The Theatre presents Jeff Chandler, Jane Wyatt, and Gail Storm. The Mutual Network in Cooperation with Family Theatre presents The Kitty Story Story with Jane Wyatt and Jeff Chandler. To introduce the drama, here is your hostess, Gail Storm. Thank you, Tony Nefrono. Family Theatre's only purpose is to bring to everyone's attention a practice that must become an important part of our lives if we're to win peace for ourselves, peace for our families, and peace for the world. Family Theatre urges you to pray. Pray together as a family. And now to our drama, The Kitty Story Story, which stars Jeff Chandler as Doc and Jane Wyatt as Jack. It spans an abomination. His work should be burned and he should be tarred, feathered, run out of town on a rail. That's what I mean. Come in, the office. Jack, why not let the book reviewers take care of it? Why should this paper's top reporter worry yourself about kitty books? Can't you see the harm in these kitty books? Farm children's stories are as old as a human race. Nobody else seems to mind them. Everybody out of step with you? Oh, Gus, look at these things. Sir William and the Dragon's Kingdom, the magic ring of King Wonder, Sir Jim to the rescue. Those things are poison. Poison? Gus, I want to do a series on them. Series? Oh, no, no, no. Why not take a real news story? We've got a swell hatchet, Myter. Bring out the human intracide. Just happened this morning. Why don't you take it? I'm serious about this. I'm going to do a series about the dangers of permitting children to read this kind of thing.  Well, tell me, what are you going to do when I tell you that you're crazy as a tick? Quit. Quit? I can always go to work for the sun. Sit down, Jack. I don't want to sit down. Whose boss here? Me or you? You. Sit down. Now, what have you got against the author of these books, this Dr. King? I don't even know the man. But I'd fight him if he were my own father. It's unfair to write the way he does, Gus. Unfair? Look at me. My father wrote the same kind of stories to me when I was a child. The same kind of stories as Dr. King writes, and just like every other kid, I believe them. I believe that someday my knight in shining armor would come riding up to my doorstep to sweep me off my feet. But he never came, and you can see why. I'm not pretty. Well, I am. In fact, you could say I'm as homely as a mud fence. No. And there are plenty more girls like me. That's why these kiddie books aren't fair. Just teach children the facts, and they'll be prepared for whatever comes along. I can't change your mind. These things are psychologically and emotionally... All right, all right. Turn it off. Are you going to let me do it, or do I go to work for the sun? Well, I guess I can give you a three-time shot in the Sunday magazine section. Gus. But I won't have any personal opinion. You'll have to be complete with research, surveys, and... Wait a minute. I think I know how you can get all the first-hand information you'll need. Remember any of your shorthand? Well, yes, some, but... Good, good, good.  I'm going to do a little phoning, and then you're going to play secret agent for about five days. What do you mean, secret agent? When I speak jump, woman, get your hat. And he says I'm crazy. Hurry up, hurry up. You're not working for a monthly... I'm hurrying. Oh, yes, you old double-crosser, you. Hello, Ms. Bevins? Is the doc around? Put him on. No. Where am I going to do all this undercover work? Dr. King? Dr. This is Gustav Bingman, managing editor of the banner. Well, fine, fine. Say, I wonder if you could do the banner a favor. We've got a little girl over here with the makings of a good reporter, and we thought maybe you wouldn't mind putting her on your payroll for a week, or until something opens up here. That is, if it wouldn't... if it would be at all possible. Dr. King? Yes. Well, yes, yes. Her father and I were old friends. One of those things, you know, was planned. Would you wait just a minute, doctor? Go ahead, Jack. You've got a job. And like it or not, you're going to get a story that'll put your Dr. King right out of business. Get out of here. This will be the greatest thing since the Brooklyn Grand Jury. Uh, doc, you still there? No, no, of course I'm not mad at you. She was listening. I had to pretend I didn't know you. I'd better tell you something about this, girl. Going up, going up, please. Do you know which floor Dr. King is on? 25, ma'am, penthouse. Are you his new secretary? Yes, I am. Oh. It's only for a week, though, isn't it? That's right. News travels fast in this building. Yes, ma'am. Hey, look out for the plumber. Hey, right, Jack! Hey, Jim, will you look at that. Crew's all over the floor. I'm so sorry.  That's all right, lady. May I help you? I'll help him, ma'am. Dr. King's office is just around the corner and down the corridor. I'm really very sorry. Forget it, lady. It's all right. See, if I got everything, portable, cursed, gloves... Oh, I wonder what I did with my gloves. I must have dropped them at the elevator. Well, I just have to go back and see. Why didn't you look where she was going? I bet you wouldn't be griping if she was a looker. She ain't a looker. The girl he hired at Vacation Time last year was really something to see. I remember. May I have my gloves, please? Miss James? And you're Dr. King? Yes. Won't you come in? I hope you weren't expecting a beautiful princess. Do I look like the kind of man who would have a beautiful princess or secretary who would step right into the living room? I'd like you to meet my housekeeper. Mrs. Bevin's? Nothing. Come on in. I want you to meet your new roommate. Roommate? Yes. You'll be living here. How do you do? How do you do? That takes care of the formalities. Dr. King, I don't think I should... I mean, I do have a home of my own. Oh, Miss James, I keep rather difficult hours. If you're going to work the same hours I do, I think it'd be best for you to live right here. There's an extra bed in Mrs. Bevin's room and it'll only be for a week. Unless, of course, you want to stay for the full two weeks. You see, I sent my regular girl on vacation this morning. Come along, Miss James. I'll show you where you sleep. You just give Mrs. Bevin's a list of the things you'll need and we'll have somebody run over for them. Oh, nonsense. I can go over for myself. There's no reason for anyone to go to any trouble for me. Oh, and it might be wise to take a nap for a couple of hours. We'll be going to work at five. Nap? Just as I said, Miss James, we keep strange hours around here.  He's keeping me up all night typing silly stories. For two days now, from five in the evening to three or four in the morning... Well, I haven't had time yet, but don't worry, it'll be a great story. Oh, his story. Oh, the usual thing. Night and shining arm on the process of saving a beautiful princess. No. No, he says he can't save her for at least two more chapters. Not from dragons. In this story, it's an ogre. Do you know what he named the ogre? His name is Gus. Miss James. Gus, I've got to run. I'll try and call you later. Coming, Dr. King. Look, you can lay off that doctor business if you want to. Yes, sir. Would you get your shorthand book, please? And say, your friends don't call you. Miss James, do they? No. Most of them call me Jack. Jack? Jack. A masculine name for such a feminine girl. Oh. Thank you very much. You got your book? A letter to John Baudette, Rockaway House & Company, 10,000 Rockefeller Plaza, New York City, New York. Dear John, regarding your suggested revisions of the bravest night, I feel I must remind you our contract clearly states that I will not be obliged to kill or maim any of the characters in any of the stories I submit to your company for publication period. I have no intention of... Oh, what's the matter, Miss Jack? Am I going too fast for you? Oh, no, no. It was what you said. You mean you never write about death in any of your stories? No. No, I don't when there are so many other possible solutions. There's stuff for children, you know. Yes, but what about dragons and witches and ogres, things like that? Oh, maybe I bump off an incorrigible dragon once in a while if there's no chance of reforming him, but I think for the most part it's better to keep everything on the sweetness and light side for the kids. But why not write about things as they really are? Why always the happy endings at all? I just don't see quite... Oh, hold on, hold on. What forms a child's imagination? Well, the games he plays... And the stories he reads or are read to him. Yes. Then why in Heaven's name should I write about things as they really are? Isn't it wise to write about them as they ought to be? If it's true that my stories help form the minds of tomorrow's citizens, then I'm morally obligated to see not destructive. Write happy endings as a normal conclusion to every story, and soon the younger generation will come to expect it. Which is better, a generation expecting the best or a generation expecting the worst? Oh, I... I hadn't thought of that point before. After all, I... I may not be so much to look at, but I'll find some nearsighted woman someday and maybe raise some children of my own. When that happens, I want the best kind of world for them to grow up in. Um, where was I? Hmm? Oh, um, pardon me. Be in the letter. Oh, oh, uh, I will not be obliged to maim or kill any of the characters in any of the stories I submit to your company for publication. Well, I have no intention of changing. Good morning, Mrs. Bevin. Morning, Jack. I suppose I should say good afternoon. I... I just can't get used to these hours. Where's Dr. King? He's having his hair cut. Can I remind him this time? Hmm, strange. You can have either cold or hot cereal. What'll it be? Hot cereal's ready. Hot, then. Mrs. Bevin's, why did he pick a pen name like Dr. King? Here's your fruit juice. Oh, I suppose it's because he's a doctor. Can't think of a better reason. A real doctor? He was a pretty good surgeon, but he gave it up in favor of staying sane. I don't understand. Put him on the edge of a nervous breakdown and kept him there. So he started writing for a living. And from the look of things, he's done pretty well. You're not drinking your juice. How could such a young man do so many things? My guess would be Doc didn't have to take too much time away from studies for Dayton while he was going to school. Of course, I think he's pleasant-looking, but he's... he's not what you'd call ladies' choice. Well, I think he's very good-looking. Good-looking? Funny. Doc said the same thing about you not an hour ago. Must be love. Love? Nonsense. Oh, this orange juice is very good. Considering it's great fruit, that's quite a compliment. Mrs. Bevan's, did he really say he thought I was pretty? He did. It couldn't be love. He's only known me for three days. Doesn't mean a thing. Doc's stories, they sometimes fall in love less than a paragraph. They're Harvey and the princess were married, and they live happily ever after. So much for that. Oh, I'm a little sorry. It's finished. Finished? Tomorrow we start on the revisions. It's just about half finished. Look, it's a sunrise. Beautiful, isn't it? Oh, it's magnificent. It's one nice thing about working nights. You see so many beautiful sunrises. Yeah, it's a pretty good way of ending a working day. Doc. The other night you said you'd get married some day and raise some children of your own, and you sounded so sure of it. I am sure of it. Will she be a beautiful princess, Doc? She will be to me. Whether she is to anybody else or not doesn't much matter, does it? I guess not.  If she's the right beautiful princess, maybe. Look, we're both pretty tired. Maybe we'd better turn in, huh? I can almost hear Mrs. Bevan's from here snoring like a trojan. Just how does a trojan snore? Like one of your dragons with adenoids. Mrs. Bevan's. Mrs. Bevan's turn over. I am so sorry. I'm probably too tired to sleep. I'm much too tired. Oh, Jacqueline. Jacqueline. Jacqueline. We're friends. When you two stop your cackling while I'm calling Princess Jacqueline. Oh, Jacqueline. Is that you, Gus? Yes. Yes, what is it? Come on, my girl. Step through this door. She's coming, Chief. A few steps more. She's here. All right, boys. Slam the gate. We've got her. Now we seal her fate. It isn't the principal, ma'am. It's the money. The ransom you'll ask is so big it ain't funny. And you? I'm the plumber who treated you mean. She's the ugliest beautiful princess I've seen. I think perhaps we'd best let her go. To have her own? It ain't worth the dough. Oh, yes, yes. Please let me go. If it's money you want, I'll give you lots of money. Oh, it's more than money this girl will bring. You mean? Why, Mets? The king. It's a trap. That's what it is. You're trying to trap King Dark. The idea came from your own head. You wanted him. Career-wise, dead. Oh, no, no, no. I've changed my mind. You can't do it. I won't let you. Hear that, chief? He says you can't. You'd think her boss to hear a ramp? There's chief ogre in this ivory tower. It's certainly well within my power to try. Convict and seal his fate. For crimes against the Fourth Estate. To only write what ought to be. A most abhorrent thought to me. Oh, you can't do it. He's innocent. Please listen to me. He's committed a crime. He must be published. That's him. By Jim, he sure came fast. Uh-huh. We've got the King at last. You there inside the tower. Release my beautiful princess, or I'll come in there and intimidate you. This second raid. This second raid eminences King Dark. Thinks a beautiful princess.  Oh, by Jim, this will be fun. Doc! Thanks, honey. Everything's all right. It was only a dream. Mrs. Bevins, would you open the blinds or turn on the lights? Oh, I tell you, it sure gave me a star. Oh, I don't know what's wrong with me. I don't do things like this. I never have nightmares. I guess I've been working you too hard. I'll tell you what we'll do. Today we'll take some time off. We'll take in a show. Eat out, huh? We'll really have ourselves a time. Be good for me, too. Would you like that? I'll go fix breakfast. Oh, I couldn't go back to sleep now. How about it? I'd like it very much, Doc. Fine.  Oh, forget it. Come on now. Get into your Sunday best. You and I are going out on the town. I don't think I ever had such a wonderful... No. Magn... No, I haven't. In high school? Not there, neither. High school. Seems a million years ago. A million? Now, couldn't be. Let's see, how old are you? 25, 26? Um, 30. Oh, ancient. How about you? 35. You know something? What? I've never had such a wonderful...  I, uh... I guess you'll be going to work for the newspaper in a day or so, huh? I... I suppose so. Oh, we turn in here. I suppose you could get Gus to wait another week? Gus? You know Gus? Oh, uh, well, I, uh... I had quite a chat with him the other morning, you know. Oh, yes, of course. I, uh... I guess I could ask him if... if you really need me for the second week. Oh, I do, I do. Going up? Up, please. I don't know why I don't like this boy. Neither do I. Going up, Dr. King? 25 floors. It's a little too much to walk. Yeah, now we're going up. Good morning. Morning. Had a nice time last night? Had a grand time. Oh, a magnificent time. Here's your juice. You'll be one hot cereal, won't you? Please. Must have stayed out pretty late. I didn't hear you come in. Oh, we did. We danced at a dawn, and then we walked home. Walked home from downtown? It was such a lovely morning.  You've hardly had any sleep at all. I have to go down to the office and see Gus. See if he'll let me stay another week. That's splendid. Ready for your coffee? Mm-hmm. You'll be sure and give Gus my best, won't you? What did you say, Mrs. Bevans? Oh, I... I said the wrong thing, didn't I? No. No, you said the right thing. You know Gus, don't you? And so does Doc. You've both known from the beginning why I came here. Oh, child, don't feel that way.  Wait, let me explain.    Resign. What are you talking about? Get yourself a nougat. Okay. Gus, where is she? Doc, she went to her office. She got herself. What happened? Somebody laughed at you, Mrs. Bevans. Jack, I... Gus, you had your fun, Dr. King.  No, Jack. You keep out of this. Honey, I don't want to go home. You don't have to worry about my writing, my Andy Kitty story, story.  And I suppose you know about that. You seem to know about everything else. No, it's not that, Jack. Will you listen to me for a minute, please? I'm not interested in anything you have to say, Dr. King. Be fair, Jack. Please. Well, just one minute. All right. Jack, what... What I want to say is that... Well, let... Jack, you're... You're the most... Without you, life just... That is to say, I... He means to say... He thinks you're the most beautiful girl he's ever seen, and he loves you with all his heart and soul. Without you, life wouldn't be worth living. So will you please become his blessing bride as soon as possible? That's what you meant, wasn't it, Doc? Will you, Jack? Had a boy. I mean, could I ever love anybody else after I... I'm so... Well, what she's trying to say is...   Isn't that so, Jack? Well, at least I won't have to do their kiss and farm. And they'll be married and settled down in some nice little vine-covered castle. Everybody will live happily ever after. With the possible exception of the ogre, who, from the look of things, is about to lose his best reporter. It has surely occurred to you that one of the supreme benefits which radio has brought to all of us has been a greater realization of the relation between the prevention and the cure of the more disastrous diseases which can afflict the body. It has been the medium whereby hundreds of thousands of people now know the symptoms of cancer, polio, tuberculosis, and heart troubles, the notorious killers. They're put on their guard against these killers. And the proverbs about being forearmed by being forewarned takes on a new aspect of truth. I know that some serious and honest people are often inclined to believe that all the storm warnings about these diseases may possibly make some people jittery and over-fearful. The talk of dangers simply multiply the number of fears a person has to deal with. But all in all, most of us know that the great source of fear is the unknown, not the known, and that the more we know of the nature and strategy and tactics of an anemia or disease, the less morbid our fears become. Out of knowledge comes remedies and prevention strategy. It is the same with the diseases and maladies that can afflict the modern family. Family well-being, like personal physical health, is maintained in the very first place by forestalling what is dangerous to its unity and peace and its harmonious growth. Family theater, therefore, uses the wonderful medium of radio to emphasize the place of prayer in the family. Family prayer is the first and most important bulwark against all the personal and social forces which are enemies of the family, because it relates the family to God and what ultimate power has any human set of forces against God's power. That's why we say with confidence that the family that prays together stays together.  The series of Family Theater broadcasts is made possible by the thousands of you who feel the need for this type of program. By the mutual network which responds to this need and by the hundreds of stars of stage, screen and radio who give so unselfishly of their time and talent to appear on our Family Theater stage.  This is Tony LaFranco expressing the wish of Family Theater that the blessing of God may be upon you and your home and inviting you to join us next week at the same time when Family Theater is broadcasted throughout the world and originates in the Hollywood studios of the world's largest network. This is the Mutual Broadcasting System.


Good afternoon. I'm Peter Bergen at New America. Thanks for joining this event about the tech content moderation. This information, terrorism content we're joined by two of the nation's leading experts on counterterrorism David cotton steam Ross, who's going to talk a little bit about a new paper that he's published redrawing the lines and assessment of the impact of anti censorship legislation on terrorist content hate speech on harassment and misinformation, who's he's also the CEO of valence and frequent testify before congressional committees, and has worked for DHS and is has a PhD from Catholic University, and also were joined by Karen Greenberg, who is the center of the center of national security for university. She's had a long career, writing about counterterrorism has written multiple books on counterterrorism. PhD was in history from Yale. She's also senior fellow at near America. So, David, let's just turn to you if you could give us a high level account of your paper. I think get into a discussion of the issues it raises. Thanks so much Peter it's great to join you, and I definitely appreciate New America for hosting this discussion. I'd at the top like to acknowledge my two co authors on this paper, Maddie urban and Cody Wilson, both of whom are in the audience today. It's looking at this phenomenon called anti censorship bills, which have been introduced at the state level and implemented in a couple of states, and look like they're headed for a Supreme Court showdown in the not too distant future. I think all of you know, over the past, you know, half decade plus we've had two opposite trends online. What is there's been an absolute proliferation of harmful content. Disinformation and misinformation terrorist content hate speech harassment and social media companies have been called upon to deal with this harmful content but at the same time, the role in doing so has become increasingly controversial. This debate about the role of big tech in content moderation, and in society reached a crescendo after President Trump was banned from Twitter and Facebook in January 2021 after the January 6 attack on the Capitol. These bands were prompted by companies assessment that Trump's postings posed a risk of violence. But even before these bands, the anger of many political conservatives have been simmering due to perceptions that big techs content moderation efforts were compromised by political bias. We've had in the wake of Trump's bands, anti censorship bills that would constrain social media companies ability to undertake content moderation, that is, you know, pulling material offline, banning accounts, or doing what's called shadow bands, which is making them not promote material anti censorship laws have been introduced in over a dozen states, and have been passed into law in Florida with Senate bill 7072, and in Texas with House bill 20. So in the study redrawing the lines Maddie and Cody and I look at this through an adversarial perspective. These laws were in place what can an adversary do with it. And our basic argument is that HP 20 and SB 7072 go too far in imposing rigidity on platforms content moderation. And especially bad actors, whether they're engaged in hate speech or missed disinformation or terrorist content are very keen to exploit loopholes and exploit a system which is constantly changing to adapt to them. So just as an example of this in Florida, the limitations that are imposed by SB 7072 are that social media companies have to publish standards and definitions that the platform and I quote uses or has used for determining how to censor D platform and shadow companies have to apply this, these these takedowns in a consistent manner. They have to inform users about changes to rules ahead of times, and they can't change the rules, more than once every 30 days. Florida also provides that political candidates cannot be D platformed and journalistic enterprises can't be D platformed. It's when you kind of go past the surface and look at the net effect of this, that the kind of mind boggling nature of the attempt to constrain the platform becomes clear. There's a constant volume, right like for example in the first three months to 2021 Facebook removed 8.8 pieces of bullying and harassment content, 9.8 million pieces of organized hate content, and 25.2 million pieces of hate speech content. When it comes subject to litigation or to complex appeals process, then suddenly you have a system where content moderation really can't take place, especially, or they put it a little bit more constrained. It's very difficult for it to take place because of the volume of the material, the fact that each one could be subject to litigation, and the damages that they have to pay out could be quite high overall, given the volume. You know, for another context and then, then I'll kind of wrap up is in the first three months of 2021 YouTube removed 1.16 billion comments that they found to be in violation of policies. So, overall, what this does, what the what anti censorship bills do is they are your response to some real problems that you exist on the platforms, I would say, right social media companies are not simply actors who are innocent have nothing to do with the problems that have occurred but despite all of the problems, they're called upon to deal with real harms on their platform and creating rigidity, creating a right to sue, which is going to slow them down and make them very risk averse in terms of leaving bad content up and creating certain loopholes like political candidate loopholes and loopholes for journalistic publications. So if we actually game it out and look what an adversarial actor could do with it. It suddenly becomes a lot of different hoops that bad actors can jump through to make sure that their materials remain online town. First of all, I want to say, Debbie, thank you for this wonderful report is really terrific. I'm going to give it to my class to read when we do section 230 and some months so I think it's going to be very helpful just to set the context. I want to start there today which is the context, which is that we are facing a number of issues as a country as a globe where we keep getting to the point where we say, it's too complicated. It's too complex. The legal universe is just going to be so prohibitive and costly going forward. And I am all of these things whether it's climate change, whether it's the globalization of economics, whether it's pandemic. I'm really think that the issue of that we're facing at the Internet with disinformation really brings together a lot of these issues about complexity. And I just want to put out there at the beginning that yes it's complex. Yes, it's complicated, but that can't be a substitute for it's too complicated. And while, you know, there is no magic wand. I also think we're going to have to make some really hard choices about benefits and and and detriment set, you know, we might face going forward so just to push back a little bit about the end of what you said, I agree that they are there, no matter which path we choose, whether it's more content moderation restrictions on content moderation whatever it is, we're facing a very, very long conversation that they are, we're at the beginning of. One of the things I wanted to point out was that other countries, other entities, other organizations outside of the United States have sort of given us a little bit of, of sort of a prelude to what to do and what not to do and I'm thinking maybe of this 2017 law criminalizing hate speech and some more legislation of this ilk more recently, maybe in 2018 France passed legislation to remove fake news during election campaigns. You see very little of this referred to in the American conversation I think we need to own what's happening in the rest of the world, more this summer the EU adopted the new Digital Services Act. There are countries like Turkey that passed a bill, I think last week penalizing disinformation, jailing journalists and social media users. And this is to your point, these laws can be used in a variety of different ways right, but I still think it's instructive to look at these and I think one, another one that came to my attention weekly was Uganda, which passed a bill banning false information and hate speech so it's, it's not just us it's all over the world in different kinds of countries for as you said in the context of each very different reasons and I think we need to think about these laws in Florida and Texas, in particular, the one in Texas, being broader at the one in Florida being more narrowly focused but both important about, you know, what the courts can do in regulating content, and that of course involves what Congress can also do regulating content. In terms of regulating content, I just want to say the phrase anti censorship is really fraught, because, you know, censorship is the is is what the those who would like to, you know, promote this, the fact that, you know, there should not be content moderation is used. And so I prefer to say content regulation then anti censorship only because it seeds to the censorship point which is really not exactly all that the conversation was about and I think sort of pushes aside some of the more important things that are happening. Another thing I wanted to bring up just at the beginning and I don't want to go on forever is that this moment has been coming for a long time that and the moment has been a lot of different parameters but one is, what is the real relationship going to be and between the public sector and the private sector, when it comes to the internet writ large, and when it comes to disinformation for the purposes of this conversation. What is happening in the courts is trying to figure out just what that relationship can be and should be. One thing about big tech is that big tech outside of the disinformation conversation, and more directly in the privacy conversation is having a parallel they're not, they can exclude one another they they're they're going to have this is an evolving conversation, but just what right does the government have to intercede when it comes to speech, when it comes to these platforms, is it issue as sort of a deeper that we need to, to, to address in the context of the long standing, no idea that government should not have too much interference when it comes to free speech, whether you call it publication common carrier whatever it is, we're not going to get away from what it means to interfere with speech. You know I think we should also talk a little bit today about what happened with the disinformation governance board at DHS, I think it's really important, you know it started what in April, and it was declared over in August, and the idea was to study best practices for combating the harmful effects of disinformation. And I think while a number of NGOs have taken this up to look at what those harmful effects are, and how to remedy them how to counter them how to prevent them. It's, it's sort of a loss that we don't have, we haven't yet decided at the governmental level how to deal with or if to deal with the issue of disinformation. The other thing I wanted to bring up in this public private conversation is, or at least that I'm raising here is that there may be other ways to go about the same thing and David I'd really love to hear you on this for example. Do we really have to address content moderation in these particular forms are these cases, or are there other ways that have to do with best business practices that have to do with something, a number of critics have raised, or students of disinformation, which is, you know, how do we, how do we think about competition and antitrust provisions and monopoly in terms of what this means in terms of restraining speech, you know, in ways that we're discussing. And also issues about privacy, could we get at it in other ways that are not sort of trying to make some kind of very simple over simplistic and very, I think, long lasting and essentially to your point, destructive potential outcomes. So also there I have many other things to say but I think they'll come up in the conversation. Well thank you Karen thank you to be for these opening comments and I just want to remind the audience you have a question we're using Slido it's located on the right side of the video just enter it and we'll answer your questions. So we've had a little discussion between the three of us. So, I mean there's so much to ask about this quote about this. You know one I defeat I thought the paper was was very strong and written a very kind of accessible and interesting way. And you had an interesting way of describing misinformation disinformation lies fake news etc and called it called it polluted information which I think is a nice way of kind of summarizing it. It relates to this question that the current raised about, you know the disinformation bureau at DHS was sort of dissolved. So where to begin but one thing.  What is, what is their position on, on what you're writing about. Obviously meta opposes this, generally speaking any social media company is going to oppose laws that you threatened the way they go about doing business I appreciate you raising that caveat. I will state also that though part of the research was funded by meta, we also had you know free rein in how we read about the topic. This is this has been a fairly long standing position that I've had on these bills. Well, so what is the, what is what is the position you're advocating rather than the position that you're kind of opposing as it were I mean you're saying that these Texas and Florida laws are sort of too intrusive we're going to backfire or whatever but like what what is, what's the affirmative position. Well, what Karen mentioned before about best business practices is I think where the position is currently. That companies have complex relationships with a variety of governments. Some governments as Karen has pointed out, have laws that require much more in the way of content moderation. She mentioned Germany she mentioned France she mentioned Uganda. And so in those cases there's going to be a much more restrictive regime Karen also pointed to a number of places where the restrictions are not necessarily good restrictions there's a variety of countries, which have you know blasphemy type laws or, you know, or restrictions on criticizing the government. So you have all those different laws that are in place and social media companies have to comply with them from one country to another. So it comes to countries that have relatively libertarian speech regimes, and the US is one. Usually you'll have relationships between tech companies and a variety of stakeholders. So if you look at meta, if you look at Google if you look at Twitter, they have relationship, they have public policy teams which have relationships with government. They have relationships that have relationships with various civil society stakeholders, different groups for example that can be victimized by hate speech, and they'll have ongoing dialogue and figure out where they think the line should be drawn. My own view is that we're in this very dynamic moment where you have both a variety of kinds of toxic speech, harmful speech, then on the other hand, harmful desires to censor people who don't think like you do. And all that makes for an explosive cocktail. I personally think that that also we should point out that the desire to censor on the one hand is very much at odds with the technological environment. We have a technological environment where at least until you have quantum computing breakthroughs, people can get a greater degree of anonymity in a variety of ways and to end encryption. It's easy to put speech up. There's too many different platforms by which you can get it out to the internet. And so with all of that, I personally favor a more libertarian approach, in which companies are able to set their own different competing standards. I think it's fine that a company like Gab exists. I don't like Gab. It is one of the most dangerous places on the internet from her perspective of everything that we're talking about. But it's fine that it exists. It's a place that people can decide to go to. You know, if their policies cause people to die, then that's something that can be dealt with in other ways. Right. And I think that there should be liability when people are putting up speech, which is designed to cause harm. And leaving all of that aside, the affirmative case at the end of the day is, I think that I agree with with Karen that that complexity is not a reason necessarily to avoid government policy. The complexity with competing imperatives tends to be a reason to allow some diversity of practice so we can get it best practices. And so I'm not for anti censorship laws, but also generally speaking, I don't see an imperative for government to require greater content moderation either. That's a really interesting point because you know what what you're really saying I mean I'm asking this kind of as a question but is that is that this is something that is happening in this public space one way or another, that the internet has empowered it, and that in a way, there's not much we can do about it. And so my, so my question to you is, do you think the internet has made this and, and I really mean this isn't a rhetorical question has made the spread of hate which we've seen an awful lot of over the past of history, and violence in the name of hate, right, let's not forget the 20th century, not and the, as well as the 21st. Do you do you think we over emphasize the fact that the internet is a spreader of violence, and we know it's a spreader of disinformation, but in the next step, violence, do you think that it's, it's a game changer or not. I'm just trying to you. Does that make sense. Yeah, I mean I absolutely think it's a game changer. And, you know, I don't think we over emphasize it I think if anything we under emphasize the degree of of spread of violence. I think that, and so let me kind of divide up kind of two separate areas of thought. Really what I've devoted a lot of thought to is anti censorship laws, and like ultimately, I come down against them. And Karen, I agree exactly with what you're saying that it is a very fraught term. I just want to clarify that I use the word that the words that were used introducing them I tend to use organic terms for for different groups, and so like, you know, so called patriot groups I'll call patriot groups right that like I let people use whatever term they want to describe themselves, but for these anti censorship laws. Then there's this whole case of well should there be more obligations on social media companies just before this panel. Before we got on we were talking about litigation before the Supreme Court that maybe section 230 doesn't provide protection when terrorist content inspires violence, the Supreme Court will be taking these cases up. And that's something where kind of the affirmative case is something I've done much less intellectual work on, but for the question of, do we over emphasize the role of the Internet in fostering violence. Absolutely we do not overemphasize it. I think that there's a lot of different things that our digital lives are doing. I think it's it's altering patterns of radicalization. My colleague Maddie urban before this call. She and I are just finishing up a paper on what we call composite violent extremism, which we think is, you know, a new trend that is really driving, driving a lot of violence in ways that just don't fully match at all pre Internet trends in violent extremism. And so this is a very important discussion for that reason. And we're captioned, like every discussion is captioned by alternatives. So my advice to big social media companies is generally speaking they want to draw as big a tent as possible, and to allow as many, as many accounts as possible to be on their platforms as possible, because if you drive people off of Facebook if you drive people off of Twitter, they go to gap, right or or or alternative or other alternative platforms which researchers call malevolent platforms that creates a market space in which, you know, if 50% of people are driven offline and obviously we're nowhere near that amount, nowhere near that. But if say you try 50% of people off to declare 50% of views off limits, then suddenly you create a huge market space from a level and platforms. And I think even when you get into the case of government, taking a role determining that we need to draw more hate speech off. I totally get that. And, you know, I think that part of what we have in the US is a lot of people don't trust government to draw the line right. And I think without getting into a debate about that. I'll just say that if people feel that government is requiring a certain amount of content moderation, and they don't agree with it. Then there's lots of alternatives that they can use to still get things off onto the internet, or to still read things that the government is trying to suppress. And that's part of the picture when we look at it beyond this more narrow corner of whether anti censorship laws are going to cause problems or not. That's right. I think this, right, I mean, even the way you sort of set it towards the end I mean the idea of government controlling reading, taking the libertarian right, the government controlling reading right and some of the, you know, presidential cases in this regard that are used to sort of in that, in that way. And of course I agree with you that the internet has inspired more violence and then the question is, is what to do and I do think although I know you see them as separate things that when you look at Texas Florida litigation and those cases versus what's happening in the Supreme Court, we're really poised right now to some major sort of, you know, changes in how we're going to think about what can regulate the internet, what can't, what the best practices are. And so there's a couple of things in this regard. One is, what about this call for more transparency, more transparency on the part of big tech to say what they're doing, how they do it, what their criteria are and there's been some movement in that but overall there isn't this, you know, sort of broad sense of transparency. Do you think that more transparency will and codified or regulated transparency about how these algorithms are done, what they've done that are available to let's say journalists, researchers, people like yourself is one of a potential mitigating factor. I mean I'm just curious where you would stand on that. I don't necessarily have a view on it. So, as I mentioned, this report is written from an adversarial perspective, right, I wanted to look at how an adversary is going to look at it. And if I'm looking at it from an adversarial perspective, what I would do with requirements of transparency is number one, I would file litigation, as much as possible, and try to get as many transparency reports as possible to know exactly where the lines lie. And number two, I come through them very carefully in order to determine exactly where the line is so that I can go right up to it and push out disinformation, misinformation, you know, terrorist content, while at the same time crossing the line. At the same time, there's lots of valuable reasons to have transparency. So from an adversarial perspective, there's clearly something you could do with it. That doesn't really make it bad. And obviously as a researcher I do like transparency. I can ask you a question which is, you know, there's been discussion of section 230 and the case that the court is taking up related to that. Can you explain to the audience what section 230 years and why this case is important and what it could mean. Is this me? Yeah. Yeah.  If you're a platform you have immunity from when it comes to content, putting up or taking down. Right. And so that's why you see both the left and the right, sort of talking about section 230 because the, I mean, I'm using the left and the right in broader terms and they actually mean but you'll see, you know, people who lean Democratic wanting to have more moderation, right, under section 230, and people on the right, wanting to have less moderation, also under section 230. So it's a, and one of the things that's come up over section 230 and you both will recognize this from prior cases that have to do with security versus, you know, security versus legal issues is basically the question of, you know, is this too vague a terminology if it can be embraced by both sides for different reasons, then is this, you know, is this too vague how much does the language really help us understand what 230 is about. And that's why you have all these different kinds of cases and so just to bring you up to date on the case that I think is really going to be on our in our sites coming up which is Gonzalez v. Google which is a section 230 case which is about, the question is, our recommender systems in other words that which comes through via algorithms in terms of how to push out a message and to whom to push it.  And again, this is a question about where what's the specifics and what is, and what's too general to be able to tie this down to the Supreme Court to, to look at this and the case is one of that I'm, you know, that's really in our all three of ours wheelhouse which is the Paris attacks of 2015 carried out by ISIS, killing 130 plus people, and American killed Nohemi Gonzalez, her family filed suit claiming that YouTube owned by Google, the YouTube's recommender system which pushes forth content according to users profiles were in part responsible for her death. Google claims section 230 as its defense, saying it provides liability protection for content as an internet service provider platform, the lower courts in this case have ruled in favor of Google. The family says no section 230 doesn't cover this kind of content moderation. And so really what this, this argument this case, this decision will be about when it comes to Gonzalez be Google is does section 230 extend to these algorithms presented by the recommender systems and actually, when you, I mean to David's point about you know how much has changed when you watch the degree to which technological understanding technology is so important to be able to rule on this decision. I'm sure you, you, you remember in the early days of prosecutions about terrorism, like, who was going to explain what was going on in terms of terrorism who the terrorist groups were how they were affiliated how they were funded. And, and we're still in the same place here over technology, even though we're so many years later. So it's actually a very important case and it could have some very dire consequences which I think David referred to before. Well question for both of you so in David's paper he makes the point and it kind of goes to what Karen was saying, and David was agreeing with this question. So, you know, ISIS recruited 40,000 Muslims from around the world to come and David's paper says you know it's the biggest wave of sort of foreign fighter. It's an instigation, even bigger than the Afghan war against the Soviets so I think we're all in agreement that the internet had an effect on this wave of, it's just a fact right so sort of isn't it. If that's a fact and that the social media had this, you know, very big recruitment effect for ISIS, then, you know, how does that affect this Gonzalez versus Google debate because clearly social media companies did have a role in recruiting people to ISIS and inciting violence. Well, in a way and then I'm going to W you should, you know, but I just want to say the other case Twitter versus Tom now actually speaks directly to that as well you know it's specifically the question there is, when is a company liable for a betting terrorism. ISIS posted recruiting fundraising stuff on Twitter, other social media platforms, and the case here is brought by on behalf of Jordanian citizen who was killed in 2017 during an in Istanbul during an ISIS attack. So that's that is really the question and Twitter says the lower courts improperly expanded the scope of the anti terrorism act, but to your point Peter, it's, it's, this isn't. This is really the question in the time that case and they're deciding them, you know, these are the main decided together, they were decided together by the ninth circuit. And they're seen as a package to just to see both sides of this both in terms of how you target the user for what you send out. And in terms of what you actually put online in these case in terms of recruiting and fundraising and I think probably the ramifications for that will go well beyond that because just what is also put online is disinformation. And so this is going to be a very no matter what happens, the implications of these things if they're, if they're misused of these decisions could be much broader than the cases themselves and I think that's what a lot of civil liberties advocates are worried about. But Debbie what do you, I know you have some really good thoughts about these cases what do you think. Yeah, so, first of all, Peter's point, the causal effect is clear, right the fact that the ability of ISIS to recruit or to carry out certain attacks was linked to their use of the online space. I think that's very clear. Karen mentioned, elliptically a little bit earlier that that I saw these as separate issues, because we're talking about this just before coming on. And what I was saying is that I see that both of the cases, whether we're talking about the Gonzalez case and the case versus Twitter as coming from the opposite direction of anti censorship laws they're actually very much linked. They're just coming at it from from completely different perspectives.   The lawsuits are designed to create an imperative to take down content. If you leave content up, you can face liability. And so to put it back in the content of anti censorship laws. I think one thing we're looking at is, you know, I wouldn't say even the potential, I think we have a reality that social media companies have very tech companies writ large but especially social media companies have very competing imperatives across different jurisdictions. And with the Supreme Court cases, and then the anti censorship bills or anti content moderation bills. They can have within the United States competing imperatives liability for leaving content up. If the Supreme Court design decides that section 230 does not protect them from liability, and also liability potentially for taking content down if the two anti censorship laws go into effect. So to me that's the area of intersection that you potentially have in a real way competing imperatives put on the companies at the same time in the same jurisdictions, which is interesting. Yeah. Switching gears with you so obviously a lot of content moderation is already probably being done by AI and that will kind of increase geometrically. What are the, you know, positives or negatives of that. I think that the positives and negatives are, you know, basically the same, right so the positive is that it allows content moderation at scale. And when you're looking at I mentioned before the 1.16 billion YouTube comments that were pulled down in a three month period. Obviously you're not going to do that through human content moderation there's no company that's going to hire a workforce big enough to pull down 1.16 billion comments in a three month period. The negative is that when you do content moderation at scale like that. It's going to be, you know, very rough and imprecise comments that are innocuous will sometimes be pulled down. I think most anybody who has ever had an argument on social media will have some experience of something pulled down that probably shouldn't have been. And on the other hand, you'll have a lot of material stay up that may be violate terms of service. So I think that that that's the positive and the negative and they're both flip sides of the same coin. You know, somehow, I feel like we're missing a part of the conversation, which is, you know, we're putting all of this burden which is impossible as you just described it onto these social media companies, putting it on our legal institutions to figure out one way or another by punitive measures by constructive measures preventive measures, but there's another side of this which is educating the user. And I know there's a lot of talk about this digital citizenry and, you know, but actually, it seems like a very important part of this which is so but that presupposes that people care whether information is disinformation or not right. But what I'm really trying to suggest here is that we're in such a tense divided. This is not, you know, rocket science period of art of our history at this moment that it's sort of exacerbating all of these issues and I'm just wondering if if we think about the deeper causes of all this anger and hatred and and and just cruelty. Do we need to be thinking about that not putting it on the tech companies but really need to understand just how interrelated these two things are or is that to sort of, you know, wishing for something we also can't fix and at least this we can try to amend one way or another. Peter what do you think about that. I think a little pitch for colleagues of ours at New America Peter Singer Lisa Guernsey are working with the state of Florida, you know, for to create you know to help digital literacy for kids, you know, and clearly that's a least partial solution. Yeah. And for me I don't think it's unrealistic to say that Karen, I mean it might sound unrealistic. We're in this kind of deeply divided period, but so one point I make frequently to people I know at tech companies who work in disinformation is that I think the contentiousness of an issue and the degree to which people feel like they're not heard, or that they're shouted down has an impact on their susceptibility to disinformation that if you had more of an even tone, and less of a contentious tone that you probably would have less susceptibility to disinformation. So we can bear this out just by looking at your Russian information operations, like we know for a fact based on voluminous evidence that Russia would have operatives on various sides of issues. So like a good example in the pre COVID era, and also in the COVID era but pre coven be anti vax debates, where they would have both, you know, operatives associated with the with the IRA the Internet Research Agency, who would post your anti vax posts that you'd have other IRA operatives posting completely obnoxious pro vaccine posts, and you know both of them would just ramp up the ramp up the volume and the heat on that debate. So I think that that literacy is important. And there, you know we're talking about political bias in the context of content moderation. So, one thing that I think is very important is that any digital literacy effort cannot be a partisan effort. And I've seen a number of places where questionable decisions are made in terms of what's in what is information versus disinformation. I talk about a couple in in the paper, but like let's let's kind of I want to put on the table that when the lines are drawn by companies, or by governments that are engaging in kind of efforts to educate that very much deepens distrust. So I want to see this be absolutely non partisan. And then the second thing that I think is important in the 21st century is we need to kind of re humanize one another. I think one of the big problems that you get on digital platforms is people are just routinely dehumanizing to people who have, you know, a slightly different view about the world than they do. You know, I understand that it's very easy when we're in a digital medium to see other people as not real. And I think you have these escalating cycles of dehumanization where someone like, let's take the anti vax debate again this one that I like because it's one that I like for a variety of reasons, including that it to some extent, it's not really linked to partisan issues because they were anti vax debates were prior to COVID. You had kind of this faction on the left, kind of like the, the, like kind of California, Neo hippies, and then this faction on the right who were both, you know, anti vax, so it sort of spanned the political spectrum. I would say someone's vaccine hesitant and they sit there, they express this, and have people kind of lash out at them, you know, accusing them of endangering kids, etc. They feel dehumanized, and like, in turn, they might feel they might be more susceptible to anti vax disinformation and be they might be much more likely to in turn, dehumanize someone else. I think that digital literacy is important, but also I definitely would just lay a stake down on re humanization of one another, which I think is absolutely possible in the digital realm. It's all a question of digital ethics, and that's also a second set of digital ethics in addition to better digital literacy that I would 100% like to see fostered. Absolutely, for both of you. So in three weeks we're going to have this midterm election which I think I may sabotage a number of the wishful, hopeful messages we've just been talking about. And then of course we have 2024 so I mean, I, is it possible to assess how things are going and just I mean that is a very broad question but I mean, you know, is it, is the situation worse better. It's the same in terms of misinformation polarization around these events and what's your anticipation about, you know, the risk of political violence around these events are generated by social media. And of course you know what what is 2024 look like I know those are very hard questions to answer but, but that's why you're on the panel. Yes, I'll take the first short short is cut. One thing. Okay, so let me just put in a plug for what the Biden administration has been doing that this is not a policy or problem that they're ignoring. There have been so many things done in true Biden fashion, you know, quietly, so many offices set up about disinformation, so many separate the disinformation board.  I think that's actually a positive sign that people are paying attention and I think is a very responsible way, how effective that can be. It's certainly more effective than not paying attention and paying attention to late so that's the first thing. The second thing and I just want to bring this curve out here and I'm interested in what you think about this is that, you know, the cases before the Supreme Court. I'm not changing the topic but the cases before the Supreme Court are about international terrorism, which is very interesting because they're going to make a decision about this, you know, disinformation environment based on something that is really a non partisan issue, really, you know, in which there's sort of coherence about countering international terrorism. And what you're really saying is okay. Is this going to mean anything for the current environment and I'm not sure. And I think if it does have an impact, let's say on the 2024 election, it may not be a good one depending on what the court decides so your question is something to very much keep in mind. But I love this term digital ethics. I think it's great. I think I think it's, it's a little bit late to the game, but I think it's a really wonderful way to start thinking about things. So it's a wish and a prayer in terms of the elections Peter, I can't. I want to I don't want to say anything negative. So I'll leave that for it to be to weigh in. People always leave me to say the negative things. So in terms of your question, Peter, I think that there are two trend lines going in different directions. One would be the social media companies trend line, and the other would be the societal trend line. The social media companies I think 2014 to 16 was a low point in terms of both terrorist content and also missing disinformation terrorist content with respect to ISIS in particular, and missed disinformation around the 2016 elections. Since then I think social media companies have moved in a more positive direction. I don't even use the term cleaned up their act because I don't think anyone would buy that. I think that in terms of terrorist content, they're far better than they were at ISIS's height. And in terms of missing disinformation, they're better than they were in 2016. But how, you know, what they can do is captioned by the other trend lining, which is our societal trend line is very negative. If you look at polarization and distrust, you know, they're at all time highs and distrust and almost every institution across the board. And then, secondly, we have a fragmented information ecosystem, which is so highly fragmented that sometimes on certain stories. I realized that unless I read, you know, four or five different articles, I'm not going to get at what's going on, because you have like multiple publications that are giving completely different perspectives on the same thing. You know, again, depending on what the topic is. So I think those two issues of the fragmented information ecosystem and polarization distrust push us in a direction where it's really hard to get an overall handle on on miss or disinformation. Because they tend to exist, most virally, at times of high distrust. Yeah, let me ask, let me ask a question from the audience here which is, you know, there's been a lot of focus on terrorism. The recent driving political forces of anti content moderation arguments, not terrorism related but relate to coven misinformation or debate or debates around teaching what opponents have framed as critical race theory so I guess so. Yeah, I mean, is this being driven by coven is this being driven by what some worry that people are being taught the wrong thing things in school or what what are the drivers here for this. Anti censorship, quote unquote, legislation. Yeah, the biggest drivers are political. Clearly. So let me kind of make the strongest case possible for them because I think that when you're trying to articulate the reason you have to make the strongest case possible. So, after Trump was taken offline. You had a Republican Senator Lindsey Graham way in Twitter may ban me for this but I willingly accept that fate. Your decision to permanently ban President Trump is a serious mistake the Ayatollah can tweet, but Trump can't says a lot about the people who run Twitter, and you can look at various other cases of kind of what we could call what about terrorism but let's call it. What about is that has a legitimate point that Trump has taken offline. And there are multiple other figures who are were clearly their social media platform as part of how they're trying to do harm, and they're not taken offline. Then you have two other things which one can point to as where the line was drawn poorly. What would be the Hunter Biden laptop story, which came out just before the 2020 election. You know the New York Post reported on Hunter Biden's laptop. Later on, you'd have both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times after the election come out with stories about Hunter Biden's laptop. I'm not into all of the details there, but you know, I think that for me as not an expert observer of Hunter Biden's laptop. It seems that the line there was drawn wrong that the story was taken offline as disinformation hack material, and then later on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal reported something that was very similar with perhaps a few differences, and that was deemed okay. The third thing that we again we've talked about this in the study is the way that the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis for COVID-19 was suppressed by social media companies as disinformation. And I call it out at the time that that almost certainly seemed to be wrong. There was no reason like it did not make sense to me that you couldn't discuss the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis. And then, you know, flash forward another year, and the Biden administration is looking at it as one of the two most likely explanations for COVID, the other one being natural causes, and social media companies reverse their position. So I think all of those give fuel to this I mean the other cultural issues, you know, critical race theory is mentioned, and that falls in line with people feeling that perhaps the state is imposing a new ideology, and at the same time, using censorship, including through soft power means to try to get rid of opposing views. So all that together I think comprises some of the backdrop here that people feel that there is unfairness in terms of who has taken offline and who isn't. They feel that oftentimes social media companies draw the line wrong. And finally, they feel that there's kind of an informational cultural shift that's being driven by government. And if big tech is a sensorious arm of government, then suddenly you have both governmental power and soft power institutions implementing that. And so I think that all taken together is some of the driving mindset behind it. Obviously I'm against the laws and so I could provide some counters. But I think that's the strongest case I would make for them. I kind of think that a lot of things you described our symptoms, rather than causes, and that the last thing that you sort of came to which is this real sense of dislocation disenfranchisement is really central to these other issues of and these other angers and, and expressions of, you know, hate that there really is this grievance culture, which is takes a variety of different forms that you've described really has to do with the point to which the United States has come and a lot of it has to do with wealth distribution, and, and people feeling a loss of, of sort of ability to move ahead with their lives. And I think that is beneath all these other things you said about who has access to the vaccine, but I want to come back to something else that's kind of been here and I just want to make this point. You said, sometimes when you're, you see something you have to look to three or four more sources to see if it was good or you know what what's right. And I think a lot of us are in this moment, and I want to suggest that maybe that's not such a bad thing that the idea that you have to challenge when we talk about digital literacy. Right, it's not just knowing which websites it, it's to go on to. It's to know how to think about the world we're living in, who's saying what what it what it actually means and I think we're at a moment where this sort of critical thinking about absolutely everything before us which is so frustrating is not a bad stage for us to have us as a culture and a series and a variety of communities to have to go through. Right, maybe that's unrealistic but this is this is new. And, and it's really the only way to get through the bombardment of information, and the whole spectrum of information. Do you think that's two rose colored glasses. I think it's two rose colored. For me it's a matter of time triage. My frustration more than anything is, you know, I'm a busy CEO I'm running a company, and I don't really have time, generally speaking to read through half a dozen articles to figure out what's going on on a topic. And so, you know, when I realized that reading a couple of sources is probably going to confuse me more than it lightens. I'll usually take a low information diet approach to that. But I did want to highlight one thing that you said Karen, because I knew that we're right out of time but I agree with you strongly about kind of an underlying driver. There's a book by Edward Cornish called Futuring Edward Cornish is a famous futurist he's now he's dead now. But one of the, what he calls a super trend, like an overarching trend that affects the globe that he identifies is increasing deculturation or loss of traditional culture. And the way he describes a deculturation occurs when people lose their culture, or cannot use it because of change circumstances. So when we discuss deculturation, when we go to a country where people speak a language we don't understand, or do things differently from what we are used to. Many people today experience culture shock without ever moving to a foreign country. Instead of new culture takes over much of their homeland, with the result that the original inhabitants become surrounded by people who do not share their culture. It can be through immigration or demographics but it can also just be by culture shifts, you know, that are occasioned by, you know, universities or elite institutions or the like. And so to me, like, you know, occasionally we dive into deculturation and its relationship to terrorist trends and the like. And I definitely would would underscore the idea that deculturation is one of those major factors that's driving polarization in the country. And with respect to what I said earlier about humanizing re humanizing one another. I think that that the more we can try to understand underlying causes and be compassionate about very different perspectives during this wrenching time, the better we'll be able to navigate some of these effects these these poisonous effects are rising from them, like people buying into miss and disinformation, people turning to violent extremist movements and the like. Quick final thoughts in the next two minutes. No, I mean I, I do think we're in a moment of tremendous grievance on all sides. I don't think we can go backwards I think we have to go forwards. I think all of these challenges at the courts are taking up in terms of section 230 and the larger issues of how what speech and this current environment are incredibly important, but I think that the that the actual solution to this lies outside of the particular topic in the larger context and you know there's any takeaway from from this conversation this idea of, I don't even want to say re humanize but the idea of humanizing the world we live in, when we're having a discussion about big tech is actually I think something we all need to give a lot of thought to you know one final observation perhaps is that you know political violence is the American story at periods of non political violence or the aberration not not the norm. I'm always reminded of Charles Sumner you know he was nearly beaten to death on the floor of the Senate in 1856. And because we constantly sort of talk about let's get back to how we once were and that was the group you know we've we've always been at odds with each other I'm not sort of advocating position I'm just stating it and. And I think that we tend to sort of over emphasize the moments of of comedy, which are actually kind of unusual. I mean we can only hope that there's more more comedy in our future. But I, you know, as an historian, by at least temperament. I'm skeptical. Anyway, I want to thank our brilliant panelists to the garden steam Ross and Karen Greenberg. This was extremely stimulating conversation. Thanks to the audience for listening and for the questions and look forward to seeing you at our next event.


Hello everybody hooded co- This is Cobra commander. This channel has been taken over by Cobra I have decreed that there shall be no other videos for the rest of the month Except Cobra videos. Let this be a warning to you today. We take over this petty Insignificant YouTube channel soon. We take over the world Cobra Should I tell him? Nah commander 788 here. This is the show where we review every vintage GI Joe toy from 1982 to 1994 We are still in Cobra Convergence 6 and it is my turn to present a Cobra video This time we're looking at a figure that is rather important to this channel It is a hooded Cobra commander, but it's a figure that's perhaps lesser known to fans of 1980s GI Joe Of course most of us associate Cobra with blue, but a black and silver Cobra commander It looks just as great as it sounds. Let's look at one of the better versions of Cobra commander from the 1990s HCC 788 presents Cobra commander This is Cobra commander the Cobra supreme leader from 1993 this figure was available in 1993 only It was discontinued for 1994 This is the sixth version of Cobra commander the original release of Cobra commander was designed by Ron Rudat for Hasbro This figure is based on one of those earlier designs This figure is from the battle core set, which was the main collection of figures for GI Joe in 1993 this figure is mostly a reissue of Cobra commander version 5 from 1992 but in different colors and Well, one other major difference as you might notice the first version of Cobra commander was released in 1982 as a male away Exclusive figure the earliest issues of that male away Cobra commander had a simplified Cobra emblem on the chest The eyes of the snake in the Cobra emblem were separated and looked a little like Mickey Mouse ears This is referred to as the Mickey Mouse Cobra commander later releases of that male away Cobra commander had the standard Cobra emblem on the chest Both the Mickey Mouse and the standard Cobra commander figures had the straight arm articulation as with all other 1982 figures in 1983 Cobra commander version 1.5 was released not as a male away figure But as a carded figure at retail it also had updated swivel arm articulation, which was standard for figures in 1983 in 1984 version 2 of Cobra commander was released as a male away Exclusive figure just like version 1 it had the same body as version 1 but in different colors and it had a new head This is the hooded Cobra commander in 1987. We got Cobra commander version 3 This is the battle armor Cobra commander. It was a significant departure from earlier designs This uniform was later worn by an imposter the Crimson guardsmen Fred 7 version 4 of Cobra commander was released in 1991 we are sort of back to the helmet and faceplate look but with a gold helmet and a Translucent red faceplate also suddenly. He's very muscular He doesn't have time to take over the world now He's spending all his time in the gym version 5 of Cobra commander was released in 1992 as part of the talking battle commander set He had a blue uniform and a large sound effects backpack bolted onto the figure I've already reviewed this version so I won't go too much into it in that video I showed you how to remove the backpack from the figure this figure design is based very loosely on the 1984 version 2 Cobra commander that of course brings us to version 6 from 1993 which we are looking at today It is based on the 1992 version 5 But in black and silver instead of blue and yellow it is not a straight reissue of the 1992 mold though We will cover that later version 7 from 1994 was the final version of Cobra commander released in the vintage era and the greatest Departure from the earlier versions It is a space figure and it has a removable helmet that would show Cobra commander's face But he's wearing a mask under the helmet There are two main looks for Cobra commander that have been repeated over many generations of figures with the face mask And with the hood the battle armor version has also Occasionally been revisited the face mask and helmet is usually thought of as the battle uniform The hood is more for ceremonial purposes Cobra commander probably wouldn't want to wear the helmet and mask around the base the cloth cowl is probably more comfortable Although that distinction makes sense the last two hooded Cobra commanders in the vintage line were definitely intended to be in battle They were loaded with accessories and weapons Cobra commander is of course the founder and supreme leader of GI Joe's enemy Cobra through the years. He has had some challengers Destro the weapons supplier introduced in 1983 has asserted his authority over Cobra on multiple occasions Serpentor the composite clone became the Cobra emperor in 1986 and temporarily displaced Cobra commander in 1987 a crimson guardsman from the Fred series Fred seven impersonated Cobra commander and took over Cobra for a while in 1990 Overlord Existed and is never spoken of again. No one can replace the original though He is called Cobra commander for a reason He is known to despise and even murder those who challenge him. We have a variant to look at it's not a figure variant It's a packaging variant some of these version six Cobra commanders were available at showbiz pizza and Chuck E cheese Restaurants they came bagged like this. It was just a figure with no accessories I have the full card back so we can see how Cobra commander was marketed back in 1993 It was on a battle core card So it has the battle core logo right under the GI Joe logo It has the red laser stripes in the background indicating This is a bad guy character. It has some card art of Cobra commander in the extreme 90s style Showing Cobra commander swinging on a rope Batman style while firing his missile launcher the artwork is not exactly accurate It does not have that big centered Cobra emblem on the uniform and as the hooded Cobra commander is often depicted He has a Cobra emblem on the hood Usually the figures do not have that this has some instructions in this space behind where the figure would have been showing How to use the battle stand and the missile launcher and the previous owner has helpfully noted that it comes with two Silver missiles looking at the back of the card. We have the cross cell showing the other battle core figures that were available at the time We also have some of these sub teams advertised here We have the mega marines the armor tech figures which were part of star brigade and DEF the drug elimination force Which actually was not available in 1993 we have one flag point in the 90s style And we also have a 90s style file card, which we will read later This file card has some descriptions of some of the features and accessories for this figure And I will refer to this when describing some of those features and accessories Let's look at Cobra commander's accessories He came with a lot of them the figure was packaged with an accessories tree The purchaser would have to cut the accessories off of the plastic frame and since most of the accessories were on that Tree they are mostly the same color.  Absolutely nothing here is new Everything here was reissued from other figures. Some were reissued several times. Let's start with this rifle It is huge. It is oversized. It is silver and it is a reissue of the rifle that originally came with 1990 rock viper. There is a slight molding difference The 1990 rock viper rifle had a peg so it could peg onto the backpack Cobra commander's rifle does not have that peg. Next we have this flamethrower It is not as big as the rifle, but it's still sizable It is in silver plastic and it is a reissue of the flamethrower that originally came with 1991 incinerator. It's almost the same color silver Incinerators flamethrower connected to the backpack with this black plastic hose Cobra commander's flamethrower doesn't connect to anything, but it still has the peg. Next we have this I guess you could call it a rifle. It looks more like a ray gun This is a reissue of the so-called pistol from 1988 Toxoviper originally issued in black plastic as with incinerator Toxoviper's accessory has a peg for connecting a black hose to connect it to the backpack Cobra commander's accessory connects to nothing, but it still has the peg. Next we have this Whatever it is. I really don't know what kind of weapon this is. It has a magazine and a fin in the back It's very strange looking and this is a reissue of the accessory that originally came with 1988 Voltar Somehow I have lost my Voltar accessory. I have no idea where it went Just imagine this in gold plastic. None of these accessories are similar to his Venom laser pistol His iconic accessory from 1982. It's unfortunate They never revisited and updated this laser pistol later in the vintage line. Next we have the missile launcher It is in red plastic with a black trigger and it includes two silver missiles This is a spring firing missile launcher, which was common for giajo figures from about 1991 on So it will really fire these missiles. This missile launcher was reissued several times with a few other figures Including 1993 crimson guard commander in yellow plastic with a black trigger and with black missiles This missile launcher can fit in Cobra commander's hand You have to put his arm through this loop and angle the hand to place it on the grip That works a little better than some of the other missile launchers I've reviewed on this show To use the missile launcher You just place the missile into the barrel with the notch side down press it all the way back until it clicks It has to go pretty far back and then you use this trigger on the back to fire Let's test this missile launcher by taking aim at our favorite target doctor mindbender In the comic book cobra commander did kill doctor mindbender. Don't worry. He did recover But i'm sure cobra commander would have liked to have fired a missile at him So let's do that right now. Just take aim and press the trigger in the back to fire I missed that one, but we have one more shot Let's put the second missile in there and take aim at doctor m and fire Saved by the back wall again with the accessories out of the way Let's take a look at the articulation for cobra commander He had the articulation that was standard for a gi joe figure well before 1993 So he could turn his head from left to right and look up and down He could swing his arm up at the shoulder and swivel at the shoulder all the way around He had a hinge at the elbow that allowed him to bend his arm at the elbow about 90 degrees He had a swivel at the bicep that allowed him to swivel his arm all the way around This was an o-ring figure meaning the figure was held together with a rubber o-ring that looped around the inside That allowed him to move at the torso a bit He could move his legs apart about so far He could bend his legs at the him about 90 degrees and bend at the knee about 90 degrees Let's take a look at the sculpt design and color of battlecore cobra commander And I will say right off the bat with the black hood. He looks a bit like a medieval executioner This figure uses almost an identical mold to the 1992 version 5 cobra commander But the back piece is different. It no longer needs to accommodate the backpack So you can see the version 5 has a flat back to accommodate that giant backpack that's bolted on It almost looks like they've puttied over that flat back for the 1993 figure I assume they created the 1992 mold first and then updated it for 1993 But that is a difference. It's not just a color difference. Looking at the head He has a black hood with big eye holes and Caucasian flesh tone This is a straight copy of the 1992 head but in black plastic The file card says this is a synthetic non-flemable hood that disguises identity This look originated with 1984 cobra commander version 2 the so-called hooded cobra commander A major difference. The head of version 2 was made of a softer plastic This allowed the head sculpt to have an undercut. The plastic could be removed from the mold without breaking it The cowl on version 2 could then overhang the neck a little bit It was a little more realistic looking. The version 5 and 6 heads were made of hard plastic like the rest of the figure There could be no undercuts in the head sculpt because the piece would break when removed from the molds That means the hood has to stop at chin level It still looks all right, but not quite as good as version 2 moving on to the chest The chest is the same as version 5 but in black plastic and as mentioned before the back has been modified The chest is black. It has silver trim It has silver braids around the right arm and a silver strap across the chest and silver buttons on the uniform And silver epaulettes. It has a red cobra emblem on the top left side of the chest On version 5 that cobra emblem was centered on the chest But it was partially obscured by that strap the final card calls this a cobra command rank insignia But is it really it's just the cobra emblem which is worn by all ranks Cobra insignia has always been kind of vague and undefined the final card calls this a field commander's battle dress jacket These colors look great together. It's hard to go wrong with a base black figure and the silver really stands out This looks like a ceremonial dress uniform the arms feature long black sleeves and silver rings around the sleeve cuffs and black gloves They have minimal detail and that's the same as on version 5 But on version 5 it had wider rings around the cuffs and painted gloves So that's a little bit of a modification for version 6 The waist piece is in black plastic with a silver belt and a red belt buckle and small pouches And silver stripes down the sides the belt buckle is masked a little differently than version 5 So that's a very slight difference. The legs are black They have silver stripes down the outside leg and there is an unpainted black pistol and holster on the left leg There is a silver knife on the right boot and a silver strap around the right boot And he has tall black unpainted boots The file card calls this a cobra all-purpose cutter knife with leg sheath cobra commander version 3 from 1987 Also had a holster on the left side So maybe cobra commander is left-handed version 6 has less color variety than version 5 and version 5 Harkens back to version 2 which was one of my favorite versions of cobra commander Nonetheless, I think version 6 looks better than version 5 The black works great for cobra commander and the silver really pops. It's very sharp Let's take a look at cobra commander's version 6 battle core file card It has a close-up portrait of cobra commander here. It has the card art It has a list of the features that I've used throughout this video. His codename is cobra commander He's the cobra supreme leader. It has a quote here presumably from cobra commander himself. It says Hey, there's a castle by the same name Why don't those joes get out of my way and let me rule the world like a tyrant should Rule the world like a tyrant Are we the baddies this paragraph says supreme commander of the cobra legions contraband arms merchant That's really destros job international terrorist and real estate swindler and used car salesman Cobra commander is the ultimate enemy of gi joe and ralph nadir Although no cobra vipers or even his trusted crimson guard commanders have ever seen his face They know the man behind the mask is the most diabolical villain imaginable This ruthless leader's principal desires to totally crush the gi joe team and take over the world while he's at it His numerous attempts to accomplish this distorted dream of world dominance have so far been foiled by the joes But they are always on alert because cobra commander keeps coming back stronger and stronger with increasingly destructive weapons and vehicles Available at your local toy retailer. This file card is a little over the top But it's okay for a cobra commander file card. It gets the point across cobra commander is evil and bad and not good Looking at how cobra commander was used in gi joe media Well, he was used a lot as you can imagine He was one of the most important characters in the animated series and appeared in nearly every episode He was in over 100 episodes between the sunbow and the deke series He first appeared in the very first episode of the miniseries in 1983 He was voiced by the late chris lotta throughout the series cobra commander was known for his crazy plots to take over the world Some of his plans were outlandish and not very likely to succeed He had to fail on a weekly basis to keep the series going in the 1987 animated movie It was revealed that cobra commander was an evil mutant from the secret civilization cobra law By the end of the movie he is transformed into a snake when deke took over the gi joe animated series with operation dragon fire Cobra commander was restored to a semi human state But still had reptilian features. He wore his battle armor for those episodes He later wore a uniform very similar to version five But i don't see any appearances of him in his version six black uniform The cobra commander from the marvel comic book series was a bit more diabolical than the character in the animated series In an interview with toy fair magazine Larry hama has said he based cobra commander on william f buckley cobra commander appeared in the first issue of the comic book series back in 1982 his first appearance was wearing the cowl not the battle helmet He put the helmet and mask on later in that issue as with the animated series in the comic book He appeared in nearly every issue. There were some gaps in his appearances at one point He was thought to be dead. He was shot in the back by a crimson guardsman fred seven in issue number 61 For a time he was replaced by fred wearing cobra commander's battle armor The real cobra commander was not dead. He was rescued from a shallow grave and secretly treated for his wound When he returned in issue number 98. He was wearing a uniform very much like his version six figure That uniform couldn't have been inspired by the figure though Because it was released three years before the figure was on the pegs He immediately went to work disposing of his internal enemies within cobra He had his enemies sealed in a landlocked freighter and buried them under a volcano A few of them eventually escaped but most perished cobra commander appeared many times after his return to the comic book series Often wearing his blue hooded uniform Comic book coloring often uses blue as a substitute for black So some of those appearances may be with a black uniform in issue number 150 cobra commander's mask and uniform catch fire and burn away Revealing his armor underneath funny the file card specifically says the mask is fireproof fans of the comic book series Remember cobra commander very differently than fans of the animated series Our cobra commander had his share of outlandish plans, but he was ruthless and cold-blooded He was a murderer. He had a few schemes that could have worked He was a terrifying enemy for gi joe looking at battle core cobra commander overall I really like it. It takes a mold from 1992 that was almost good Except for the accommodation for the backpack and makes it better the black and silver What can I say? It looks great. I will always associate cobra with blue These colors actually look more like destro, but it still just looks awesome It looks like a deluxe figure with all the silver and the black makes the silver stand out It's not quite as good as the first hooded cobra commander from 1984 The head has a different shape that doesn't work as well in my opinion For a 90s figure. It's not bad the accessories. Do we have to talk about the accessories? Yes, we do the accessories are lazy and unnecessary This looks like a uniform he would wear to rally the troops not plunge into battle At least the colors are right silver and red. They go with the figure They just didn't bother to do anything new despite the accessories This is in my opinion the best cobra commander from the 1990s That was my review of battle core cobra commander. I hope you enjoyed it And I hope you're enjoying cobra convergence 6 we have more cobra convergence presenters this week Check out hdc788.com for a calendar of presenters coming up this week We have j barthlet mate mylar the artist shark action robot punch anything joes They gone a toy kind of mood codename new 2 vero 2 gi joe berg and star joes This is your rightful ruler cobra commander again This reviewer's decision to do a cobra video has saved his life Now I order everyone on that list to do their own cobra content. I will be watching Cobra He really doesn't know what cobra convergence is about if you like this video Please give it a thumbs up on youtube subscribe to the youtube channel and share this video with your friends You can find me on social media on facebook and twitter and I have a website hdc788.com If you like the channel and you'd like to support the channel patreon is a great way to do it You can get some early access and you can get your name in videos like the names you see scrolling on the screen right now Thank you for watching. I'll be back soon with another cobra video and until then remember only cobra is cobra Are we the baddies?


So I promised myself that I was not going to make a video about the latest Linus Tech Tips Linux challenge thing that was released a couple days ago, but I'm going to break that promise because as is usual with these videos, they give me ideas. Now I'm not going to be one of the Linux YouTubers that goes through and does a reaction video because there's a lot of those. I mean, just check out any of the big YouTubers that do Linux content and most of them have done reaction videos to at least some of the Linus stuff. I don't want to do that. So what I've been trying to do is pull out singular topics to respond to instead of going through their videos minute by minute. In the latest video, they were going through and doing common tasks on Linux. And that video got me thinking about how people use Linux and how people assume Linux is used because I think one of the biggest hurdles a lot of people who switch to Linux have is they assume that Linux is hard to use. Like they assume that every single small minute task is going to be some Herculean effort in order to get done. For example, installing a font. Now I don't remember which one it was as either Luke or Linus. I think it was Luke. He was when he was trying to install the font, he found the font folder, which is a hidden folder for the most part, or it's in the root directory. And then he was dragging it between two open file managers and that can that is a way to do it. But the whole time I was shouting at him, just click on the font. Just click on the font. It's not hard, right? Like I think that that was a case of him assuming that it had to be done in this particularly hard way. I mean, it's not really hard, but I mean, compared to clicking on it, it's a hard way. And I think that a lot of new Linux users do this. They approach a task that is actually really simple, but maybe different than what it would be like. Like on Windows and assume that you have to know bash in order to do it, or that you have to be a hacker in order to do it. You know, it's an assumption that is completely false for the most part. Most everyday tasks on Linux are astonishingly easy. Are they different than what you'd see on Windows? Of course they are. Linux is not Windows. Things are, of course, going to be different. But that doesn't mean that things are hard. Now, as I've talked about before, empathizing with new users can be difficult. So it's hard to remember what it was like as a new Linux user. So it's hard to think about other people being new Linux users and then not knowing these really simple things. So it's easy for me as someone who's used Linux for a long time to look at someone who is brand new to Linux and think like, how could you not know this? And that's a flaw on my part. But I don't think that the assumption that a lot of new users make of how difficult Linux is is correct. It's not something that they should do. And it's something that they themselves need to overcome. Because Linux, for the most part, is not hard. Now, there are hard things on Linux, hard things to do on Linux. But just the everyday tasks, signing a PDF, not hard. Installing a font, not hard. Compressing a file, not hard. Is it different? Again, is it different than Windows? Sure. But it's not hard. And sometimes I don't understand how someone can use a Linux distro for three weeks and not understand, not know that Plasma puts all their notifications down by the bar. It's literally exactly the same as Windows. Only Plasma actually sends more notifications than Windows does. At least they're relevant notifications, but everything that Plasma does, they put a notification down on the right hand side when the bar is there. If you move the bar, then obviously the notifications move. But Windows puts them on the bottom right, just like Plasma does. So how do you cannot know? And what I'm specifically talking about here is when Linux was going through and compressing the files, when you do that, the notification for the progress bar is in the notifications. And it pops up. It's a blatant notification. That's the way Dolphin does all the notifications. All the progress bars for Dolphin go there. And that's not something you would know when you first start, but using an operating system for three weeks, you'd think that that's something that you could figure out. So I guess my point is Linux isn't hard unless you deliberately make it hard. The question becomes then, what can we do about it? And there's not a lot to do about we can do it. If you're just switching from Windows to Linux, the best thing you can do is seek help when you don't know something, but also not be afraid to experiment and also try not to assume that Linux is always going to force you to do things in the hardest way possible, because for the most part, that's never going to be the case. Usually Linux does things in a common sense way. So for example, if you want to install font, double click it. If you want to find the progress bar for whatever you're doing in the file manager, chances are it's either in the notifications like in Plasma or it's in the top bar if you're using something like Nautilus, which is files for GNOME. So yes, it is different from distro to distro and that can be very confusing. But for the most part, stuff at least functions along the same lines no matter where you are in Linux. And it's not hard is the point. So a little bit of a rambly video there and mostly pointless, but I just don't think that it's right to assume that Linux is always going to treat you like a horrible person. And expect you to know how to hack into something. I mean, it's just, you know, don't always assume that the hard way is the Linux way because it's most for the most part, that's never true. So that is it for this video. You can follow me on Twitter at Linuxcast. You can support me on Patreon at patreon.com slash Linuxcast before I go. I'd like to take a moment and think of my current patrons.


It talks about seva, it talks about the fact in our Gabbani teachings about Namjapo, Giritgaro, Devanchako, and we see that the Prime Minister has had a chance to practice not only believing in the values and the teachings of our Guruji's, but he has had the opportunity to really ensure that he practices that on a day-to-day basis. So to Prime Minister Modiji on behalf of all Sikhs from all over the world, we want to say thank you for listening and thank you for ensuring that you continue your seva for so many of the issues that are important to Sikhs all over the world.