I enjoyed hearing a non-partisan discussion of the issues facing free speech in the US and abroad, but I have to say, I really do not like Monihan's clear left-wing bias. While Bari describes herself as a "liberal" I never got the feeling that she would skew her reporting to favor the left -- I have always believed she was trying to give honest, down the middle, reporting. I simply do not get that sense from Monihan -- he makes it very clear that he hates Trump and is a leftist -- please do not ruin the Free Press and make it like corporate media!
Hungary is a totally different situation. I wouldn't call the press free, but speech is not policed at all like in Germany or the UK, you can post the vilest things on Facebook about the government or any other topic, no one cares. What censhorship there is comes directly from nameless, faceless Facebook bureaucrats, for example, your post immediately gets hidden/deleted if you mention the leader of the far-right Mi Hazánk party, even if in a neutral way. Please do some research next time.
Would have loved more of a focus on the campus protests. Does Matt think that the protestors, barring committing crimes like assault or vandalism, should be free to protest and say everything they’re saying, and administrations shouldn’t try to tamp that down. Lots of folks in the Free Press orbit also think they every protester should be expelled and arrested, so would love to hear more about that.
It is an old story…the Tower of Babel. Free speech is not to be had amongst the elites that fashion themselves as Gods these days. Eric Weinstein had an interesting post today. He asked ChatGpt a few questions to identify a political party by stating what that party stands for. He used what today’s Democrat party stands for and the results according to the different AI platforms ppl used were interesting. Basically, today’s progressive democrats are communists by going by their parties platforms and the ideology they stand for. Most of us knew this all ready.
I found this a fascinating and insightful discussion, but also very scary.
One facet that neither Matt nor Michael touched on -- and I never hear any of these discussions address -- is the relative meaning of words and phrases like "misinformation," "disinformation," and "hate speech."
When Tim Walz says there’s no right to free speech for misinformation or hate speech, he’s implicitly saying that he is the gatekeeper and will determine what exactly is misinformation and hate speech. And we know how he would define those terms. That’s an angle that needs to be discussed much more and I wish that this discussion had done that.
"From Hungary to Pakistan, the right to speak your mind, particularly on the internet, is more precarious than ever"?
I don't know about Pakistan, but I know of no reason, and Matt and Michael give me no reason, to think that Hungary threatens free speech. Saying it does lessens your credibility.
Please, please, please, may we paying Free Press subscribers be offered an ad-free version of Honestly? Phenomenal content but the number of ads has become intolerable.
No offense against Matt but when Michael blames Trump for misinformation it is time to leave the podcast. Original misinformation that also manipulated the outcome of an election, was the Steele dossier. Then impeachment 1 where schiff had Trump dead to rights. Followed by the hunter biden laptop debacle where 51 former, supposedly honorable and intelligent people signed a document saying it was probably Russian disinformation, knowing it was false, saying the laptop story was a Russian hoax. And I completely went past Russia, Russia, Russia. answer me one question Michael. Those 51 ex intelligence officials supposedly made important security decisions and assessments based on their knowledge of who and what the Russians are. So tell me, since they had so much wrong about Trump, what other major screw ups were they responsible that we never heard of? How many are involved in the biden administration's interfering in the Ukraine war. Interference that has prolonged it far longer than necessary? How many served on the short lived Government Disinformation board? Why, in the name of truth, are you not exploring such crucial subjects? Yes I am pissed. All the complaining on here over previous podcasts I ignored. But you have broken several founding tenets of this enterprise. And you have taken Matt's reputation down several notches also. No more Michael for me for the foreseeable future. Can I get a partial refund since I don't appreciate my money paying for these podcasts?
Rule number one of my readings. If one side is talking about the other side, there is no truth but plenty of lies dressed as truth for dummies. Move on. It isn't worth reading.
I do understand that. My issue is a site like FP should not be one that pulls such “crap”. It’s an insult to their own rules and the intelligence of most of the site users. I came here to get away from such bush league antics.
Defenders of free speech should stop using the phrase, “I’m no fan of Trump, but…” Michael begins one of his questions this way, and it has become a common preface to anything someone says which does not cast Trump in an unfavorable light. The phrase suggests that right-thinkers are not allowed to say such things.
excellent interview, Tabbi has been on top of this since the twitter files and yet he doesn't fully understand how corrupt the Federal Government is in its efforts to take away your free speech rights on the internet
1. Advertisers should demand more reach, fewer wasted ads, adjacency to fair and balanced conversations, not echo chambers, and transparent metrics to prove all of the above.
In addition to substantially improving their advertising ROI, these improvements would actually promote freedom of speech instead of the chilling effect that Social Media echo chambers create.
2. Advertisers should ask the govt to revise Section 230 so they can sue a Social Media company for failing to perform to the above standards: real time reach, fair and balanced adjacency, and transparent metrics to hold Social media companies accountable.
With the right to sue for this performance standard, advertisers would give Social Media Companies a financial reason to push back against government censorship.
3. They should demand that Social Media companies enforce their terms of use, limiting user access under an age that the FTC uses for regulating advertiser practices.
In addition to making it easy to meet FTC ad regulations across all media (and why shouldn’t there be consistent rules), restricting kid access to Social Media would give parents and teachers a fighting chance to influence kids when they are vulnerable to being misled.
I enjoyed hearing a non-partisan discussion of the issues facing free speech in the US and abroad, but I have to say, I really do not like Monihan's clear left-wing bias. While Bari describes herself as a "liberal" I never got the feeling that she would skew her reporting to favor the left -- I have always believed she was trying to give honest, down the middle, reporting. I simply do not get that sense from Monihan -- he makes it very clear that he hates Trump and is a leftist -- please do not ruin the Free Press and make it like corporate media!
Hungary is a totally different situation. I wouldn't call the press free, but speech is not policed at all like in Germany or the UK, you can post the vilest things on Facebook about the government or any other topic, no one cares. What censhorship there is comes directly from nameless, faceless Facebook bureaucrats, for example, your post immediately gets hidden/deleted if you mention the leader of the far-right Mi Hazánk party, even if in a neutral way. Please do some research next time.
Would have loved more of a focus on the campus protests. Does Matt think that the protestors, barring committing crimes like assault or vandalism, should be free to protest and say everything they’re saying, and administrations shouldn’t try to tamp that down. Lots of folks in the Free Press orbit also think they every protester should be expelled and arrested, so would love to hear more about that.
It is an old story…the Tower of Babel. Free speech is not to be had amongst the elites that fashion themselves as Gods these days. Eric Weinstein had an interesting post today. He asked ChatGpt a few questions to identify a political party by stating what that party stands for. He used what today’s Democrat party stands for and the results according to the different AI platforms ppl used were interesting. Basically, today’s progressive democrats are communists by going by their parties platforms and the ideology they stand for. Most of us knew this all ready.
I found this a fascinating and insightful discussion, but also very scary.
One facet that neither Matt nor Michael touched on -- and I never hear any of these discussions address -- is the relative meaning of words and phrases like "misinformation," "disinformation," and "hate speech."
When Tim Walz says there’s no right to free speech for misinformation or hate speech, he’s implicitly saying that he is the gatekeeper and will determine what exactly is misinformation and hate speech. And we know how he would define those terms. That’s an angle that needs to be discussed much more and I wish that this discussion had done that.
"From Hungary to Pakistan, the right to speak your mind, particularly on the internet, is more precarious than ever"?
I don't know about Pakistan, but I know of no reason, and Matt and Michael give me no reason, to think that Hungary threatens free speech. Saying it does lessens your credibility.
I retract this. I mistook Bari's introduction for a transcript.
Fantastic interview. Love Matt and Michael did a good job.
Please, please, please, may we paying Free Press subscribers be offered an ad-free version of Honestly? Phenomenal content but the number of ads has become intolerable.
No offense against Matt but when Michael blames Trump for misinformation it is time to leave the podcast. Original misinformation that also manipulated the outcome of an election, was the Steele dossier. Then impeachment 1 where schiff had Trump dead to rights. Followed by the hunter biden laptop debacle where 51 former, supposedly honorable and intelligent people signed a document saying it was probably Russian disinformation, knowing it was false, saying the laptop story was a Russian hoax. And I completely went past Russia, Russia, Russia. answer me one question Michael. Those 51 ex intelligence officials supposedly made important security decisions and assessments based on their knowledge of who and what the Russians are. So tell me, since they had so much wrong about Trump, what other major screw ups were they responsible that we never heard of? How many are involved in the biden administration's interfering in the Ukraine war. Interference that has prolonged it far longer than necessary? How many served on the short lived Government Disinformation board? Why, in the name of truth, are you not exploring such crucial subjects? Yes I am pissed. All the complaining on here over previous podcasts I ignored. But you have broken several founding tenets of this enterprise. And you have taken Matt's reputation down several notches also. No more Michael for me for the foreseeable future. Can I get a partial refund since I don't appreciate my money paying for these podcasts?
Rule number one of my readings. If one side is talking about the other side, there is no truth but plenty of lies dressed as truth for dummies. Move on. It isn't worth reading.
You misunderstand.
The powers use Trump as a reason to push misinformation narratives and to crack down on speech.
That's doesn't mean trump himself is "responsible" for their actions, but he's just the current excuse they are using.
I do understand that. My issue is a site like FP should not be one that pulls such “crap”. It’s an insult to their own rules and the intelligence of most of the site users. I came here to get away from such bush league antics.
Defenders of free speech should stop using the phrase, “I’m no fan of Trump, but…” Michael begins one of his questions this way, and it has become a common preface to anything someone says which does not cast Trump in an unfavorable light. The phrase suggests that right-thinkers are not allowed to say such things.
excellent interview, Tabbi has been on top of this since the twitter files and yet he doesn't fully understand how corrupt the Federal Government is in its efforts to take away your free speech rights on the internet
I think he understands pretty well. He's been a pretty vocal advocate about it.
"In the past few weeks, there’s been an increasing number of threats to freedom of speech around the world."
Hold the presses and dig the belly-button lint from your navel, Bari Weiss!
How did we get here?
I wonder if the Democratic Party, leftists, university professors or the people whose opinions you covet most had anything to do with it?
The Free Press is like the arsonist who returns to the crime to watch the building burn down from a distance.
Section 230 is being questioned by the judiciary on product defect grounds, related to when social media companies amplify content (for profit). https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/judges-rule-big-techs-free-ride-on
Advertisers have the leverage to make Social Media product better. Instead of censorship (which they tried to affect with GARM until they were called out http://judiciary.house.gov/media/in-the-news/garm-exposed-house-judiciary-report-says-ad-coalition-likely-broke-law-silence), there are 3 ways they could contribute to making Social Media better:
1. Advertisers should demand more reach, fewer wasted ads, adjacency to fair and balanced conversations, not echo chambers, and transparent metrics to prove all of the above.
In addition to substantially improving their advertising ROI, these improvements would actually promote freedom of speech instead of the chilling effect that Social Media echo chambers create.
2. Advertisers should ask the govt to revise Section 230 so they can sue a Social Media company for failing to perform to the above standards: real time reach, fair and balanced adjacency, and transparent metrics to hold Social media companies accountable.
With the right to sue for this performance standard, advertisers would give Social Media Companies a financial reason to push back against government censorship.
3. They should demand that Social Media companies enforce their terms of use, limiting user access under an age that the FTC uses for regulating advertiser practices.
In addition to making it easy to meet FTC ad regulations across all media (and why shouldn’t there be consistent rules), restricting kid access to Social Media would give parents and teachers a fighting chance to influence kids when they are vulnerable to being misled.