so let's start off with twitter everyone's a traitor this days right from school kids to donald trump he even cherished some of his foreign policy decisions and internal policy makings on twitter someone from the from a status at that white house was better off if he laid off twitter what do you think canada diction like that get in the way of ruling a country i mean it's not a good thing that he actually reaches out to these people. that's a rhetorical question. it's just a question just think if that can get in the way of really a country i mean he did get elected through twitter twitter after all. it's a good question. it's hard to take donald trump's twitter obsession seriously. and he says getting in the way getting in the way of. i mean it's not as if there's a serious man behind. the trump who uses twitter so the trump who uses

twitter. is. this sort of. egocentric narcissistic so whether or not he uses twitter i don't think it really makes any difference and still the same scene you're just thinking his staff members are worried because it will be better for the white house image that he laid off twitter that he would write less things that are hard for him to the image of the american president that i mean. you hear a lot of stories about the why of. how they're trying to control him i think he's the type of person who if he wants to do something well irrespective of the white house. and the white house stuff anyway it's very much divided in terms of personalities and ideologies so. my guess is. probably as much dispute amongst the white house. trumps use of twitter. as that. divided on policy issues. if twitter was trump's biggest problem

i wouldn't be particularly. it's just that it's sort of reflects the dysfunctionality of this administration that a president should be using twitter to undermine members of his cabinet. mislead the country to put out different messages from his ministration kind of exemplifies captures the profound dysfunctionality of this regime. we're not going to talk about trump's decisions in politics but i just want to talk about twitter and social media because it came into light with the election of donald trump and it shell how much power i don't think it's true i think. every election people say for the last two or three elections everyone's always said it's a twitcher election 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 a media 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 a years after obama was initially elected we have trouble 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. there's no reason to suppose that they. jews 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 said to demonize say or idealize it i think is the wrong way of doing it not doing it there it just that to the people outside of the united states does seem like parties and facebook posts for instance which for which post partisan facebook posts are more sicked after news on the established media the question is why do you think people turn to posts in facebook as opposed to the mainstream media space well it's still not. 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 well why where people. retreating 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. in a sense 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 either you want to understand the world in its complexity and then you read the washington post or the new york times over wall. no which 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 will talk a bit about the picture and it causes i mean you're on twitter yourself but you say you're a writer so you need to be and there are so many people who are freelancers and they also have to be on twitter how do you get away with an election 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 you know 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 face 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 a surprise. and that's a debatable statement but can you when you think you're am contacting in the sense that these things always work six and i know i've got kids who are bored with social media and most of their friends are bored with social media certainly facebook's. gone out of fashion then people are on facebook old 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 disgusted when 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 vinyl 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 that can go there 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 bad thing or it's because it's inevitable and it's a natural progression of technology. i wouldn't say either 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 a 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 and. car sharing. amazon and 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 just lation. anti trust legislation. the idea that.

technology is to blame for this i think you miss the take a short break right now when we come back we'll continue talking to. entrepreneur and author. dangers of social media and internet in today's world stage. but is that our behavior. much as you just. tell us a little. fuzzy. on

the. by then got a session on the nod that they know. by then is a shift the balance. all of a sudden to an audience that of course is going on want. some certainly not so with. the most of it was revealed to the pope multiple injuries among current america so the keeps a few. of the show's real you know mars on the phone to go mobile if you can book a powerful social services so you're going to book a more awesome. month. hanumant enough of a. puff allowed me. somethin to walk. on long enough something not set in. the model s. and the tunnels look ma no know what i can now maybe i maybe i'm not the whole of

the. match prizes financial survival stacy let's learn a solid feel love let's say i'm not so i get any earthly use. of the fight wall street fraud thank you for something. destroy that's right. that's slavery.

and we're back with andre cain internet and for an hour you test out the con 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 because they were working on. cars and they in a way maybe they're doing they are in

a way it is about 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. 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. innovation because google's interest is benefiting the change and 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 touched upon an interesting topic which is. to go already knows everything controls all the data. and out of the american civil liberty union and cover it 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 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 but i think it's 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 surveillance knew 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 terror. wishes there are actual right now when you see a terrorist and calling on jihad hume we i don't think anyone here i don't think

anyone. twits or anyone else would say. that that should be i want to say aloud the question is first the whether or not you allow it 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 a lot of medias but they can 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 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 here is the issue is again business models and media take you true for example we know that there is. a lot of dreadful content on you true

beheadings 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 that. 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 killed. 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 a thin 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 of this here i mean israeli army duz 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 for frey should you be allowed to insult people should you be allowed to. say things which offend other people that'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 admirable service is going to shoot debates about fake news huge debate about . unacceptable content and was zuckerberg eventually 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 are decided that i might be an interesting person to win. the problem with the you true business model is anything can be put up by anybody and the more

content goes up the more money you choose 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 that i realize you ran that i just want to quote for my viewers it actually will allow users to lacerate chaps 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 edits and so curators 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 so. more and more of the debate about fake news you're seeing it in the e.u. 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 to a 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 can police ourselves but clearly facebook and twitter come police themselves that's why we're having this conversation. and that's why the e.u. is getting involved what's why this debate is becoming increasingly important in the world today and her claim thank you very much for this interview thank you.

i've observed events of the past few years and asked myself several times what's going on in my native germany. millions of refugees. u.s. intelligence agencies indiscriminately listening in on german citizens of the government. and once again. at least.

from various political parties and various independent experts and journalists in an effort to understand just how independent germany really is when it comes to decision making. whether it acts on its own national interests or is out someone else's will. 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. credit is 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 to god and that that the debt style game and it was fire not. many lives have been broken by excessive debt in the banks got you into a walk on the wall with

a big bankers got big. they're going to go. the bank but i just didn't think of the ordinary man and the morning through the back under don't buy credits as people see no future bad face from happening you know you become ill you're going to job your relationship breaks down you become a casualty is debt a life long trouble or is there a way out of those actually trying to a bit of an old marco to ditch bill for. a few more. imaginative. six thirty five if you have a career and a career involves using your i phone in your computer and things like that in an office and perhaps she started getting headaches circular teeth are going to have to stop doing all this in this tell you lou the minutes must be frayed my world

became smaller and smaller and smaller until i ended up letting it end up a pox. on our addict a very strong magnetic field on my head in my head. think of it like a real heart my skin burns and that wireless access point air says 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. i.

believe. a year since the deadly terror attack in nice with a french magazine under fire for printing images of the atrocity. the us the french president shows signs of overcoming some of the differences often told some paris however french people both leaders regardless all plans. a new video reportedly showing u.s. helicopters over the city of raka de facto capital in syria although washington's forces are now operating inside the city it's only under the pretext of advice and company. and an eighteen year old palestinian high.