a facebook rules, facebook and instagram's rules against content in a rabbit's language. we saw that the very 1st time during your case that we worked on relating it to the georgia news channel l g 0 was a case in which a user who was based in egypt was sharing a news reporting by algebra. news reporting, reporting, referring to the warnings sent by the military are of the of how much and that content was supposed to be protected by use wordiness. that means facebook has an exception for content that is published by user organization that could violate the community standards. in this case, the, the, the, the organization that the reporting was about as his band is part of the dangerous individual individuals and organizations that from facebook platforms, facebook and instagram. but we told met out, hey meta here you suppressed a content about is reporting important news boarding from an important a news organization. and you suppress it, just because the user shared it, allegedly, because the user allegedly supported the said organization. but we ask people, what does t

platforms, facebook and instagram. but we told met out, hey mehta here, you suppressed a content about and use reporting important news boarding from an important a news organization. and you suppress it, just because the user shared it, allegedly, because the user allegedly supported the said organization. but we ask people, what does it mean to support is sharing and use and use information share but supporting an organization? we disagree with that and we overturn facebook decision to take down the, the content shared by the egyptian washer and use or a facebook with the how to knock them out. that how that to me that was alex about and live in coffee. how soon are we going from behind that that i knew who not come at the is what i can kind of know if i'm on an investment, had an idea of a not a csc. anyone has a youth, i'm 30 and how do i know them use them? use one, you know, we had a piece of hot on with on something i know. yeah. when up to from a set up because i hadn't within missed of them at the mass of the

a facebook rules, facebook and instagram's rules against content in a rabbit language. we saw that the very 1st time during a case that we worked on related to the georgia news channel l g 0 with a case in which a user always base in each egypt was sharing a news reporting by algebra. news reporting, reporting, referring to the warnings sent by the military are of the of how much and that content was supposed to be protected by use working is that means facebook has an exception for content that is published by user organizations that could violate the community standards in this case, the that, that the organization that the reporting was about as his band is part of the dangerous individual individuals and organizations that from facebook platforms, facebook and instagram. but we told met out, hey meta here, you suppressed a content about it was reporting important news boarding as from an important a news organization. and you suppress it, just because the user shared it, allegedly because the user allegedly supported the set organization. but we ask people, what doe

then checked how facebook reacted. the 1st time the team noticed any discrepancy between the 2 pages was in july 2023. it posted the story and photos of a group of palestinians killed. and in these railey operation in the west bank city of nablus, on the arabic page, the post was immediately removed with a notification that the page might be taken down. if the similar posts the same story was single tenuously posted on the hebrew page with disturbing pictures of the bodies of the palestinians killed plus provocative text. in hebrew, facebook didn't remove the post, and the hebrew page did not receive the same warning as they are a big page. we have c in this, fred's impact and the content has been effected differently. i'd say as a trend we, there has been numerous cases documenting the palestinian or arabic content has been removed or restricted when he bu, content hasn't, as we've seen in your case in specific instances. yes, there is a difference between how hebrew and arabic contents can be moderated. i'm thinking

and i use that language because ten years ago, facebook knew this. we knew that in order to help a child dealing with an issue you have to hear the words they use. a 13-year-old doesn't like to report things because they are worried they are going to get in trouble and get other people in trouble. if you tell them what you like some help. if you look at the words submitted from ten years ago, you should be able to say this is like awful for me because of my identity and any form of that and the company should be able to take that into account and help that child be protected and get them resources and also make sure that is not acceptable behavior in the community because the most tragic thing about that 20% of member member witnessingthese kind of e lack of action on the part of the company and the definition of the content that they would take down means that they are normalizing the behavior children watch and children learn from the way children are behaving. >> to follow up a little bit, what would it look like to create a good experience? is it

as facebook recently disclosed in an internal email to a minister, the reason facebook did that was because we were under pressure by the administration. we should not have done it. now, my friend says all of this is constitutional because the government has the right to persuade using the bully pulpit. but the government has no right to persuade platforms to violate americans constitutional rights. and pressuring platforms in back rooms shielded from public view is not using the bully pulpit at all. that is just being a bully. i welcome the court's questions. justice thomas: counsel, i know your argument is a bantam books argument, but do you need coercion in order ou-- y make your case, or could coordination accomplish the same thing? that is the government is censoring by joint actions with the platforms as opposed to coercing the platforms? mr. aguiÑaga: your honor, we do not need coercion as a theory. that is why we lead with encouragement in our red brief. government cannot induce encourage, and promote private actors to do directly what the government cannot itself do directly. that

that person is being really mean to me. 10 years ago, facebook new this. we knew that in order to help a child dealing with an issue, we have to hear the words that they use. a 13-year-old does not like to report things because they are worried that they will get in trouble or get other people in trouble. would you like some help? when you look at the work that they submitted 10 years ago, you should be able to say, this is awful for me because of my identity. the company should be able to take that into account to help that child be protected and get them resources and make sure that is not acceptable behavior in the community. the most tragic thing about the 20% number is that the lack of action on the part of the company for the content that they would take down, they are normalizing the behavior. children watch and learn from the way that other children are behaving. >> just to follow up a little bit, what would it look like to create a good experience? is it the ability to exercise agency for the button that you are making reference to? >> if it is in

what she says is this facebook post i posted was taken down by facebook.what was that post? it was a screenshot of robert f. kennedy, jr., a member of the so-called disinformation dozen. the tweet was talking about tucker carlson, who the administration was obsessed with. >> i'm sorry, the rfk tweet, there is only a record of the white house asking twitter to remove a tweet, and not particularly this one from rfk. that does not help hines' claim that the white house asked facebook to remove anything. mr. aguinaga: it does, your honor, and this is a good example of the interrelationship between the various media platforms. you have crossposting. what happened in this example, jill hines took a screenshot of a tweet, then moved it to facebook and posted it as her own facebook post. when she did that, she moveds to describe that tweet. he was talking about tucker carlson, who the white house targeted in the joint appendix. >> i have such a problem with your brief, counselor. you omit information that changes the context of s you attribute things to people who

facebook refused to answer. in october 2021, senator blackburn and i held a hearing and was heard from francis about instagram's harm on that same day, mr. bejar sent an email to mark zuckerberg , sheryl sandberg and other executives validating that email actually demonstrated even greater harm than more than public in a searing indictment of instagram and facebook. i ask that it be made part of the record without objection. in december 2021, then testified to the committee, subcommittee, after he met with bejar discussing the numbers and statistics relating to suicide. during the hearing, a number of us asked him about facebook promoting suicide. he knew, but didn't disclose that on a weekly basis around 7% of facebook users overall in counter context promoting suicide and self-harm with 13 to 15-year-olds seeing it more often than others. there is a pattern here with facebook. it hides risks by saying things like leaving and harassment is only 0.08 percent of content when in reality, meta executives know that

this is an email to facebook, where the white house specifically asks facebook to not distribute andet health groups that do that. that is ja715 to 716. you go earlier to ja631. this is jill hines' allegations. is two months later, the white house email i described was in may, two months later in july and health groups in louisiana that were blocked by facebook. i think this is one of the scariest examples in the record of what is at stake here, which is those groups were political action groups. louisiana had a legislative session in progress. what jill hines was trying to do was mobilize people to support certain bills and other legislative materials that were then pending in the state ture. because the government put them on the scales a couple months before, and lo and behold once jill hines tries to use the groups that the government targeted, she can't. her political organization is stymied. that is all over the record, and that is one fraction of the kinds of harm that is at stake here. >> can i ask you - to go back to the interchange with justice kagan about the standards bec

it lays out in sobering detail not just the architecture of facebook's failures, but what facebook knew and ignored about damaging impact on all us. if you're wondering what jeff has been doing recently in his spare time tells me he's in the middle of attempting develop immunity from poison oak and poison ivy via described in largely forgotten century old medical research. jeff, you'll forgive me if i don't shake your hand, but the poison oak and the poison ivy. is it working? i want to know. yes. and the wall street journal will supposedly be publishing magazine story about this at some point. i will i will read it with great interest, having had of those in my lifetime. all right. let's begin. let's be big in our questions with barbara mcquade and the book attack from within. barb, it was a few years ago that you mentioned to me that you were thinking about writing a book but seeking just the right topic. so why? is there connection between disinformation and your legal background? and help us first define disinformation. and the premise of your book. yes. well, thanks, frank. and fir

what we are after is _ onto facebook. what we are after is a _ onto facebook.s a separation - onto facebook. what we are after is a separation from i after is a separation from t”jok— after is a separation from tiktok and _ after is a separation from tiktok and its _ after is a separation from tiktok and its parent - after is a separation from - tiktok and its parent company and in — tiktok and its parent company and in that— tiktok and its parent company and in that world, _ tiktok and its parent company and in that world, users - tiktok and its parent company and in that world, users can i and in that world, users can use — and in that world, users can use the _ and in that world, users can use the platform. _ and in that world, users can use the platform.— use the platform. there are re orts use the platform. there are reports of _ use the platform. there are reports of those _ use the platform. there are reports of those inside - use the platform. there are l reports of those inside tiktok were cough board by the road laws —— caught off guard. google has a

information off their social networks, the supreme court is wrestling with whether platforms, like facebook twitter, now called x, have the right to decide what users can say on their sites. the dispute centers on a pair of laws passed in the red states of florida and texas over the question of first amendment rights on the internet. the supreme court is considering whether the platforms are like newspapers, which have free speech rights to make their own editorial decisions, or if they're more like telephone companies that merely transmit everyone's speech. if the laws are upheld, the platforms could be forced to carry hate speech and false medical information, the very content most big tech companies have spent years trying to remove through teams of content moderators. but in the process, conservatives claim that the companies have engaged in a conspiracy to suppress their speech. as in this case, a tweet in 2022 from congresswoman marjorie taylor greene falsely claiming that there were extremely high amounts of covid vaccine deaths. >> i have not misled anyone. i have not put out misinf

bigger and i consider facebook to be an enemy of the people. sarah, is this going to become an election issue? do you think now or do you think by one to nothing to happen before november? a well i, it seems to be a uh, an evolving story. i saw just this morning that trump's former treasury secretaries steve mentioned is putting together a bin to buy tick tock. and that would be really interesting. i don't know if that would go forward. i also think that trump's language on this shifted a little bit, which has been, he said, well, it's actually a really complicated story and i think, you know, he's someone who's all who, who's both impulsive and been victim. and so that could explain that initial response. the other day, but, but it also then i think complicated matters because of that while you were for it 4 years ago. now you're against it. you know, of the interesting aspects of the language. but no one is really talked about. i haven't seen discuss very much, is it a gives the president a lot of authority to, to determine which entities whi

why he's calling facebook the enemy of the people.'re watching "fast money," live from the nasdaq market site in times square. we're back right after this. at ameriprise financial, more than 9 out of 10 of our clients are likely to recommend us. our neighbors, the garcía's, love working with you. because the advice we give is personalized, -hey, john reese, jr. -how's your father doing? to help reach your goals with confidence. my sister's told me so much about you. that's why it's more than advice worth listening to. it's advice worth talking about. ameriprise financial. [phone: starting route.] technology helps us navigate to work. [phone: go straight.] but, to navigate the complexities of modern work... [phone: turn left.] ...you need more than technology. you need cdw. [phone: you have arrived.] so we'll implement cloud based microsoft modern work solutions like microsoft 365, teams and azure, so your teams can collaborate with zero trust security anywhere. [phone: destination ahead.] microsoft makes modern work possible. cdw make

it is a statute about -- it excludes youtube and facebook. the facebook newsfeed. direct messaging, then mow. those kinds of things -- we are not going to let you exclude on the basis of race and sex and we are also not going to let you exclude people on the basis of viewpoint. >> i don't think the first part of that statute my clients would even challenge. whether there is an abstract first amendment right to have a black authors table for black history month -- >> also viewpoint. >> when you throw viewpoint in would have to ask my clients whether they challenge that but that is not the statute we have here. >> what i'm saying is in part it is the statute you have here. that gives you your plainly legitimate suite. when you run a service when you are not speaking, unlike a facebook feed where you are -- your editorial discretion argument is good because the platform is engaged in speech activities. when you are running venmo you are not engaged in speech activities. when you have to serve everybody irrespective of whether you like their political opinions are not

our facebook page, here are some comments.is comment -- the legislation goes to the senate where its fate is uncertain. s usa today reports that some lawmakers are instead proposing different legislation. senator mark] warner has the restrict act. there is computing legislation ike the idea of the senate bill instead of what the house passed yesterday? you can join the conversation to give us your thoughts on that as well. fort covington, new york, hi there. caller: good morning. i appreciate c-span very much. i've been on the not sure lines because i'm not much of a user of social media. one of the things that i guess maybe bothered me about many of the callers is they say put all of this information out there an because we are not stupid, we are not ignorant. i do agree with that but he left out the word gullible. i think people who spend much of the day on social media are extremely gullible. explain a significant amount of people in the united states believinghow t what turned out to be the anti-covid vaccine is now anti-v

if you ban tiktok, facebook, and others. but mostly facebook will be a big beneficiary. and i think facebook has been very so. i think facebook has been very bad for our country, especially when it comes to elections. >> now i'm ana, there's a couple of things i just want to point out here. one is that i spoke with some of donald trump's advisors this morning about this and they added and kind of repeated what donald trump just said there, which is that there was a concern that if tiktok were to be banned or bought, that some of its users would migrate to facebook. and of course, donald trump has been very critical of facebook over the past several years. he believes personally that they had some role in him losing the 2020 election. of course, there's questions of whether that is true or not, but that's where some of this is stemming from. and also it's important to note that this comes as the house is expected to vote some point this week on a potential ban on facebook or to force it to be sold away from bytedance. and so that's where the timing of this comes into it.

youtube, facebook. florida's presentation to the lower courts was this isn't a regulation of their speech at all. i understand the force has been asking other other types of websites that might be covered, could this extend to direct messaging? we don't have a dog in that fight to the extent there is other applications of the law. that's not how florida sought to defend it. which of the court do? it's been litigated one way and now it looks like there's other applications you would have in mind. i urge the court to take a narrow approach here. florida defended this on the basis that could control what the true social media platforms are doing with respect to their websites and if i were the court i would want to reserve judgment on the application to e-commerce sites, to companies which don't seem to be creating a comfortable type of product. they could save those issues for another day or for factual development in this case. they look at the decision the record was created based on the litigation by t

you think facebook is the enemy of the people? dude, have you been on facebook? everyone's uncle is on there and they love you. >> all right. the house is on track to vote tomorrow on the fate of a bipartisan bill that would effectively ban tiktok in the united states. but there is a potential new roadblock. donald trump, the former president, has republicans on edge after he flipped his position, insisting a ban on the app would make people, quote, go crazy. here is what the bill's republican co-sponsor told cnn's manu raju. >> well, he's wrong. and by the way, he had his own what executive orders in his own actions he was doing. and now, you know, now he's suddenly flipped around on that. i mean, it's not the first or last time that i'll disagree with the former president, the tiktok issue is pretty straightforward. it's not even about tiktok. it's about ensuring we're protecting the data of the american people. >> all right. cnn's alayna treene, who covers donald trump for us, joins us now. alaina, i mean, this is a straight up flip flop. why is the president

facebook dot com forward slash ha inside story. we also want to hear from you on x, the former twitter at a inside story for me, james space and the team here in bo, please stay safe. i'll be back very soon. bye for now. the the biggest, the next time you out in history, the world's biggest democracy hospice on epic showdown. join me 3 new oxygen in this new ballpark thieves focusing on india. in this episode, i'll examine how india's pricing with got it in ism veterans to the gun to clock back on a country founded on secular ideas being report box one on the colleges with unique perspectives that is done is one of the most degree just example of abuses of human rights and environmental injustices on heard. voices, luxury to young people. i know for russia, they're like any other people from any other country. we want to really connect with our community and tap into conversations you will find elsewhere. we have to be able to educate ourselves to be able to identify what is freedom and what is enough to stream on algebra. the inju

and others, but mostly facebook will be a big beneficiary and i think facebook has been very -- very bad for our country. especially when it comes to elections. >> mr. trump, you met recently with jeff yas, hedge fund manager, stake in tiktok. huge gop donor. steve bannon suggested you've been paid off to switch your view. how did your view change? how did that comable and did you have a conversation with jeff yas about it? >> no, i didn't. i met with him briefly. made a speech and said hello to him and his wife who was lovely. actually, her primary thing was on education. she wants choice, as i do, and she mentioned to me more than anything, you know, we talked about education. it was a meeting that last add few minutes. now, the only one i met was -- i met them both, and -- i don't think i ever met them before, but he never mentioned tiktok. she did mention school choice, and that's what -- in fact, she said, my whole life is based around school choice. very important thing to her and i agree with that. >> mr. trump -- >> also a meeting with elon musk recently. >> i did. >> i saw a

we're going to talk about big te, google, amazon, facebook and applefa on why they are a major problem america and they were going too talk about■g immigration. so we have 26 minutes to get through with three very big topics so we will start the welfare. right now president trump faces 91 charges from four different democrat situations across america, 700 years in prison for non-crimes, the non-crime of objecting to a presidential election, the non-crime of you know paying back, the non-crime of paying paying back sophisticated wall street banks on time info with interest. that's the civil lawsuit by tish james. we see alvin bragg soros funded bringing unprecedented indictments against for settline claim, as if some are turned that into the first indictment of or against a former and future president of the united states. and we have an attorney general here from texas. [applause] ken paxton. we have a future attorney general from north carolina, dan bishop, our great congressman. and then we have all-star stephen miller. so that's our panel today. let's start with general paxton. what

talk about facebook?k when you if somebody -- they send something into texas, are they doing siss in texas? >> no, but that would be a fun juriiconal case. thanswer as i understand it is you have to purposely avail yourself of the forum. merely because somebody can look at your website if you don't have a purposeful direction, that's generally not sufficient. >> but it is a worldwide sort of thing and people will be sending stuff left and right and you know that as company. i do not seeowhey can wall off texas from thectities of the social media platforms. >> they can. they have the technological ability called geo-fencing which they can carve o. if they wanted to, they cod probably cut off this building itself more than that, it shows up there d you want to have an account with facebook or twitter or others, there is a contractual relationship. theyavcustomers that are in these places and people say they don't have any customers because eyre not charging money. you are the product so they are taking your

packingham, but facebook does. and there's certain other people, you know, very distinct viewpoints where it's -- in a sense we know the viewpoint is problematic, even if the particular post is not. >> but mr. clement. i just wanted to follow up on that. it seems to me that justice kagan's question gets to the distinction in 303 creative between turning people away and the speech that you have. if you think about it as violencing someone you let on your platform that seems more like speech or content moderation to the extreme, for example. but i assume the implication of your answer to justice kagan is that you could tell the anti-see mitt we're not open for business to you. right? >> you can tell that person that our speech forum is not open to you. and i think that's what makes it different that texas is focused on speech-orriented platforms. if you're in the business of speech and you have somebody, and again this is not sort of other prohibited statuses. this is viewpoint. and so you are a notorious anti-semite

but through telegraph and on facebook and has had thousands of shares on facebook despite the fact that it was quite wildly audio that if you listen to it carefully you will actually see that it wasn't that -- that it wasn't true. the problem is that despite -- the fact that it's quite a small case and quite a small country, it taught several important lessons. first, that we need red lines, clear lines to be made when it comes to a. prior to the elections. water marking labeling is the way to go definitely. but what if there's content spread 24 hours before the election and is made by kremlin-based or beijing-based around the country because this is going to be the con sen us the in the western-base country. is there time to stop this prior to the election? are we going to ban it, take it down? there are red lines that have to be defined. and the michigan law could be a way forward. second is that these measures have to be clearly defined for social media platforms because what has happened in slovakia there were around 70 pieces of a.i. generate content identified and half of them sta

i had no ownership of facebook, it was still able to succeed. imagine a rush. i had own facebook back in 2016 and it's, it's, it's in its actions in europe even before 2016. and we already do have evidence of, of china interested in meddling and us elections, particularly when a chinese this event has been on the ballot. so this is not a theoretical risk, and it's just to rate a tool to hand over to an autocratic power whose interests are degrading the us position in the world. well, what about these us big tech companies platforms? i'm thinking of the facebook and twitter used to be x, i mean, they still exist. these are us companies, but have, do we have regular regulation in place to ensure that they are not used by, for example, russia again to influence the outcome of an election. i mean, it's easy to point our finger at china, but are we looking in the mirror? and i think a lot of people would say that we're not looking in the mirror enough and they might be right. and it's true that facebook and twitter and many of these platforms have taken major stride

ben shapiro is killing it on facebook. that shows you we do want a broad discussion but there's some stuff that is out of line. i don't think it's simple to say that is the 230 stuff. we had a debate about what other objectionable means but i think my clients are getting a lot of pressure to be particularly careful about things damaging to youth. in that context they want to err on the side of keeping some bad material off. >> let me push the other way. does it also hold on your review part of the editorial discretion of a platform would be that it can use algorithms designed specifically to try to attract teens to depression or suicide? that would be part of their discretion? >> i don't think -- >> i don't mean to cast dispersions. i think it's a consequence of your position isn't it? >> there would be protected first amendment activity with that website with a business model i don't think would stay in business long and it is possible as the united states pointed out that if you have a different concern and identify a di

and for further discussion, just go to our facebook page, that's facebook dot com, forward slash a j inside story. and you can also join the conversation on x. i'll handle is at a j inside store for main o'clock, the whole team here. good bye for now. the in an increasingly complex world, it's paramount to be direct, is exception was there should be this month on sort of discussions that come through the norm upfront on how to 0 the the condition of a thing. so she needs this, you know, this is this christmas helen sort of female surgery and not a weekend and of course the spirit and that's a lot of it. this is the time to get a can you say, and i'm a time to me the . ready so i'm fairly back to boeing, doha, with a look at all. main stories on algebra is really as strikes in northern syria has killed at least $37.00 people, including 5 has full of fighters. the attacks targeted areas in the city of a level audra 0 is in a folder, has moved from bales well for years now as well, strategy has been and they've declared this numerous times. they want to prevent iran from military and tr

and for further discussion, just go to our facebook page, that's facebook dot com, forward slash a j inside story. and you can also join the conversation on x. i'll handle is at a j inside store for me to clock the whole team here. good bye for now. the in 2018 john. this led 40 days of civic action against the on the union government . i'm president sockets. young's group on power. i'm going to labor to square and documentary photos. he's non violent campaign to bring down a corrupt regime, tarnishing out a democratic revolution. i am not alone on the news velvet revolution on our lost or 10 year journey in which it has become the most important translation award from. i'm into the outer a big language world wide shaped come out of ward for translation, and international understanding. announce is the opening of the nomination period for the year 2024, starting march 1st to may. 30 fast nominations are made on the award official website, w, w, w dot h t a dot q a forward slash e m. i understand in the gaza strip as easily as long last continues. there's a deliberate mission of posti

that's facebook dot com, forward slash a j inside story. and you can also join the conversation on x all handle is at a j inside store for me to clock the whole team here. good bye for now, the a political, the bank, pony farmers are angry. people have starving and we actually have to exports the whole while good, because we've money to buy informed opinions. the relevance of the security council is diminishing with every passing day. frank assessments politicians with the often in the highest level they've been using games for the political economy service. we can submit a course the arrival inside story on al jazeera, over 30 years of the design of the 0 world, tells the to follow the story of know ways in the oldest little coffee. let us salute the government of norway morris, remarkable in nurturing the secret negotiations, and why it's promised peace has remained unfulfilled, a strong decided terms of the negotiations. nobody could show or go home the products of also on. i'll just see what constitutes exempt. so we generally talk, you

i'm thinking of facebook and twitter used to be x, i mean, they still exist. these are us companies, but have, do we have regular regulation in place to ensure that they are not used by, for example, russia again to influence the outcome of an election? i mean, it's easy to point our finger at china, but are we looking in the mirror? i think a lot of people would say that we're not looking in the mirror enough and they might be right. and it's true that facebook and twitter in many of these platforms have taken major strides to crack down on foreign influence activity on their platforms. and every month, every couple of months, we hear about a take down of chinese accounts or russian accounts on facebook on, on twitter, coordinated and authentic behavior that is rooted out by the platform. and that's encouraging. i'm, i think there's still definitely a threat there. but the key difference is that market locker berg, as far as we know, is not taking orders from the chinese communist party. yeah, that's a very good point to make. you know, you and i have talked

if you ban tiktok, facebook and others, but mostly facebook will be a big beneficiary, and i think facebook- i think facebook has been very bad for our country, especially when it comes to elections. >> that's former president trump earlier this morning on squawk saying that a tiktok ban would result in a more dominant facebook, a company he calls the enemy of the people, and it raises the chapter once again which company faces a political risk under a trump term. >> we've been down this road before obviously. toward the end of the trump administration, we discussed there was an efforting with made by president trump and his administration to potentially ban tiktok on national security grounds. that is the basis for the current bill moving through congress, and it seems to have picked up a good deal of momentum. we talked on friday about this as well in part because of tiktok's actually effort to raise awareness among its community. our congresspeople have seemed to have back firfired in a way. the president has indicated if presented with the bill to ban tiktok in the u.s., he will sign it

users of met our 's suite of products, facebook and - suite of products, facebook and instagram, haved problems logging in. on x, the company has posted that they know delete like there is an issue. —— they know there is an issue. —— they know there is an issue. —— they know there is an issue. we will bring you more news when we have it. back to bitcoin, and — more news when we have it. back to bitcoin, and it _ more news when we have it. back to bitcoin, and it hitting _ more news when we have it. back to bitcoin, and it hitting that _ more news when we have it. back to bitcoin, and it hitting that new- bitcoin, and it hitting that new all—time high. let's talk to david gerard — author of the book �*attack of the 50 foot blockchain — scams, drugs, crooks and cryptography. fairto fair to say you are not a fan of bitcoin and crypto currencies in general — what do you make of the development? general - what do you make of the development?_ general - what do you make of the development?— development? really interesting. there is a lack— development? really interesting. there is a lack of

and facebook in my opinion is worse than tiktok by a lot if you could do it to tiktok do it to facebooks let them sell tiktok into the market let them get a good price or not a good price, i don't know to get away from china control but i think china controls facebook also they have tremendous power in the company there's no question about that they want to be in china. >> there you have it back in 2020 trump committed to signing an executive order to ban that but to federal judges block the attempt at that. the former president says banning tiktok in his mind is a problem because the freedom of speech issues. he flip-flopped and now is like freedom of speech, interesting. >> the wall street journal reports that meta is under investigation. kelly o'grady has the story what is meta being accused of doing. >> the under investigation for their role on the illicit sale of drugs the concern being that the company may be facilitating even profiting from the alleged activity on their platform like instagram and facebook the wall street journal is reporting the prosecutors in virginia of subpoe

that's facebook dot com, forward slash a j inside story. and you can also join the conversation on x. i'll handle is at a j inside store for me to clock the whole team here. good bye for now. the as the world plunges into a climate disaster, we are in the planetary class. this year, a new a pub series exposes the reality of the global emergency. there will come a time where no amount of dollars will be able to make up for what is broken and makes the people trying to make a difference. it was endless economic growth. a growth rising for as nothing inmate to growth dying coming soon. what constitutes exempt. so we generally talk you were saying, i want you to start with just the fact runners to what happened as independent. we want fees we want, i want to we don't have lead them in policy on it's going to get 50 percent representation and accountability and benefit knowing that was and services as claimant. and you're saying you don't have any reports for that. i should just trust a few months out of the community, off to the side, the cool

i put itj on my facebook. i'm not a hamas lover~ _ on my facebook.ll- lover. the idea that we are all hamas— lover. the idea that we are all hamas supporters _ lover. the idea that we are all hamas supporters because i lover. the idea that we are all| hamas supporters because we lover. the idea that we are all. hamas supporters because we go lover. the idea that we are all- hamas supporters because we go on these _ hamas supporters because we go on these marches, — hamas supporters because we go on these marches, it's _ hamas supporters because we go on these marches, it'sjust_ hamas supporters because we go on these marches, it'sjust ridiculous. l these marches, it'sjust ridiculous. i'd these marches, it'sjust ridiculous. i'd like _ these marches, it'sjust ridiculous. i'd like to— these marches, it'sjust ridiculous. i'd like tojust _ these marches, it'sjust ridiculous. i'd like tojust go _ these marches, it'sjust ridiculous. i'd like tojust go back— these marches, it'sjust ridiculous. i'd like tojust go back to _ these marches, it'sjust ridiculous.

by the way, most of the time my posts on facebook are shadow banned.n't have the reach on that social media account. i think that there's many other ways to protect data and i thi this body is capable of it, if we choose to be. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. . thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. i recognize the gentleman from washington. mrs. rodgers: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas, gentleman from texas is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. roy: i thank the speaker. we are in a cold war with china. and some of my colleagues want to ignore this fact. we have legislation before us that is 12 pages long. the bill is not a ban, it forceg chinese communists, to divest. the bill is not a bill of attainer, it's not violate the t amendment. it focuses on conduct, not content. it requires both being controlled by a foreign adversary and conduct that itself is espionage. if you just have one alone, it might be debatable, as the gentleman from north carolina or

classic platforms like youtube and facebook?id facebook, twitter and , youtube. so apparently if it e texas courts, if not them, who gets to understand what t scope of the law is? >> we would have to prove it at trial. the law says it applies to any platform with over 50 million users. i'm not sure where some of the other platforms are on that. >> you're making that judgment sed on size. as soon is nothing about the definition. we we inting out the florida law and defining wt platform does and how it works would encompass uber, for example. but you are assuming based on numbers? >> there is also aeparate al media platforms as a wsi open to the public, allowing the user to create an account and enabling users to mmicate with other users. for the primary purpose of posting informatn ntent. >> so is it the position of texas that that definition covers the classic social media sites? like sites like facebook and youtube? >> yes, your honor. >> and it wouldn't sweep more broadly? two things like etsy? >> i don't think so. if the dist