or not go on forever. the challenge is great, but the response has been massive. so many good people are helping us. it makes us feel very proud that we are in it together with ah, lady peyton says russia won't stop pumping gas to europe through ukraine, announcing the decision to ditch long term contract was a coffee mistake. while within the year itself, full lines and has some member states are increasingly the same, read over the easy termination to go green. also, you asked parents speaking out against things like critical race theory and ma, squaring could now be investigated by the f b i. that's after the national school board to say sation for claim the thread states received tantamount to domestic terror. silent thing,

dissent a marine faces potential trial for daring to criticize president findings. i'm going to pull out his find another officer being hailed as a hero. 2 years ago for tongue lashing trump. mm. those are the headlines for you. ok. next own i'll say international is the coastal a with hello and welcome to cross talk. we're all things are considered. i'm peter lavelle can continue to internet censorship and freedom of speech co exist. it's all important question is being tested. how should misinformation be defined?

who should be allowed to make this determination? could i guess about vaccines? will it stop there? with cross talking, our information does toby, i'm joined by my guess. nathaniel raglin, new york city is ceo of data vault holdings in phoenix. we have ryan hartwick. he is a free speech advocate. facebook whistleblower and co author of the book behind the mask of facebook and material. we cross david wright, he is a practicing attorney and youtube or her at cross accruals in effect. that means you can jump in any time you want. and i always appreciate david, let me go to you 1st as a practicing attorney. um and obviously, you know, the laws about freedom of speech. can this continued path of censorship? came right now. it's about vaccines. i don't really want to talk about vaccines on this program. but of the fact that, you know, you are being told what we can say, what we can say of speech is being proscribed, okay?

and that's a very different place than what we've been a only a few years ago here. so the fundamental question of this program is, can this censorship drive coexists way, what we understand as freedom of speech, go right ahead. it can't, and it doesn't, but it didn't start with the vaccines. it started slowly but surely a while back. you know, jordan peterson was sounding the alarm with some legislation coming out of canada, bill cc. and i think it was that was your in theory going to prescribe or forbid, certain language. a certain, jen, you know, gendering people how you refer to them. the attack on free speech has been going on for a while. it's just been escalated most recently under the pandemic. and we've seen most notably under the pandemic, but don't forget, it started with alex jones. this is nothing new. and i think alex jones was the test case as to see who you can silence under the pretext of protecting. and they got away with it with alex jones and it's only escalated since then. okay, same question to you nathaniel. and i'm really glad i'm glad that alex jones was mentioned because we could look at the biter, hunton hunter, a laptop. okay,

that was a real amazing operation and they pulled it off. it's truly amazing. and now we have these test cases. and, well, it seems to me that they, they see that there's going to be very little resistance. only a small number of us are really going to fight back. that's a pretty depressing prognosis. head. nathaniel in new york. well yeah, we're dealing with quite a bit and when you, when you sprinkle on a white pandemic, i think it gives precipice to take actions that i think larger companies like google and apple and others and have a real conundrum on their hands with respect to serving their shareholders, but also having this oversight that they have to have to, in this case on prevent the distribution of information that is literally showing people the pandemic. is it from a death toll standpoint?

you know, aside from all the politics and everything else is deadly serious. and so therefore it brought up a lot of this to the head. but to answer the question at the top of the show where, you know, is it, is it going to be a situation where freedom of speech in these technologies can co exist? and i think the answer is yes. on a quickly yes. but there is a growing pains that we're feeling right now, and this overreach, by the ceos in the, or it's, i think that there's a data revolution where we see a trillion dollar market chat. you know, i'm hired out of our communities. when you look at just facebook and now we see the societal damage the platform does and also the r park, it's been picked up in these recent breaches and such. so i think, i think the key thing is place for,

for the community of users to use data in a way where they recognize value behind the data and move forward in a strategy that, that allows freedom of speech to really shine through and become a user of technology in the context of free speech. i just hope that these technologies don't make free speech a victim. here. ryan is one of the things that we're constantly warned about is misinformation, and obviously on the internet. there's plenty of this misinformation i've been ever since the advent of the internet. i've recognized that i know what it is. i know how to avoid it. actually, it keeps my mind sharp because i know it is december information. but ryan, i mean, why does some people at facebook think they know what misinformation is? because ergo, they're saying they know what the truth is. and i have a hard time with that. and i will never, except that these people know, quote unquote that truth. go ahead, ryan. yeah, we just had

a whistleblower comfort yesterday. francis hogan wright who blew the whistle at facebook saying that they weren't assessing, they weren't censoring enough. and that is interesting because he talks about how she lost a friend to online conspiracies. now when i say i lost her friend, usually it's when they, they die and they that pass away. and so she's using this phrase, ly lost her friend and she says, she says, cry never wanted anyone to fill the pain that i felt i had seen how high the stakes were in terms of making sure there was high quality information on facebook. so there she's admitting that facebook is breaking the law, they're violating section 230 because of in 26 to 30. there's supposed to be an interactive computer service, not a content provider, not an information content provider. so they're already breaking the rules on facebook and google. they have a monopoly or a do awfully on the internet right now. and on an internet traffic. so truly frightening to see them pushing for more censorship and according to their definition of misinformation. so according to their term definition misinformation,

you're not, you're not, you're not allowed to gather together for a mass protest if you're on the right. but if you're a leftist or your and t f our b l m, you're more than welcome to use facebook for those purposes. so it's, this is this double standard. this is characterized in my book behind the mask of facebook, where these tech overlords basically can define and what is missing information, what is hate speech and use it for their own purposes. and we begin to think the thing david event. it sees tech companies that are brought politics into it. they're the ones that make the decision is what we heard from ryan. there is it. what is good? what is bad? what is at if you know what's good for society, what's bad for society? these are tech companies are not churches, maybe they want to be it, maybe they're acting like it. but i mean, i again creepy. they are creating these divisions. the a, i mean already had very divided society. they're just making it far, far worse. and if you're told you can say something, well, there's people i got to say, well why, ok, we're going to fight back that see, instant inclination. go ahead david. i take issue with one thing and it's the,

it's the term has been thrown around, misinformation kills people. i mean, that's the pretext for the censorship online. i, i tend to think that misinformation kills a lot fewer people than censorship. and what we've seen now in real time for people who have lived through it, is that the censorship that we've seen on youtube and facebook, i would argue, is probably killed more people than any alleged misinformation out there. prohibiting discussion as to the origins of the virus because anybody who's been online remembers, you got d platforms and band a year ago for suggesting this originated in. whoo hm. now it's mainstream news. how much of the response was compromised? why censorship and the free exchange of ideas at the time in terms of defined identifying the origins of this virus and misinformation. they give the classic example pizza gate. this guy got it inspired by misinformation and showed up to com at pizza and fired around oh, that's there. that's there. a quintessential example of misinformation being dangerous. i would argue that the censorship is exponentially more dangerous on the

one hand because it prevents people from doing proper research and exposing the truth. and on the other hand, the censorship itself is far more motivating and form or confirming of the truth of that which is being censored than the free exchange of ideas that follows from allowing misinformation, even if it is that to flow. it, nathaniel is louise, that's a really good point that david brings up here. i mean, right now, okay, we have a medical emergency, all of us accept that. and i think all of us want to be good citizens and, and have good behavior. but i mean, is this the lip miss tests? you know, next you can talk about this topic and then another topic. and then you can in a while ill go from, you can talk about this too. you need to talk about this and this and that, that's the pattern. that's the trajectory that we're on. go ahead. nathaniel. yeah . so that should, zachary ryan is just right for an intervention. i think what's great about our systems is that we can adjust. i think again this, the community drives and when you have our, our, our choice is being taken away. i mean, it face looks really grown, you know,

without, without the idea of consumer sales, they simply take our, we're, we're the product in that environment and they monetize it. and i think that that's, that's more of the core issue than the censorship issue that you're discussing. you know, you can, in a theater, yell fire, you can't walk into the public square and say certain things because they caused public safety concerns. so i think that that's really the test, that's really the limit. that's really the, the only thing that we're looking at here, it's kind of the red exit door sign. we need a little bit of regulation and control around the safety of these platforms. i mean, innocent things turn into into devices, tools and you know, people can use facebook to, to do all the things that they've done. but it's really under the purview of facebook not regulating themselves properly. so we can no longer get our pocket check and we can no longer sit idly by and let you know that money be really

exercised against us in terms of our free speech. so our rights are, are, you know, born to us in america. and we have to simply put the state down and if it takes, you know, take, you know, facebook all the way from there. mountaintop, i mean, this guy is buying hawaii. let's be clear. i mean, there's a trillion dollar market that we need to with. nathaniel, get us a saying, go yelling, fire in a theatre. that is, that's part of it is a commonly legally understood what bother me is that i don't want to facebook or you tube to say you cannot say these things because they're what they, not only have they become the public square, they're making up the rules. now, i mean they're, they're creating their own parallel universe to our legal system. that's what i'm, but everyone agrees you can't fire in, in a theater. but when i good to be someone,

you can't falsely yell, fly, there you go to pay, go. and if you can yell, fire feeder, if you think there's a fire in a feeder and when, and now we've seen examples in real time where facebook says no, you can't yell fire in a feeder. and a year later, we find out that the fire that they prevented us from yelling a year ago, in fact, turned out to be true. so that's the risk. they already have immunity for user content under section $230.00. the fact that they go in now and editorialize the user content for which they have immunity, makes them a publisher and not just a platform anymore, or a gentleman going to jump in here. we're going to go to a hard break. and after that hard break, we'll continue our discussion on our information dystopian steak without doing ah, a when i was shooting wrong when old fools just a to see how the scene becomes the african and engagement equals the trail. when so many find themselves willing to part,

we choose to look for common ground o the way of life. so reindeer herders leading a traditionally nomadic lifestyle in the tundra is similar to a parallel reality. i'm with women, carry the weight of the household work on their shoulders. mother, i'm sure she'd never miss really that close. no, it's thinking now. however, in the vast expanse of russia, there is a spot where a housewife could secure regular common standards. it's in the final semester chemistry with

ah, welcome back to cross talk where all things are considered on peter lavelle to remind you we're discussing our information dystopian. ah okay, let's go to ryan. i'm back to right in phoenix. i mean, i'm always very curious, ryan, i mean you were inside the beast at facebook. how are, how aware are they that they are meet with them that they'd somehow they're becoming the mandarins of the university of a light kid? is that something they get off on or is it we have to do this to make money or we have to keep okay. will, will the, the authorities so, you know, some congressman, some president wants us to get rid of this person. fine. we'll do it because we want to part of a bottom line or do they really get out of a kick out of, you know, man, i can just disappear this person. i mean, can, can you give us

a feel what that kind of mentality is at places like, flip our facebook? yeah, it is a power trip. so in a lot of my co workers, we would, you caught the, the ban hammer, where would band, someone and ari delete their post and such, subsequently be in that they would be banned from the platform. and so there is a lot of power involving a absolute power corrupts. absolutely. and so you have, you have, you know, the, this policy team at facebook and, and, ah, who makes these decisions on global basis? um, but i think it's, it's funny how, how yesterday francis hawkins, she talked about how, you know, because of the facebook she's in the algorithm. it forced politicians to change their, their policy positions to make it more divisive. i think that's kind of that kind of funny that, that politicians are being forced to change their post positions because of facebook. i don't, i don't agree with that. i'll be going back to nathaniel's point about safety in ok case, we're deleting content or i, we're sensory content. but if it truly know they're talking about public safety

while it's public safety, then that makes the argument that they're no longer a private company. that they're a public forum, right? so that makes my argument for me, which means that we should have access to, to the public bus. you know, if there's a public transit isn't everyone should have access to asian, restrict people based on their political beliefs. or if they're to have weird ideas . and so, but yet there is a, there's a certain amount of power, like up a eastern, my ego involved for zuckerberg and other people who can control the destiny of, of countries just by controlling the political discourse. and david in, it seems to me slowly but surely, and it's being allowed to happen. is it, we have these tech companies, redefining what freedom of speech is the 1st amendment, the, they're the ones that are determining what speech can be. and i find that really, i mean in my lifetime, i would that lead that would never would a thought and come to my mind. and we see this happening that because these companies say this here, i mean, why isn't there more of an intervention on the part of the authorities to protect

the law? i mean, you're in a practicing attorney, go ahead and just a caveat that i want to practice any more than i have to in quebec. but that i've seen when it works is that there is, there is, there is no check and balance anymore. and we've, you know, people have tried the arguments to hold facebook accountable as a publisher to, you know, strip them of their immunity. it hasn't gotten there yet because people still fall back on the, you know, facebook as the private company. and it has 1st amendment rights as well we're, we're, we're, i think we're going to get a stronger argument sooner than later. is the level of complicity this, between facebook and the government. and when you have gen saki coming out of the press conference, effectively saying we tell facebook what to flag and what to take down. and we now know that the governor has back channels to twitter and facebook. you're gonna have a more compelling argument that these private companies are not so private anymore, and they might be something more akin to state actors carrying out the bidding at the request of the state and therefore subject a sub certain constitutional requirements well in, i think, well, that's kind of a terrifying thought because nathaniel, all right, i think we could say the,

you know, the white house, a gen saki and these platforms, they're more or less aligned. that might not always be the case here. and then who's got the power, who can turn people off? it's not the government, it's going to be these platforms. this is a very dangerous slippery slope. nathaniel several protections, anti trust being one. i mean, i, i really like what you're saying there about the mixing up our government with these companies on the saw with google in the obama administration. really doing a ton of damage to the patent system, you know, and really boxing out the small entrepreneur. if you look at facebook, you're not going to start as social media network and rival them. it's over same with search with google. and if you're going to rival them, you need to be a microsoft with your band and you're still going to get the badly. so there is a, there is a, there's

a anti trust problem in our country. the discussion of busting these companies up, it may have political wins, but we're really talking about similarly on a micro we're talking about freedom of speech and consumers. but what we really need to realize as consumers that we drive these are public companies in terms of their, their, their private in terms of the right. but the public in terms of their finance. and the finance side of it is where we strike back. we control these market cast through our buying there's, there is no difference in between what is been said on financial networks and all these for. busy one case and everything that we buy into and we've been told to buy and to turn out to be false, that turned out not to have the yields that we were told. so there's been, i think this information is an issue across all media. it needs to be regulated, just like we regulate the towns where like in a physical space,

we need to get over our understanding of the matter versus doctor said. but it's, it's essentially that our rules and laws and our ethics and everything must pertain cyber warfare is war. and in until we start to act like it. and you know, we get, we get shots over the bow and we're sending out letters, you know, sorry, no, but no, but really what we, what we have to do is escalate online like we are in the real world and, and make that that can ruin the government and online, the more a natural to our democracy or systems the somebody would have gotten obese. i would respectfully disagree that the cure to misinformation is censorship . i would argue that the cure of misinformation, putting in quotes is more discussion and more information. and peter, to your point, facebook de platforms, a sitting president gets donald trump, they did when you d platform, the president. you are the president,

and there's no other way to describe it when you the platform, the king. you are the king and facebook is thumbing its nose at the world saying we don't care about your demo, your democracy's, we don't care about your leaders. we are the leader, we control everything. and that's a very, very big problem. it ryan, in one of the things i find really worrying about me about the possibility of regulating, which i think they should be on that my dilemma is, is that, you know, these as private actors, they have the, they're behaving very badly if they are government controls it could be just as bad . okay. if not worse, so it's for me that's a real dilemma here. but ryan, one of the things is that if you look at all of the, the highest levels of the social platforms, there's a lot of former government officials there. there's a huge amount of co mingling here. i mean, i cannot see, you know, you go from a really lucrative job in the white house and you go to facebook. okay. i mean, they're all, they, everyone's watching each other's back here. okay. it's in,

even though it is, quote, unquote, transparent though they don't deny their resume, but they, they're certainly in aligned interest here and that gives me less hope they'll, they'll be change, go ahead, right? yeah, no, i definitely think that, that, you know, especially during the above and ministration is that back and forth with, you know, top of all my officials going to work for facebook for couple years and going back to the bomb and missed ministration. so it is dangerous when you have that much control over the internet and it goes against the fang principles of the internet. the internet was not posted, designed to be regulated by the government. and so, you know, we have, we have a platform that, you know, we're, you know, we want people are saying, oh, we need the sensor more, we need. we to save society. well, where, where are the families where the families, the parents of those teenage girls who are honest, your am 10 hours a day who have eating disorders where it, where is the family? so, you know, facebook, we shouldn't trust them. the, they're miss applying their policies. i've hard concrete examples of facebook giving, allowing exceptions for child child pornography in brazil. they also gave an accept

. they also allowed for human smuggling, that they'll allow yourself to volunteer to be a victim of human smuggling. so if i say i want to be a, i want to be smuggling that's allowed on facebook. so those are his basic things that facebook doesn't allow, that, that, that, that allows, that goes against the, the laws of our country. so we can share some of that basic stuff like, hey, let's not make it facebook. can you not make an exception to allow child pornography? and if they came into that and we can't trust them. um, that doesn't mean we should have more gun control. government control, i think if we could just like delete facebook of that, do the company with through and i trust i'll be the best solution just i'll break it up because they've never stranglehold over over the are now. well ryan i, i can tell you, you know, when the everything was shut down for 6 hours, it was a wonderful 6 hours for the world. it was a wonderful. yeah. why it's 6 hours. okay. um, if i had my way, i'd delete them all to and start from scratch. okay. because its concentration of

power in the marketplace is, is disastrous here. you know, nathaniel, you know, like they say go build your own. oh my goodness. they don't allow you to do that, okay? if they don't even give you the tools to do that right now, ok, not look, look at happened to parlor. not that i'm going to come back or a parlor. i mean, that was a pretty big platform and it's gone that you know, so you know, build your own doesn't really it doesn't have much traction with me. go ahead. nathaniel. yeah, i think that's really the key point is this, this began, you know, as a new west way for us to prosper and create new opportunity. and when you look at the, the issue with these bullies and the big, the platforms, i'm not an advocate know to be clear of censorship whatsoever. but there is a balance that needs to be stronger if you have children or if you, if you have a household here in america, one, you don't want to spy on your kitchen table. in particular from china,

in the case of 6 are. and you also, you don't want as a consumer to, to think that everything is going through some government filter. and we have the appropriate laws and foundation in this country. we simply just have to adjust and change and grow into this. i think we're dancing around the same, the same issue. you know, you talk about facebook making an exception to laws in our country with what they do on their platform. i think that is the shame in it. it's also the shame that are anti trust laws and other laws that simply get trampled upon, including our tax code, where you've got facebook, offshoring, this money, we don't really understand what's going on. and there's been a huge international leaks of this information where we in fact, could understand what is going on and how much our government being really robbed of its capital. and then at the same time,

be dragged into these companies to regulate them when they don't even understand they need to step away and really and really allow for our law enforcement of those laws to check in. and for our system it's here. okay, well nathaniel, you, we've ended the program and a very pessimistic now, but we're gonna keep, obviously, and i'm here with all the time we have gentlemen, i want to thank my get to new york, phoenix and in montreal. and thanks to our viewers for watching us here, are the see you next time. remember, pop, stuck with with frank, other financial reliable guy? i don't fight. hey i guy. mom. teachers. faith the friday. at the last time i buy it from

a teacher. so franco watch kaiser reporting imagine picking up a future textbook on the early years of the 21st century. what are the chapters cold, gun violence, school shootings, homelessness? first, it was my job and then it was my family. didn't was my siblings. i have nothing. i have nothing and it's not like i don't try. i look for resources, i look for jobs, i look for everything i can to make this pass. and i end up doing is passing down the road to the american dream paved with dead refugees. it's this very idealized image of older america. native americans look past the deaths to happen every single day. this is a modem. history of the usa by america cannot see who the way of life of rain is leading. and traditionally nomadic lifestyle in the

tundra is similar to a parallel reality, which shopper contrast with the usual realities of megacity. while the men drive the hoods, women carrying wages, the household work on their shoulders, but no one would ever put a housewife on this cd. it's not considered a profession or an occupation that you'd get a salary or a pension. however, in the vast expanse of russia, there is a spot where a housewife could secure regular employment status. it's in the far north that there's just one tricky is unlike any other housewife, such a woman would have to live in a chill attent covered with randy a hides that moves location several times a week. ah yeah, let's go for i'm you sort of with semester. i'm not sure what i'm with and usually it was with, oh,

why do with a can you talk with us on the phone with a dealer? while the man watching the hood.