy because they make money the more outrageous content when people you know where millions of people watch live live suicides at a certain point zuckerberg has always been resistant to calling facebook a media company the reason for that is because when it becomes a media company then he has to hire curators then he has to essentially undermine his remarkable business model of create all this content without any professionals that's why facebook's was so many hundreds of billions of dollars is because it's reinvented media it creates content without having to pay its

insecurities but ultimately that doesn't work because you get content which is profoundly offensive or evil or just being a corrupting and we have to deal with that and we are dealing with your increasingly seeing more and more of a debate about fake news you're seeing it in the easy. with more and more legislation directed to punishing companies like facebook the stuff that gets through the filter so this stuff is being reserved because in europe of into the internet not the answer you not only talking about the editors that they hire and the big companies but you're also saying that government should regulate these things more when that makes things worse though. if the government interfered into regulating now you're sounding like a silicon valley libertarian governments always have to be involved like it or not governments have always been involved in what you can say or you can't. so i'm not saying that the guy i mean to resume have talked about shutting the internet down

that's a catastrophe i'm not in favor of the government heavy handedly stepping into the digital arena and banning facebook or banning twitter or not allowing kids to go online that's absurd that's a reaction a victorian reaction to the very exciting new technology but i don't think it's unhealthy for governments to be concerned if this media is being used to recruit terrorists or this media is being used to celebrate paedophilia or celebrate live killings or suicides just as. the government needs to respond to those problems if they were happening in the analog media or in the real world it's a perfectly normal way for it's essential for governments to become involved otherwise why have a government if they're not going to be involved in such disturbing issues then there's no reason to have government in the first place then you start falling into

this kind of libertarian utopianism which tends to be very strong on the west coast of america which says well we can manage ourselves we complete selves but clearly facebook and twitter come police themselves that's why we're having this conversation that's why the e.u. is getting involved what's why these debates become. creasing really important in the world today. thank you very much for this interview thank you. fifty years ago the american naval vessel u.s.s.

liberty was brutally attacked by israeli forces the attack on the liberty was one of the worst assaults committed by an allied country since then the survivors of this unprovoked attack have been seeking justice. about your sudden passing i've only just learnt. and taken your last turn. up to you as we all knew it would i tell you i'm sorry suddenly i could so i write these last words in hopes to put to rest these things that i never got off my chest . i remember when we first met my life turned on each breath. but then my feelings started to change you talked about war like it was again still some marshawn to feel those that didn't like to question our arc and i secretly promised to never be like it said one does not leave a funeral the same as one enters the mind it's consumed with death this one quite

different i speak to now because there are no other takers. to blame that mainstream media has met its maker. to. imagine that a billion or six thirty five and you never know what a career and

a career involves using your eyes and in your computer and things that they've been in an office and perhaps she started getting them it's circular to have to stop doing all this in this. you look at the minutes must be from my world became smaller and smaller and smaller until i ended up living it in a box. or out of a very strong magnetic field i felt in my head. it's like a real hard pressure on my skin burned and bad wireless access point out there it's just continuous all day with our students in the schools. we are just continually bathing our citizens in this microwave radiation it is certainly electro small and it's getting worse.

most people think just stand out in this business you need to be the first one on top of the story or the person with the loudest voice or the biggest raid in truth to stand losing business you just need as the right questions and demand the right answer. questions. please. please.

the headlines on r.t. international. one year since the deadly terror attack in the us as a french magazine comes under fire publishing images of the atrocity. was on day two of his visit to paris where he and emanuel appear to have already overcome some of the key differences. the u.s. confirms its forces are now operating inside of iraq islamic state stronghold in syria and what's being described as an advisor assist and the company mission. and a thirteen year old palestinian boy has lost his eye off the being shot by israeli police reportedly playing on the balcony off his heart.