Hot Topix: Seeing Red or Feeling Blue?

The US General Election has just ended (kinda), and we are chomping at the bit to talk about it.

As President Trump continues to deny the outcome of the election (Joe Biden received the most votes for a single candidate in U.S. history)—it feels on-brand that Trump would refuse to concede. So, what role will social media play in the aftermath of this contentious vote count?

In this era of uncertainty, what can we be certain about?

What does this mean for the Internet?

What happens next regarding the regulation of Big Tech?

Even though the election is over, there’s still confusion about America’s future. This confusion is magnified by social media. Do social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have a social responsibility to report the facts?

You may be seeing red or feeling blue but no matter how you feel, this ain’t over yet!

Transcript

Henry : Hey, everyone. It's Henry, Mike, and Chris of The Decentralists, and boy, do we ever need a hot topic. It's three days past the election and there's so much that's happened before, during, and after with social media. I got Mike knocking down my door because he's chomping at the bit to do a hot topic, and he wants to call it “Seeing Red or Feeling Blue.”

Mike : I love that one.

Henry : You know, Mike, I'll just let you go. I can't hold you back anymore. And Chris is here too. But Mike, start us off.

Mike : Well, Henry, I mean, it's three days since arguably the most important election probably ever held on the planet. And we don't know a winner yet, but I checked my--

Henry : We think it's probably Biden, we know it. 

Mike : Well, I get my news from legitimate news sources, and I use the word “legitimate” because they're actually journalist outfits like the BBC and the CBC…

Henry : Yeah, me too.

Mike : …Who are subject to libel laws and all this stuff, if they misrepresent or misreport the facts. 

Henry : Okay. 

Mike : And so what we've seen is they're very cautious. It's been a roller coaster of a ride. I mean, I would check one side, and CBC would say that Donald Trump was leading, and then I would check BBC, and they would say that Joe Biden was leading. And it's been kind of a schizophrenic nightmare. But we're now starting to see as we get closer and closer to final counts that it looks like in all likelihood, we will have a new president of the United States on I think it's January 20th. And that'll be Joe Biden. 

Henry : Right.

Mike : And so a couple of the things that have been talked about through this election have kind of proven true. And then there's a lot of stuff that after the election is starting to prove, I guess, other truths, shall we say? So one of the things I think that we can all agree on, at least I feel this way, is, again, the pollsters got it wrong. Before the election, it didn't matter where you looked, Associated Press or any of these people that were doing kind of election predictions. They were predicting the blue wave. 

Henry : Yeah, but guys, I'm not so sure, Mike, because they said about 8%. And I think when this is all done, nationally, you're going to find that they're probably not that far off. At least they were not predicting any landslide.

Mike : Well, they were not predicting a landslide but right now, I think the gap between the-- So the first thing is I think they say it's the biggest percentage, 66.9% of the American electorate voted, which is fantastic. 

Henry : Wow. 

Mike : Okay. The most votes ever received by a presidential candidate has been surpassed by both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. 

Chris : Yeah.

Henry : Really? 

Mike : Absolutely. In the last election, I think you'll recall, it was one of those ones where Hillary Clinton actually won something like two or 3 million more votes than Donald Trump but yet Donald Trump won. 

Henry : Yep. 

Mike : And so she won the popular vote, but not the electoral college vote. And what you've seen this time is that gap, even though Joe Biden was twice-- I think Hillary Clinton's gap was 4% going into the election; Biden's was eight. And yet the gap between the two of them is almost the same. So it hasn't translated into fundamentally more wins. And I think Joe Biden's lead right now in Georgia is 1800 votes. So one of the things that I think we need to kind of understand is, everybody was concerned about social media before the election in spreading misinformation and things like this. But then now it's transferred into what has their role been after the election. 

Henry : Yeah. And this interim period. 

Mike : Yeah, exactly. And so what you've got now is periods of uncertainty. You know, I think they've announced that they're going to do a recount in Georgia already and they haven't even finished counting the first time. And so what you're seeing is this drama around Section 230 is playing out in front of our eyes. Before the election, we've talked about this before--

Henry : Remind us 230 again.

Mike : 230 is the law that allows social media to post content on their feeds, and not be liable for the truth or factual accuracy.

Henry : Right, not a publisher. 

Mike : They're not a publisher. But if you look at what's been happening since I think it was 2:30 in the morning on the fourth of November, Eastern Time, when Donald Trump came out and first said that he won. 

Henry : Yeah. 

Mike : Right. He declared that he won. And now it looks like he's not winning. Okay. And since that, there's been just a variety and a variety and an ever-increasing number of kind of angry tweets and allegations of voter fraud and lawsuits that are being filed and all of these things. And what social media has done to their credit, is they've put disclaimers.

Henry : Oh, you mean like Twitter? 

Mike : Yeah, like Twitter and Facebook and these guys. What they do is, when an allegation is made that postal ballots should not be counted because they're fraudulent, they're putting a disclaimer saying, “This is something that you should check your facts on.” 

Henry : Yeah. 

Mike : But the problem is, the post is still there. So you can go out and say, “Hey, I'm going to make baseless allegations,” and people could still read them. And then there's this little disclaimer label.

Chris : So Mike, I just want to point something out here. To Facebook's credit and Twitter's credit, a few accounts have been banned. 

Mike : Right.

Chris : Okay, so Steve Bannon. He's been banned from YouTube, Twitter, Facebook because he basically threatened violence against Dr. Fauci. 

Henry : Really? 

Mike : Wow. 

Chris : Yeah, he did. He literally said he wanted to put Dr. Fauci’s head on a pole, on a stick. 

Mike : You've got to be kidding me. 

Chris : It's true. So he's banned. A Facebook group that's saying stop this deal, that encouraged people to commit acts of violence against election officials, that's been banned. 

Mike : Okay. 

Chris : But tweets from, hopefully, former President Trump soon, they're still around, even though they're full of disclaimers.

Mike : Right.

Chris : It's very selective, who gets banned, who doesn't get banned.

Henry : So it looks like things are getting better is what you're saying, guys. Is that uncomfortable?

Chris : I don't know. I don't know about that. I don't know if things are really getting better for you. 

Mike : Yeah.

Chris : I mean for social media. Because social media hasn't yet decided whether it is a publisher or just a service. If it's in the business of basically making some tweets and messages unseeable, then I'm sorry, it's a publisher. As much as I'm a big booster for Biden, it's getting caught up in a trap. 

Mike : Right. Well, and I guess, to a certain extent, gentlemen, I think you have to figure out have they learned the lessons from the latest grilling they received at the hands of Congress, just what, weeks before the election? 

Henry : Yeah. 

Mike : Okay. Where they were basically threatened with the repeal of 230 and being made into publishers. And have they kind of made an overture or a peace gesture by putting these disclaimers? What do you think about that? If they put a disclaimer, does that absolve them of their responsibility as a publisher of content?

Henry : Well, it makes it much more muddy.

Chris : I think it confirms the fact that they are publishers.

Mike : Agreed. And that's a very subtle point. And I think that that's something, Chris, that you've nailed that people need to really understand. Henry, as far as you know, if I was to publish a completely false accusation against somebody in the New York Times, am I allowed to just put a little warning label on the bottom of it, and that gets me away from the lawsuit? 

Henry : Yeah, exactly. Of course not. 

Mike : Right. And you were just saying a few minutes ago, what happened? Yesterday, Donald Trump had a 15-minute press conference where he walked out and basically ranted about the election being stolen and the fraud and the da da da, and then he walked away without taking any questions.

Henry : Unhinged.

Mike : Unhinged. But what happened about a couple minutes into that press conference? All the networks cut him off.

Henry : Right. The TV stations.

Chris : Yep.

Mike : Right. Even I think Fox News cut him off. 

Henry : That's incredible. 

Mike : Right?

Chris : They're basically doing their jobs. You can't publish mistruths and lies.

Mike : But this is the danger, right? Look at what's happening. We've basically witnessed over the last four years, the erosion of faith in journalism as a profession that's, I would argue, most sole purpose, if not sole purpose, most admirable purpose is researching, fact-checking, and then informing the world or their readership or their viewership, about events that they feel people need to know. Wars, manipulation, things like this. That's what journalism is. You remember all these things you always see on TV whenever they talk about journalists, “I can't reveal my sources”? 

Henry : Right.

Mike : And things like this? If anybody who watched the Watergate movie, back in the days, All the President's Men.

Henry : Deep Throat.

Mike : Right, with Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford, and those guys. The whole movie was about those guys going crazy trying to prove the Watergate allegations. Okay. And it was literally one of the most important events in American history to that point. And these two journalists basically exposed what would have been an arcane, crazy level of fraud. 

Henry : Yep. 

Mike : And these two guys faced basically, interference from CIA and FBI and all the levers of government. And that's what we've seen over the last four years, is anytime something was published by a legitimate journalistic outfit that was contrary to the views of Donald Trump, they were lying, fake news people and outfits. You know, “The almost bankrupt, no-good New York Times.” 

Henry : Yep.

Mike : And so what that's done is that's eroded all faith in the one group of people that we should be able to rely on, even simply because they can be sued out of existence.

Henry : Yeah, no, that makes perfect sense. So question for you, Mike, regarding that, we talked about a moment ago how the American network television dropped their feed.

Mike : Right. 

Henry : Now, my question for you is, is that because they realized this was an embarrassing, unhinged president? Or do you feel it's because they realized it was so unfounded, they could be sued because they have to uphold certain standards? 

Mike : Well, I think it's clearly a combination of both because he is a clearly deranged, unhedged person. So that's true. But I truly think that at the end of the day, it comes down to money and liability. And I think that if what starts to happen-- And in this case of the television networks, Henry, I do not necessarily think the liability was, let's say, 100%, they were worried about how much money it was going to cost them. It was more that the liability of if you allow the network news to cover the full 15 minutes of this unhinged rant, you've got 15 minutes of time for people to be radicalized. And to start packing their ammo into their belts and getting into their pickup trucks and driving into downtown Philadelphia. So because 230, the Section 230 law does not apply to legitimate journalistic outfits, like TV stations, they have an increased duty of care to fact-check their information. But in this case, I also think that part of the decision to not carry the balance of President Trump's rant was you're now taking the duty of care to a whole other level when the risk of exposing the public to 15 minutes instead of two minutes, is radicalizing even three people to get their guns out, get in their cars and drive to downtown Philadelphia. 

Henry : There you go. 

Mike : Right? No, but now think about it. What we're putting these poor journalists and these outfits through is they've been battered. Social media has been taking their business away for years. Local broadcasters have all largely disappeared, and regional broadcasters. So now it's national broadcasters. And over the last four years, and let's say last 10 years, they've seen their share of the market eroded when more than 50% of people get their daily news from social media, which is what Daniel Bernhard and the FRIENDS of Canadian Broadcasting are all about. 

Henry : Right? 

Mike : He's drawing attention to that. Now, these kind of whittled-down versions of their previous greatness are also being relied upon to ensure that social media’s continual stream of misinformation has a legitimate place to be fact-checked. I mean, if what you're doing is you're saying, “Okay, here's Donald Trump” or “Here's--”, it doesn't matter who it is, and they're ranting about postal voting being fraudulent. And then when they say, “You should fact-check this,” and they point you to the New York Times, they’re basically saying - Twitter's admitting - “We're not fact-checking anything. And we actually have no ability to even fact check because we don't even know what the facts are. But the New York Times, because they're legitimate, does.” I mean, that is an unbelievable responsibility for journalism to bear.

Henry : And they have more to worry about with less resources.

Mike : Absolutely. And I mean, you think about it, we’re in the middle of a pandemic, where nobody argues, I guess, except for Steve Bannon and Donald Trump who want to fire the poor guy who's in charge of running the US COVID efforts.

Henry : I love what Biden said, he’d hire him. 

Mike : I mean, seriously, that's funny. But you know what I mean? And with the exception of that, I think, generally speaking, the general public has great esteem for the frontline workers, the nurses, the doctors, the first responders, people like this who are helping out in the pandemic. But they don't have that same level of respect for the people that are preserving democracy and the facts. 

Henry : Exactly. 

Mike : You know, so Chris, I wanted to ask you, what do you think is going to happen when all of this is said and done, and the dust is settled, whether it's tomorrow or January 20th? What do you think happens to social media and 230?

Chris : I think that one way or another, it's probably going to get revoked. 

Mike : Okay.

Chris : Republicans are definitely going to revoke it if by any chance Trump gets in. We heard but what Senator Ted Cruz said to CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey.

Mike : Right. 

Chris : And Democrats, they're sitting around, they're seeing what's going on with Trump's Twitter feed and they're going, “Hey, this social media could have triggered a civil war here. We need to do something about this.”

Mike : While it still could. 

Chris : Who's liable if violence actually breaks out? 

Mike : Oh, that's an interesting point.

Chris : Exactly. We're very, very close to a violent situation. Everybody's super relaxed at the moment but over in Detroit, Michigan, there were people who tried to burst into where the votes are being counted to stop them. 

Mike : Right.

Chris : So who do we blame? 

Mike : Right!

Chris : Who do we blame for inciting violence, especially when there's thousands of people who are doing it?

Henry : Well, sure. But didn't the Democrats-- their take on this was antitrust legislation, right? 

Mike : Right.

Chris : Mm-hmm. Yeah, that's their take. But you see the thing is, is that social media is the one thing that Democrats and Republicans tend to agree on. 

Henry : Good point.

Chris : Okay, it's really funny, because they agree on very little on social media, they agree. Both sides believe that big tech is violating antitrust laws, both of them agree. Both of them agree that social media companies are acting like publishers. And both of them are about to pull the trigger on enforcing the rules. And it's really funny that the one thing that is causing so much political division in the United States is also the one thing that both parties and partisans alike want to basically--

Henry : Rein in.

Chris : Yeah, exactly.

Mike : But you see, I still don't know if I necessarily believe that, especially in the case of the Republicans. I mean, I get what you're going at, and there's definitely been lots of words. And Ted Cruz, what did he say to Jack Dorsey? He said, “Oh, who elected you?” which I totally get. But let's remember that you would have to argue, I would argue at least, and it's my opinion. So everybody this is a disclaimer. Before the election and after the election, a lot of the rhetoric and kind of misinformation and things like that-- You know how the message of fraudulent votes, stealing the election, all this stuff that's coming out of Trump and the Republicans is the same stuff that's been happening now for months. 

Chris : Oh, yeah. 

Mike : Okay. But if social media was a publisher and had to fact-check everything before it was posted, none of that would have made it out. You know what I mean? Because he would have stood up in front of a thing, started yelling, and they just would have cut him off, like the networks did the other night, and his message wouldn't get out and inflame his base. And so you have to kind of wonder-- Now, don't get me wrong. I think Biden comes in, it's done anyway. Because it's not like social media has really done him any favours. I mean, it's been a channel for him to communicate. But as far as we know, he hasn't been spreading the same kind of fake news or benefited from that type of information being spread. 

Henry : Exactly. 

Mike : But Donald Trump has. And I don't think even if Donald Trump loses, he's not going anywhere. I expect him to spend the next four years flying around the country holding rallies, just private rallies.

Henry : Oh, I don’t know about that, Mike. I think he just might be so embarrassed that he's just gone. In fact, that's what we should focus on. I believe, and I think we're pretty close to Biden winning, so that's how we should be discussing what's happening next.

Chris : Well, Henry, there are credible rumours that should Donald Trump lose, he's planning on creating his own rival TV network, called Trump TV.

Mike : Oh, no.

 Chris : No, for real. And he's poaching…

Mike : Fox News?

Chris : …Serious folks who used to work at Fox News such as Sean Hannity. And he plans on basically becoming the… I guess I hesitate to say conservative, I guess I'll call it authoritarian, news source. 

Mike : Geez. 

Chris : And I want to say something else here. Just because Trump loses doesn't mean he's going away. He can always run again in 2024. 

Henry : Oh, please. Stop it. 

Mike : Oh, God. 

Chris : So we got to be clear, just because Biden has won doesn't mean that this whole thing is over. One way or another.

Mike : So this is something actually, I'm glad you took us down this path, Henry, because this is something that's actually very interesting. Donald Trump kind of came in from nowhere, if you remember back in the Republican primaries.

Henry : Right.

Mike : And what he did that was, I guess, if you want to say genius, I hate to use that word in the context. But what he did that was genius was unlike some of the kind of contrarians before - there was Ross Perot - who ran as an independent, he was not able to benefit from the push that came with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party and kind of the base and the fundraising and all of that. If Donald Trump is no longer president, then the people in the Republican Party no longer have to kind of listen to what he says. 

Henry : Exactly. They're already abandoning him, I think,

Mike : Right. Well, some of them are, some of them aren't, but a lot of them are. And so let's say he takes off, and maybe Chris this is a question for you, let's say he's he walks away from the White House and he starts Trump TV. Does he turn this--? You know, because I heard it described almost religious fanaticism of his base into a third political party. 

Henry : Yeah. Interesting. 

Mike : Right. Does this mark the end of the kind of conservative viewpoint as a political option in the United States? Because let's face it, they've always been a two-party system, but yet there were other parties running - libertarians ran candidates as president for this term, this election. So if Donald Trump basically spends the next four years doing what he's done in the past four years, because he loves the attention, he's an attention hog, and he flies around the country just holding rallies, you can still have the MAGA hat. It wasn't Republicans, there's nothing Republican about his thing. 

Henry : Right. 

Mike : You can still wear the MAGA hat. He can have himself spouting his stuff. He can do these rallies, and then all of a sudden, the next election comes, and the Republicans are like, “No, we're not letting you run.” Then let's say there's a Republican candidate, and now there's Donald Trump, so the right vote is now split.

Henry : Yeah. So the [inaudible 24:56] has become more centrist and he becomes far, far right.

Mike : Right.

Chris : Guys, what I think here is that the Republican Party of the past, the Mitt Romneys, the George W. Bushes, the Reagans, so on and so forth, it no longer exists. For all intents and purposes, Trump has remade the Republican Party in his image. The Republican Party basically just stands for Trump. The whole thing about hey, small government, fiscal responsibility, gone. 

Mike : Sadly.

Chris : Authoritarianism is here to stay. 

Henry : I’m not so sure. I have a feeling the Republicans are going to rally, and they are going to reinvent themselves. They have an opportunity now to reinvent themselves exactly for the times.

Chris : Well, I'll tell you this much, Henry, because every Republican has basically kowtowed to Trump. Every Republican who stood for something before Trump now doesn't stand for anything. 

Mike : Right.

Chris : Remember, guys like Rand Paul, who were super libertarian? He's just basically become a walking talking headpiece for Donald Trump. And the same goes for Cruz.

Mike : I think we can call them Trumpets.

Henry : The Trumpets, that's good. But let's not forget, if this all happens, guys, let's get Manyone out before it, okay.

Mike : Yeah, no kidding. We all need it even more than we did yesterday. Or on the third.

Chris : Yeah. You know, the truth is, folks, is that I'm excited about the future.

Mike : Right. 

Chris : Because what we all need to do is consider the source.

Mike : Correct. 

Chris : And I think that an app like Manyone will help us consider the source a lot better.

Mike : No, because we'll know the sources. 

Chris : Exactly.

Henry : Exactly. And you can control them.

Mike : Right. No, I mean, I think no matter what, this is-- We've talked before about how the pandemic gives us the ability to press the reset button. I think that this election will at least allow us to try to reset this kind of anger and vitriol and yelling and extremism that has become the norm on a daily basis because I just don't see Biden as that type of person. And assuming he's the president, I think that we'll see hopefully a little bit healthier, day-to-day dialogue. But they've also said that the Senate is looking like it's going to go Republican, which means nothing's going to get done.

Henry : Well, yeah. But we're focusing on social media here. Biden will never use Twitter and all the other avenues the way Trump does. So I'm hoping that what will happen is social media kind of calms down a little bit and it gives us a really good opportunity to introduce Manyone

Mike : It will, indeed. Well, I don't know about you guys, but I think we've talked enough about this election.

Chris : I'm almost done.

Henry : And yes, I think so. But Chris, I don't think I'll ever forgive you for introducing the concept of Trump in four years with a new party.

Chris : I'm sorry, Henry. I'm sorry.

Mike : Geez. Or Trump TV. Oh, man, I got to go and renew my cable.

Henry : Trump Twitter. Okay, gentlemen, thank you so much.

Mike : Thank you, Henry.

Henry : If we don’t cut it off now, you guys will chat for another three hours.

Mike : Absolutely. Thank you, Henry. Thank you, Chris.

Chris : Okay, take care.