Ben Whitelaw: 0:00

So this week, Mike, to start control org speech, I'm using an old internet friend of mine, Feedly as our prompt. Do you remember Feedly?

Mike Masnick: 0:08

Oh yeah. I've used Feedly, absolutely.

Ben Whitelaw: 0:10

Yeah. Okay. I'm, I'm still a, keen user of it to keep track of all things content, moderation and otherwise, and they have a prompt on their website, which is stay ahead of the curve. and I know you try and do this,

Mike Masnick: 0:22

I.

Ben Whitelaw: 0:22

so how do you stay ahead of the curve?

Mike Masnick: 0:24

Well, today of all days, I think staying ahead of the curve means, uh, stocking up on, on goods that are about to get a lot more expensive in the US because boy, have we entered quite the stupid trade war.

Ben Whitelaw: 0:37

Ah, yes, I have been following from a five. Gotta say, did you enjoy yesterday's, uh, kind of breaking out of the US It was a, a magical day, wasn't it?

Mike Masnick: 0:46

Yeah. Yeah. we are learning all sorts of crazy things about trade that don't make any, any sense at all. Uh, some of which we might talk about in the digital realm today on the podcast. But, uh, what about you, Ben? How are you, uh, staying ahead of the curve.

Ben Whitelaw: 0:59

Well, I'm actually kind of opting out of the curve. Let's say I'm to the theater tonight to watch a play that I mentioned on Control Al Speech a few weeks ago. Moderation. it's talk about Busman's Holiday, right? It's, yeah, so, uh, going to watch a play about quantum moderation by a playwright called Kevin Couchman, who also runs a podcast that some people might have listened to called The Art of Darkness. and really looking forward to that. I'm, I'm zipping off after we. Is recording to go and watch that. and the news will be the news. I, I, you know,

Mike Masnick: 1:29

I was gonna say you have to give a review on next week's episode.

Ben Whitelaw: 1:32

I will, I will tell listeners what it's like. and, uh, yeah, there's a reason to come back, if nothing else next week. Hello and welcome to Control Alt Speech, your weekly roundup of the major stories about online speech, content moderation, and internet regulation. It's April the third, 2025, and this week's episode is brought to you with financial support from the future of online trust and safety fund and sponsorship by the Internet Society, the global nonprofit that advocates for an open, globally connected. Secure and trustworthy internet for everyone. This week we're talking about the US throwing its weight around in the digital policy space and the big Netflix show that everyone's talking about in the uk. My name is Ben Whitelaw. I'm the founder and editor of Everything and Moderation, and I'm with a, Mike Nik. Q is you, you haven't told me if you've been affected by the, stock prices this morning. I dunno. I dunno where you keep your mind. And we don't, we don't get into that in the, in the relationship we have as co-host, but, um. It's hell of a hell of a lot of news that you've woken up to.

Mike Masnick: 2:37

Yeah. Yeah, I mean, yeah. Yes, in terms of stock market stuff, I have money in, certain things and I don't look at them ever. So I'm, I am going to continue that trend, and figure at some point, you know, when I need to retire or whatever, I'll look at my portfolio and deal with it then, because right now I think it would be pretty, pretty damn depressing.

Ben Whitelaw: 2:56

yeah. Ignorance is bliss. As with a lot of the news agenda right now.

Mike Masnick: 2:59

Yeah. Yeah. What a strange, strange world.

Ben Whitelaw: 3:03

Yeah, well, um, we'll maybe touch on a few elements of it as, as you say. but I wanted to thank listeners again for heeding, our call for reviews. we got another handful of, five or six reviews from listeners and they have all included, a note about how they really like the podcast. This was something that we asked for last week. We've got some really nice comments, Mike, and really, really grateful for folks who, taken the time to leave a review. Somebody said it leaves you smarter afterwards, which makes me wonder whether that's they're actually reviewing the right podcast. Um, and another one said that it was a clear and concise way of understanding the news of tech policy. And I, I don't, wouldn't describe us as either of those things, would you?

Mike Masnick: 3:48

Concise. I, I question the concise part. I, you know, I try to be pretty clear.

Ben Whitelaw: 3:54

Yeah, I'm not talking about you. Let me, let me say, um, you, you had a favorite as well, didn't you? One in particular caught your eye.

Mike Masnick: 4:01

Yeah, well, I like the one that, questioned whether or not we should try and turn the reviews of the podcast into a trust and safety experiment, perhaps by starting to write a novel on here, which is a reference to, to a discussion that we had about Tech Dirt comments not too long ago. so yes, very clever. we like the clever reviews, and if you wanna leave a review, it doesn't have to be clever, but we appreciate the clever ones. that much more. Uh, so drop us a review. We, we, we like getting the feedback.

Ben Whitelaw: 4:30

I've actually got a challenge,

Mike Masnick: 4:31

Oh, no.

Ben Whitelaw: 4:32

that is a little bit clever. I would like listeners to squeeze in a novel title into their review and we'll try and spot'em next week. So this, you know, this is maybe tougher than I'm actually imagining as I, as I say this out loud, but famous novels.

Mike Masnick: 4:46

Right, right. You mean novels in, book, not novels. In new.

Ben Whitelaw: 4:50

Yes, exactly. A novels as in book. So, riffing on this idea of, writing in the reviews of controlled speech, try and include a a famous literary

Mike Masnick: 5:00

literary reference. Okay,

Ben Whitelaw: 5:02

let's see how that goes.

Mike Masnick: 5:03

that's a good challenge. I like it.

Ben Whitelaw: 5:05

okay, cool. So we have a couple of really interesting, bigger stories this week that we will, go deeper on. Then we've got a couple of other small stories that we wanted to flag. before we do so. Listeners with Control Al Speech will know about the crazy state I. US tech policy right now even more broadly than that, but I think that's really why today's bonus chat is so well timed. The internet societies, Natalie Campbell is essentially imploring, the US administration to take the lead in developing a more global internet. And you had a really good chat with her, Mike about why the US and other countries should do the same. So,

Mike Masnick: 5:37

Yeah, and it's, it's really timely given the, discussion on trade. And we'll talk about some other stories this week that I think touch on this as well. the importance of trade itself is, now front and center, but. Most people think of it in terms of like steel and cars and everything like that, but digital trade is also a really important subject. And so Natalie and I had a really good talk about kind of the state of the internet and digital trade, and making sure that we keep the internet actually being kind of a global thing, which is very much potentially at risk.

Ben Whitelaw: 6:06

Indeed, coincidentally, our, first big story of this week is really about digital trade and, and the kind of leverage that countries have, when it comes to regulation and, kind of other, other trade issues. You've joined very neatly together, Mike, two stories from the FT and the Wall Street Journal, that really kind of bring this idea to life.

Mike Masnick: 6:26

Yeah, and I was actually debating which order to put these in because way you describe them can influence the, the other one. But I think I'll start with the Wall Street Journal one, which jumps into this discussion saying that Zuckerberg was, trying to enlist Trump in the fight against the eus ruling against meta. And we sort of knew this was coming. I mean, he had said this pretty directly when he went on the Joe Rogan podcast that we had talked about. Where he, went on this like kind of silly rant where it was basically like, the job of the US government shouldn't be to punish great American companies like us. It should be to protect us from those, you know, crazy regulatory obsessive Europeans who were trying to bring us down. And it was this very like, American flag, patriotism. let's take on those EU technocrats. Um, and so it's no surprise that like as they're getting closer and closer to a fine, that he would then, go to Trump and say like, Hey, can you, help me out here? and it's, you know, it's a little unclear If Trump really did very much particularly on this, you know, there have been other parts of the administration that have, at different times mentioned the DSA and the DMA and just this week also before all the tariff stuff came out, the USDR released their report on like different markets and regulatory burdens and things like that. And it's always nonsense. This report is like, we've covered it for years on techer'cause they always slide in some nonsense about the internet. and often like copyright. It's so funny, this is a slight aside, but like every year they complain about copyright laws in other countries because Hollywood complete the way this report basically works is US industry sends a bunch of complaints to the USDR and the USDR rewrites them. As if like, well, this industry complained therefore it's valid without any recognition of it. So my favorite is always the copyright one, where they'll complain about how other countries have exceptions to copyright law, ignoring the fact that the US has the strongest fair use. Exceptions to copyright law. And so they act as if oh, Canada is a pirate country because they now believe in fair dealing. So it's all this kind of nonsense. But this year's report, called out the DSA and the DMA as these like trade barriers, which is, you know, I have, as is well known on this podcast, I have my concerns about both the DSA and the

Ben Whitelaw: 8:53

Oh, we know. We know.

Mike Masnick: 8:55

yes, yes. And my reputation precedes me so. but this just seems like, this is just a purely transactional thing. And so the fact that, it's not surprising, but it's just notable that Zuckerberg would go to Trump and be like, Hey, you gotta, slap the EU around a little bit and get them to, not come down on us so hard. So then that leads us to the FT story, which is that the EU is going to find meta is finding meta and apple, but they apparently are complying in advance a little bit here and have decided that the fines are going to not be as big as they might otherwise be. Specifically to avoid pissing off Donald Trump.

Ben Whitelaw: 9:40

Mm,

Mike Masnick: 9:40

And even though. I have my criticisms of the DSA and the DMA. This pisses me off.

Ben Whitelaw: 9:47

go on.

Mike Masnick: 9:48

They may not have, they may not have pissed off Donald Trump, but, making decisions on policy, right? this makes a mockery of all of this, right? I can complain about the laws, I can complain about how they're enforced. I can complain about, the vagaries behind this law and like the incentive structures that it creates and all of these kinds of things. But then if you're going to like if you're going to do it, commit to it, right? Don't just say like, oh, now if we actually enforce this law that we put in place, which maybe wasn't so good. We're gonna avoid that because it might make Donald Trump mad. Like that is, giving into a bully, right? Donald Trump is a bully. I mean, if anything, that what we saw these, the new tariffs that is purely about bullying, right? The whole point of those is to bully foreign countries and to actually bully American companies who now have to come and beg like, Hey, can you create an exception for the tariffs that are important to my business? It's all about bullying, and if you give in to a bully. bully's just going to, go further. That's what

Ben Whitelaw: 10:47

Yeah. Oh, I've been bullied enough to know that Mike Dam. Let me tell you.

Mike Masnick: 10:52

Yes. Yes. And so this is, folks in Brussels saying like, well, you know, let's not find Apple or meta that much because it's just gonna upset Donald Trump. First of all, any fine. you know, as soon as the fines come out, Zuckerberg is gonna freak out. Tim Cook, maybe not as bad, but he'll probably still go and ask the White House to do something and, and retaliate in some form or another. So yeah, there's gonna be retaliation. but like, what benefit is there of just like, finding them a little bit? all of this is just frustrating, the problems with the laws, the, complex nature of the laws, the regulatory setup of these laws, I already have a problem with. But then if you're going to do it, don't chicken out at the last minute and don't chicken out because a bully is, causing all these problems.

Ben Whitelaw: 11:34

Right. And so would you say that this is. This is kind of Zuckerberg's play working because essentially, you know, in his famous video with his famous famously expensive watch and his famously expensive, chain, he talked about getting Trump to go into bat for him and other American companies and if the FT reports to be believed that is bearing fruit, because they're gonna get a smaller fine. do you think they're likely to kind of, claim this as a win, as an early win for that approach? And, and what, what's that likely to lead to?

Mike Masnick: 12:07

I mean, just more of the same, which is the sort of transactional nonsense, right? There's no principles behind any of this. Now it's all just like, it's organized crime shit, right? It's like extortion and bullying and for the world order to work in a non-corrupt way. There need to be rules of the road that are actually respected, right? And this is just chaos, right? And it's just like pure demonstrations of power, and that just leads to nonstop corruption.

Ben Whitelaw: 12:35

is Donald Trump the ultimate cyber bully? Is that what we're saying here,

Mike Masnick: 12:42

Yeah, I, I, maybe, maybe that's an interesting way of thinking about it though. I think back to my, my larger issue with the whole like concept of cyber bullying, I. Is that he's just a bully. The fact that he uses the internet as part of bullying, that like bullies exist and, and everybody communicates over the internet. So I, I always have a little bit of a problem with the concept of cyber bullying because it's just bullies. It's just which tool they're using. bullies were bullying over the telephone. We didn't call them phone bullies when they're, bullying through sending notes on pieces of paper. We didn't call them paper bullies. So, he's just a bully. Everybody uses the internet. It's just the medium of communication these days. So yeah, he's just a bully.

Ben Whitelaw: 13:24

his disability. Okay. Um, weren't going into how to beat a bully.'cause I think as a way of like, trying to kind of preempt what, Trump does next. so the, is potentially kind of a, big moment for the eus regulatory regime. we've obviously seen a lot of. Stuff in the news this week about tariffs, and I did note that K Stama UK Prime Minister and a spokesperson of his claimed as a victory, I think it was yesterday or today, saying that the 10% tariffs that the UK had been given was a result of, a kind of friendly, approach, a kind of more discursive approach with things on that basis. Could it be that the eus approach over time will be better than like dishing, several, large billion pound fines out to these companies.

Mike Masnick: 14:10

Yeah. Right. I mean, sure. But you can never tell, right? I mean, one day something happens in the EU that pisses him off and he'll like. Freak out about it. And you know, I mean, just last week we had the whole thing with the Signal Gate stuff where JD Vance and Pete Hegseth were, in private, whining about the EU not being willing to carry the weight to, deal with, tensions in the Middle East and fighting in the Middle East. So it's like something's gonna happen and all of a sudden he's gonna get mad about something that, that happens in the EU and announce that he is raising. the tariffs again, because it's like, that's his way of punching people in the nose and sort of demanding their lunch money. And so, you can try and appease him, but it doesn't, doesn't last. And the fact that you give in to some extent, it just encourages more bad behavior. So I, I don't know. I mean, maybe in the short term.

Ben Whitelaw: 15:02

There is this, theory that's sometimes the regulators even talk about, which is like regulation is a bargaining chip, rather than to actually follow through with the fines. And the FTPs talks about kind of how Apple were changing some of their browser features because of the DMA and, So there is kind of precedent there, but it just seems like Zuckerberg is, not willing to play that game, to the same degree that maybe Cook and Apple are.

Mike Masnick: 15:27

Yeah. Which is, kind of not ironic, that's not the right term, but like, for the last. Decade or so. that's the one thing Zuckerberg was, sort of, he always would cave, right? Like every regulatory threat he had no fight in him. So this is a little different for him in that this is a regulatory fight that he suddenly, he seems to feel renewed. vigor in like, fighting the eu, which is kind of crazy because like meta of all company, all the big companies was sort of the first to sort of embrace the EU approach and say like, sure, we're gonna comply with that. And even then trying to import the EU approach to the us. you know, there were all these, laws being pushed almost. None of which passed in Congress. But also, you know, some of the state laws that we've talked about were really sort of based on EU regulations and with meta's pretty strong support. in many cases. And so for him to now be complaining about the EU approach, I think it's just purely opportunism. he just sees like we can get Trump to, try and bash these things for us. And so we have this period of time where we have this idiot in the White House who will go to bat for us and try and knock down regulations and maybe that helps us expand a little bit and put us in a better position when, inevitably. Some sense has to return to the White House, but I, I don't know.

Ben Whitelaw: 16:48

Yeah. You know what I think the issue is? I think we can put it down to when Zuckerberg started to do MMA. Pre MMA, he was, you know, he was a, he was a kind of cuddly guy, rolled over when any regulators had a, something to throw at him and, now he's all kind of pent up and bristling.

Mike Masnick: 17:04

the Joe Rogan masculine, uh, what was the, the phrase that he used? Uh, masculine energy. Yeah.

Ben Whitelaw: 17:10

yeah. The masculine energy. Yeah.

Mike Masnick: 17:13

energy. And so, I don't know. Yeah, maybe he got hit too many times in the head. Um, but yeah.

Ben Whitelaw: 17:19

Well, masculine energy is where we'll go next. Actually, for our next story. It's very, helpful inadvertent segue. Um, the story I wanted to kind of talk through this, it was actually the reaction in the UK to a very, very popular Netflix series called Adolescence, which you may have, may not have listened to, uh, or watched rather. Have you seen it?

Mike Masnick: 17:40

I have not seen it. I did hear an interview with the creator and who I, I think is the lead actor, in it, and it sounded very interesting and I've seen the trailer and I've seen some of the discussion about, but I have not actually watched the series, so I'm, I'm curious on your take on it.

Ben Whitelaw: 17:55

Yeah, so this it's been a massive story this week. It's actually the most watched streaming show in the uk. ever within its first week. So it had a huge kind of traction, and I think it's in the top 10 for most watch Netflix shows. Huge, huge audience. and I'm not gonna give any spoilers naturally, but the, it's a four parter looking at a 13-year-old called Jamie, who, is accused of murdering a classmate, a young girl called Katie. And each episode looks at various aspects of this. Terrible crime from his arrest to the reaction, his school to a kind of, interview at the youth detention center with bio forensic psychologist. And then, the last episode is in his family home with his mom and his dad, and his sister and his kind of really captured the imagination of the uk. I'm not sure if they coincided it Mike, with the, launch of the OSA, but, uh, it has been a very interesting, week as a result of that. and there's a couple of really interesting parts in there. the storyline has NCII within it because. The young girl, Katie, sent a topless photo to a boy, and that gets leaked, and, she gets accused of lots of things as a result, really targeted. she ends up bullying this young guy, Jamie, which is, suggested why he ends up, attacking her. So lots of Harms that we talk about in the podcast. Mike and the listeners understand and know about crop up in this series. But what I'm really interested in talking about is the kind of reaction to it because the reviews and the discussion and, and it's even been talked about in Parliament this week, have really concentrated on. the problem that boys have online, Andrew Tate is mentioned a lot, the manosphere is mentioned a lot. a lot of the coverage has returned to this idea that young boys, when left to their own devices on the internet are very susceptible. and actually I didn't take that from the series at all. know, listeners, if you've. watched this series and you know you want to send us your thoughts, get in touch with us podcast@controlspeech.com. you can even, you know, leave a little review of the adolescent show in, in the reviews of our podcast if you wish. Um, but, you know, the thing that I took away was this kind of crisis in parent child communication that a lot of, I would say some of the, kind of most on the money, trust and safety specialists have identified, there's many scenes where this, dad and this young guy Jamie, almost like fail to have any kind of meaningful conversation. They, they look past each other. They, don't find a way to kind of communicate what the issue is. And it suggested that The young guy, Jamie, is on the internet on his own at night, goes in, sits on his laptop after school, but we don't really hear any more about that. So a lot of it is insinuated what he does and what he, ends up watching on his phone and on his computer. and I think that's really the frustration for me is that people are kind of essentially kind of filling in the gaps where Stephen Graham, the creator and the main actor has, essentially posed questions about What kids do with their time. So, Stans talked about it this week. the UK Prime Minister, it's gonna be screened in schools, which is a really interesting development. and yeah, I just kind of wondered from your watching of the interview with Stephen Graham and, the trader, what you thought about, I guess the issues of posing questions without maybe giving solutions about these challenges.

Mike Masnick: 21:18

Yeah, I mean, it struck me as really interesting. You know, when I heard the interview with, Stephen Graham, you immediately realized like the compelling story and it was sort of framed as the thing that interested him and made him, write and want to create this series. Was the question of really like, when there is childhood violence, how do the parents deal with it? and you can see how that's like, you can raise all sorts of really thorny. Interesting, compelling questions. And that appears to be what the show does. And then to do that, it feels like he took the most obvious sort of straightforward path, which is to like write in this story that involves the internet and some level of cyber bullying. And to get back to the point that I was making about Donald Trump, you know, massive cyber bully,

Ben Whitelaw: 22:01

Mm.

Mike Masnick: 22:01

internet is just sort of like a tool in this, Bullying happens, violence happens. It is horrific. Whenever it does happen, and especially when it happens among young people, there are stories of that happening that goes back, pre-internet, you can find those horrifying stories and all these things. So as a story device, it's fine. I think it is a problem to then overly focus on the internet digital aspect of it. Because of that reason though, there are elements in there that I do think are relevant and you know, we had the conversation not too long ago about recommendations for, raising kids in a digital era. And one of the things that we talked about was like, the most important thing is having a clear line of communication, like making sure that kids feel comfortable talking to their parents about certain things. Or that they have, qualified adults that they can go to, that there is this open line of communications and there's an understanding and there's at least some sort of discussion and understanding about, what people are using, what they might encounter, all these things. From your description, again, I haven't seen the series, it sounds like. That is very relevant here, right? If the father and the son are having difficulty communicating and the kid just ends up spending all his time on the device and isn't willing and doesn't feel like he has an open channel to go talk to someone, the moment that he gets into a troubling situation, he doesn't have anyone to go talk to about it, and that is where the problem is, and that is. not unique to the internet in particular. And is also in some you know, in some ways, like, if he had open lines of communications to other people too, that could be via the internet or via his devices, that could help. But if he feels that he has no other outlet, that's when the, problems occur. And we've seen this, like we've had all those stories about like the sextortion things, and this isn't a Sextortion story directly, but very similar in that. Often young boys feel helpless and they don't have anyone that they can go talk to. So, or they feel like because they know they got into trouble because they know they made a bad decision that the only way out is to make an even worse decision. But often that's because they don't feel like they have anyone to communicate with. And so, this is a story again, that feels like it should be reinforcing the idea of Making sure people have lines of communication. If it's to a, a trusted parent, great. But if not like to another trusted adult or a trusted authority figure who can help them, with whom they feel that they can admit, I made a mistake. I'm in trouble. I need help. and that's like such a key important detail that we sort of, paper over when we talk about the problems of cyber bullying or kids using too much. On the internet and the response is always like, just, you know, stop it. You know, stop kids from using it, ban phones in school, ban kids from social media, all these things. Not the more important thing, which is like, how do you have a healthy relationship with this? And how do you have a healthy relationship with other people so that when you do need help, you have someone to go to. And so to me, this feels like. That should be the story that comes out of this, that, bad things happen and the real question is, you know, what can you do when bad things happen so that you don't end up making even worse decisions? that's sort of my quick take based on, your description and what I've read and, seen and heard.

Ben Whitelaw: 25:09

Yeah, and I think it, I think you're right about the role models piece and particularly kind of male role models. I would say like, I think we, it's probably worth saying that explicitly, not least because Stephen Graham wrote this show with, a guy called Jack Thorn. Because of a series of killings in the UK last year of young women by boys. and you know, he said, you know, he wants to work out what this spate of murders was caused by and to kind of really dig into it. And, what's interesting to me is that, in at least a number of those cases, I won't go into each of them one by one. But, you know, in each of those cases there isn't really an internet element. Explicitly in those real life deaths. one of them, it's a, young guy who. is a, put into foster care very young who ends up carrying a knives. Age 12, who, has autism. You know, there's a whole complex series of factors. If you go through the reports of the sentencing of, that man and others. It's not just about the internet. And in some ways, you know, social media's a very small part of that. So, again, interesting that Stephen Graham felt the need to place the internet so prominently

Mike Masnick: 26:16

Yeah, I mean, I, think it's, it's a narrative device and it's an easy one. Uh, and, and it's one that people certainly relate to and obviously there's a lot of concern going around about the internet, so I think people sort of naturally get it very quickly. But I, I, fear that they overindex on the digital component of it. And so, is one of these issues, right? I mean, it's like all of these issues are nuanced and complex and they often involve, different issues around mental health and what kinds of support and support structures people have. And all of that, gets just ignored. and everyone just focuses on like, Ooh, they have this, digital square rectangle in their hands, you know?

Ben Whitelaw: 26:54

I mean, it made me think partly'cause I'm going to the theater to watch a depiction of content moderation about the need for almost like artistic advisory around this, around this topic. And it, it made me think about you, giving those interviews to, was it Saturday Night Live? The producers of Saturday Night Live, we talked about it a few weeks

Mike Masnick: 27:13

Oh, the, the, uh, last week tonight, the John Oliver. Yeah.

Ben Whitelaw: 27:16

Oliver. Yeah, so it's like, you were used as a kind of artistic advisor essentially to frame the issues and it seems like something that's needed,

Mike Masnick: 27:24

yeah. I mean, it's funny because I actually had a conversation late last year with someone who was a, showrunner for, a potential I think TV series. and they wanted my advice on exactly this topic on, I, I won't get into the details. And I was going through sort of, it was more of like a, introductory interview, but I was working through and they were trying to create a story that would've, you know, effectively blamed the internet for a bunch of things. And I sort of pointed out a bunch of the challenges with that approach. and then I think they went in a different direction.'cause I was probably a little too, too much, like, you know, well, you know, you should think about how you represent this. we'll see if that show ever comes out. But, yeah, I mean, I think. people could do a little bit more nuanced approaches to these things, but it is the sort of easy and quick story, right? It's why the news picks up on these things, why the media reports are this way, and why we have these sort of, books about these things that get people all riled up. it's a very easy story to tell, even if it's not totally correct.

Ben Whitelaw: 28:22

Yeah. No indeed. So, I mean, if you get a chance to watch it, do listeners, if you, have watched it and you want to give us your thoughts, drop us a line. I'd be interested to hear how you saw the plot play out and, What you made of it. we'll go now, Mike to a, a story that is not dissimilar in terms of, kind of storyline of, adolescence. the dad of adolescents played by Stephen Graham gets called, a pedophile at, at one point by, a group of views. And this next story is, about how online pedophile hunters are growing in their popularity online. talk us through like why you picked this and what you, find interesting about it.

Mike Masnick: 28:57

Yeah, so this was a New York Times story. It's a big feature piece that has a bunch of authors and, and folks, and it's about online pedophile, hunters who are growing more violent and. going viral. And we've heard a few stories about this. There have been a few sort of high profile ones and almost all of us sort of like inspired by the sort of wacky TV show to catch a predator that was famous, a couple decades ago now. you know, which there was a lot of criticism about that show I think well earned, which is that it sort of, you know, there are. Predators out there, everybody knows that there are child predators out there, but they are not nearly as widespread and prevalent as people believe. And yet this show sort of presented it as in like, they're everywhere, they're behind every corner, they're in, you know, every other house on your street and, and you know, you should fear. And it's also, part of the reason why, kids have less access like, less ability to go run around and, walk to the store by themselves or like go. To the park and play with friends by themselves. It sort of contributed to this idea that it is a risk for children to go outside and do anything without, immediate supervision. and so it's created this, fear and obviously I. no one is downplaying the fact that there are predators online. We know that those exist and there is a concerted effort to try and track them down and do stuff. But, so what's happened here is that basically just vigilantism of a bunch of people have decided that it is fun to try and find and then attack, people that they claim are predators, and that are preying on children. but the people who are making these. They're, doing them as videos and they're releasing them online and there's a whole community of people who love to watch these things. And so they have a community that sort of eggs them on. And you have this sort of weird audience capture as well, which is that their audience wants to see them taking down predators and therefore they will go further and further in, terms of trying to find and, expose predators. Often by cheating, lying, making stuff up. you know, there was a famous case, which is mentioned in this New York Times piece as well, but this made the news, a few months ago of on a college campus. a bunch of students, went on a dating app and convinced, there was a, a soldier who I think was like 20 or 21, and convinced him to come to campus to meet a girl, who. It turned out in the, I think they were using Tinder, in the app they had said was 18, but they later claimed that they had that she was 17 and therefore he was a predator. And he showed up on campus and they like effectively kidnapped him and beat him. and then like the police came in and they looked at The Tinder profile and everything, like, no, like all of this was like of age, the legal age of consent in that case being 18. and so it was like they were totally making stuff up in order to sort of feed this, belief that they were going out there to catch predator. And so there are a number of these kinds of stories and you see like the violence and they sort of just, have this sense of like, we have to do this for the audience. we're like, we're protecting people. It's the same thing we're seeing in other areas too, where it's like the whole like Q Anon thing all about like protecting the children. Like there's this, constant fear of like children massively at risk. And again, like I have already said it a few times, but you wanna repeat, we're not putting down the fact that there are real dangers, but the extent. Of them are much more narrow than people say, but like, because of this widespread belief and this narrative that goes out that you have predators on every corner. you know, there are studies that falsely argue that, a new account on Instagram or TikTok will be approached by a predator within like two minutes or whatever. And it's like you dig into the methodologies of these and they're all garbage. Like it is not. True at all. and so there's just this pervasive belief out there that like every other person is a predator and then you, you know, it allows these other people to try and go after them in a vigilante way. so it's like this combination of really bad incentives, really weird moral panic and. It just leads to this, sort of horrible situation where you have this group like Dads Against Predators, that is just really, really focused on, creating these videos and, exposing people, but not always in the, the most honest of ways.

Ben Whitelaw: 33:23

No. And, and to tie it back to a point you made about the last story about mainstream media, if this happened on TV and there was criticism and it continued, it doesn't really set a great precedent when anybody has the ability to do this themselves via a Facebook account or an Instagram account or a kick account. Right. So there is this kind of, I always see this kind of tension between like mainstream media and, the kind of social media platforms and how. How increasingly the rules that kind of govern one seem to be different in, odd ways. and it goes to a, to another story that you flagged about, ESPN,

Mike Masnick: 33:59

Yeah, and there's a couple things here too where it's like, just to close out on this, you know, in the New York Times article, they do mention that YouTube banned these kinds of videos and actually has taken them down. So, but they moved on to things like Kick and Rumble and, and all these other platforms. And so you have to deal with the fact that these things will move around and like people will try and search it out and find the audience. But the ESPN story, I think is related to this and is related to. Almost all of our earlier stories too, like the story about Adolescences too, which is, this story got a bunch of attention. There's this ESPN host, pat McAfee, who's like a former NFL player and he's got a, this, show on, on ESPN that is like the broy kind of show. And he, you know, I went back and looked, it's, Too involved to get into, but like, he basically repeated an internet rumor about a young, college student at a college that then led to the world condemning her, condemning her boyfriend. was like this huge mess and she's now talking about suing him and everything like that. But it was a thing that reminded me of the book Network Propaganda by Yohi Bankler and his co-authors about how like. During the 2016 election, the craziest rumors may have started on the internet, but they were kept in really small pockets until Fox News would suddenly broadcast them as real. And this was the same thing, whereas like these internet rumors that suddenly were broadcast on ESPN and then the attacks came. So there's this intersection of, these systems are way more complex. It's not just the internet. It's the internet plus then a big platform doing stuff. And so you're seeing all of these different things that are these very complex situations without, real, you can't simplify it down to like, Ooh, the Internet's bad.

Ben Whitelaw: 35:42

Yeah, no, I think they're kind of helpful, framings for those stories, Mike. And yeah, we'll obviously include all of today's stories in the show notes and people can have a read of them themselves. But I think thinking about the interplay between kinda mainstream media and platforms harms is, is a really interesting way To do that. I'll just kind of touch on a, final story, Mike, before we go to the bonus chat. That is, I think a really, again, tragic circumstances this week with the 7.7 magnitude earthquake in Myanmar and the, the New York Times have looked at this story through the lens of internet connectivity, and. What I didn't know was the kind of effect that the military Genta was having on On the internet in Myanmar. And only after the events of this week have I gone back and had a look at where Myanmar is on, on the freedom of, net ranking. But it's a huge issue and has really affected actually the ability to get relief and to rescue some of the people affected by the earthquake. because of the, the blackouts and because of the, the connectivity issues, causing in the country, it's been really difficult to, share information about where relatives are. it's left a lot of people very isolated. It's been very difficult to get kind of food and supplies to people in the country and meanwhile next door in surrounding countries because the nature of internet censorship is not anywhere near as bad. the way that the earthquake is kind of seen is very different. So again, it's a reminder really about how. real life does rely on, the web and the internet to share information. And, it is also worth knowing that, that, like freedom on net report is actually, I was reading this week, kind of in, jeopardy because of the cuts, uh, to USAID funding. And so we might not even know the effect of, the state of the internet is in countries like Myanmar because this, fantastic report that's been going many years. is under threat. So not a great, not a very hopeful note to end on this week, Mike, but, um, I guess it does connect to the bonus chat and to your conversation with Natalie.

Mike Masnick: 37:45

Yeah. I mean, I think this report on Myanmar and, and just the fact that, you know, when you don't have internet freedom, we forget how much we rely on the internet as it is the communications medium that we rely on so much for everything, for all sorts of important information. And when you have. An internet that is not free when you need that sort of emergency communications to have that cut off. And, you know, the New York Times article compares Thailand to Myanmar where, rescue and important information is flowing much more freely in Thailand than Myanmar. And Myanmar is having a much rougher time of it because the internet is, is so limited and blocked. And yeah, it leads really nicely into the conversation that I have with Natalie, which is that, Talking about how the US going back to the Biden administration started to walk back and push away from the idea of supporting open internet, free digital trade, digital data flows across borders, which had been going back many, many years, a key part of, us, advocacy around the globe. And, last year the US Trade Rep. Under Biden started to back away from that and remove some of that. That information from their documents and from their websites. And there was, there's been real concern among a number of advocacy groups of, what happens when the US no longer backs a free and open internet? And so, the internet society, along with a few other groups, put together a letter calling that out to the new USDR and hoping that they would do a better job. About, digital free trade and, free data flows and open data flows, and an open internet and really supporting that. And so that's, what my conversation with Natalie is about.

Music Break: 39:22

[music]

Mike Masnick: 39:31

It's great to have Natalie Campbell from the Internet Society back on the podcast this time to talk about an incredibly important issue that may sound wonky to some, but could have some very serious implications about the future of a global open internet. I know that you, the Internet Society, along with the A-C-L-U-C-D-T and Freedom House all sent a letter. Recently to the US Trade rep, Jameson Greer. So can you tell us about the letter and why you decided to send it?

Natalie Campbell: 40:00

Sure, and thanks for having me here today, Mike. It's really great to be here. We sent the letter to USTR, asking to reverse what we thought was a dangerous US digital policy shift made in 2023 that could lead to the demise of the open internet. What happened was this digital policy shift deprioritized. A couple of longstanding US internet protections that were crucial to helping the internet grow and become the valuable resource that it is today. and which were also crucial to enabling the US to become a hub for digital innovation. So this included things like protecting what is essential for the internet to exist in the first place. Things like open cross-border data flows, stopping security threats, like mandated data localization and data flow restrictions. when we saw this digital policy shift, we got really worried because abandoning these protections told the world, including a lot of countries that don't like the open internet, that protecting the ability to access the global internet was no longer a US priority. And this is especially concerning in a trade context. So the more countries raise barriers on the internet, the less valuable the open internet becomes to us all, both in the US and people worldwide. Barriers to data flows, can have a lot of harmful impacts beyond just digital trade. They restrict our ability to learn, work and do business online. They put individual and national security at risk. It can erode human rights, and we've seen this play out in many countries where mandated localization laws are already in place, and it also prevents the free flow of information and restricts just general global discourse. We think that the internet is especially at risk now with virtually every country considering how to preserve economic stability given the US global tariff discussions. Some countries are considering drastic moves that would further splinter the internet. And we sent this letter because we believe that the internet should never be a bargaining chip in trade discussions. The United States has an incredible opportunity. With a new USTR to reestablish its leadership role to secure the future of the open internet, and it can do that by aligning with the internet principles that we've included in our letter.

Mike Masnick: 42:24

So this letter is directed at the US Trade Rep, but do you see it being applicable worldwide?

Natalie Campbell: 42:30

That's a really good question. It's totally applicable worldwide. We're hoping that the United States steps up and take some leadership on this issue, but we're also hoping that every other country, especially those that are considering what they're gonna do next in trade, that they also choose to continue supporting the open internet. We can't take the internet for granted and we need to leave it off the bargaining table when it comes to digital trade because it's the very thing that makes digital trade possible in the first place. Aligning with the principles in our letter is a great start. but you know, we can't just say we support the internet. We actually have to, walk the walk on it as well.

Mike Masnick: 43:10

So can you talk a little bit more about the historical importance of the US leadership on promoting a free internet and free flow of data?

Natalie Campbell: 43:19

Sure. So the US has a long history of promoting the open internet, and a lot of that happens in a trade context. Now we at the Internet society don't promote internet policymaking through trade, but it just happens that the United States championing and open globally connected internet through protections and trade has been crucial to the growth and development of the internet worldwide and. Internet access and data flows are crucial to digital trade itself and developing countries digital economies. In these trade negotiations in context, some countries have steered away from data flow restrictions and mandated data localization simply to avoid jeopardizing their ability to engage in trade with the US. In 2023, when the USTR had deprioritized. the internet protections that we're talking about today, this gave a green light to countries that open internet was no longer a barrier to trade with the United States. And given the fact that the United States has a lot of influence in trade, you know, it's top of mind for so many countries and news cycles right now. This is very concerning. We know that, Unless the US verts back to protecting the internet, these discussions we're worried that countries could retaliate with measures that may not just be economic. We're worried that they could, consider digital policies that would further fragment the internet ultimately erode what it needs to keep us globally connected in the first place.

Mike Masnick: 44:55

So you mentioned this a little bit, but maybe wanted to dig in a little bit more. Why do you think that this is so important right now? I know that we're sort of in the midst of. Trade wars around the globe, and there's all these, talk of Donald Trump, issuing tariffs on other countries. How does this issue, you know, I think when people think about tariffs in particular, they're thinking about, steel and, hard goods and, products being shipped around. but how does that relate to the internet specifically?

Natalie Campbell: 45:25

That's a really good question. So back in 2023, we were already seeing the world move towards more protectionism, whether. because of misguided views that things like mad data localization or data flow restrictions could somehow keep data more safe. Or just governments wanting more access to sensitive information under the guise of helping out law enforcement. I don't think anyone could have predicted where we find ourselves now with trade. by the time the this episode airs, we'll know more about the global tariffs that, the US has. Just announced just before we started recording this. but countries around the world, both democratic and others that are being impacted by these announcements are actively considering retaliation and self-preservation measures that could further splinter the internet so far. Countries like the EU and Canada have taken, more of a tit for tat approach to match the US administration's moves and not escalate. But, within those same countries, we are hearing from, you know, industry associations. We're hearing from thought leaders that maybe those measures need to go beyond. Retaliatory tariffs. Maybe we should think about digital policies that, could, be very problematic to the internet. Du commission President Ursula v Darline has said Europe holds a lot of cards, and all instruments are on the table. So a few weeks ago a new tech coalition called for the EU to take stronger measures to reduce its reliance on US internet infrastructure and services, and suggested that the EU even goes so far as to develop requirements for, public-private cloud users to opt to use sovereign cloud services for storing their sensitive data. These are some of the kind of suggestions that raise red flags for the internet society because these could mean mandated data localization. These could mean further data flow restrictions, things that chip away, at the open internet, and our ability to stay globally connected. Canada's, you know, having some of those same considerations right now amongst, different experts in think tanks, and we think it's really problematic. It's understandable that countries around the world are thinking about how to keep their economies resilient. But again, the internet is, foundational for digital economies to thrive. And so when countries are thinking about what to do, the internet, should never be on the table.

Mike Masnick: 47:57

Yeah, I mean, I, I, I sort of fear that because other countries are gonna be looking for ways to retaliate, the internet becomes a really easy target just because of the importance and sort of centrality of the internet. I. To the United States, but that it reaches to all corners of the globe. And so it becomes a, a really easy target. so given all that and all the concerns that you raised, what is it that you're hoping that the USTR will do in this particular case?

Natalie Campbell: 48:25

We're hoping that the United States will restore its leadership role to promote and protect the internet and revert its digital trade policy. Back to protecting the internet. This means, you know, aligning with the principles in our letter that include protecting open data flows. Which support the free flow of information and online discourse, and also promoting privacy and security by preventing data localization requirements, mandated source code disclosure and discrimination against foreign digital services and products. We need US leadership to protect the internet, both in the global bilateral tree negotiations happening now. and all of its. PLU lateral and international initiatives, including those at the World Trade Organization. But choosing the internet doesn't mean that, the US can't pass laws about the internet, which were some of the concerns raised back in 2023. there are always exceptions in trade agreements, that allow for that at home without us leadership, especially now to protect the internet. We can expect a vacuum that gives way to countries putting forward a flurry of digital barriers online, and that is not gonna be great news for the future of the open internet.

Mike Masnick: 49:40

Yeah, I think it's, it's a really important issue. you know, the US leadership About, digital free trade and an open internet has been really, really important. And the fact that the US has moved away from it under the past administration and potentially moving into this one as well, I think is a really big concern. we'll have a link to the letter. That the Internet Society sent along with the ACL U, center for Democracy and Technology, and also Freedom House. We'll have a link in the show notes. I think it's worth reading and hopefully we'll start to get some sense on this and we can protect the open internet. but, in the meantime, thank you so much for joining us for this conversation today.

Natalie Campbell: 50:17

Thanks, Mike. It was great to talk to you.\

Announcer: 50:22

Thanks for listening to Ctrl-Alt-Speech. Subscribe now to get our weekly episodes as soon as they're released. If your company or organization is interested in sponsoring the podcast, contact us by visiting ctrlaltspeech.Com. That's C T R L Alt Speech. com. This podcast is produced with financial support from the Future of Online Trust and Safety Fund, a fiscally sponsored multi donor fund at Global Impact that supports charitable activities to build a more robust, capable, and inclusive trust and safety ecosystem.