
Sacha Baron Cohen Uses ADL Speech to Tear Apart Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook - smacktoward
https://www.thedailybeast.com/sacha-baron-cohen-uses-adl-speech-to-tear-apart-mark-zuckerberg-and-facebook
======
cs702
This is a thought-provoking speech.

Do yourself a favor and _watch it in its entirety_ \-- before commenting:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM)

Among the many thorny issues and questions raised by Cohen:

* The business model of social media companies is powered by _engagement_ , which is greatest for content that arouses the basest instincts and feelings of human beings, including fear and hatred. Social media companies earn more with the basest content.

* Social media companies are ideal propaganda machines, enabling anyone willing to appeal to the worst in human nature to reach billions of people with a click.

* Do social media companies bear responsibility for the negative impact their products have on society, in the same way that, say, car companies bear responsibility for faulty engines or airplane manufacturers bear responsibility for faulty plane designs?

* Are social media companies _publishers_ , like broadcast TV networks, magazines, and newspapers? Should social media companies be held to decency standards, like all publishers?

I'm barely scratching the surface.

Do yourself a favor and watch the whole thing!

~~~
account73466
I watched it entirely. He is arguing for censorship (because terrorism,
pedophiles and racism), nothing new here. Attacking Facebook of course helps
to gain attention of people who are happy to be separated from freedom.

~~~
daed
Maybe I need to rewatch it, but what I got from it was that he's not arguing
against the right to free speech, he's arguing against allowing the right to
free speech to impinge on other rights - specifically in his words, the rights
to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

~~~
slg
>he's arguing against allowing the right to free speech to impinge on other
rights

This is what so many people miss in this debate. We already outlaw a wide
variety of speech that infringes on the rights of others. You can't threaten
violence against me because that infringes on my rights. You can't slander me
because it infringes on my rights. You can't reproduce my copyrighted speech
because it infringes on my rights. You can't use my image to advertise your
product because it infringes on my rights.

The debate isn't free speech versus no free speech. We already decided against
universal free speech. The debate is now where do we draw the line between one
person's rights and another person's rights.

~~~
remarkEon
Of course the problem, though, is that certain folks have imagined a right
“not to be offended” into existence out of thin air. Or imagined that certain
speech is “literally violence”.

~~~
slg
In almost any debate there are going to be people that take one side to an
necessary extreme. But at least those people who claim to have a right not to
be offended are engaging in discussion. The people who demand we adhere to
absolute free speech are both by definition unwilling to compromise and are
coming to the conversation under false pretenses that we currently have
absolute free speech in the first place.

Although I do want push back against your "literally violence" point since we
handle that differently on an individual versus group basis currently. For
example, if we start with the idea that slander of an individual infringes on
the rights of someone, why is slandering an entire protected class of people
okay? Cohen could sue me if I called him miserly (to use one of the examples
of hate from his speech), but it is fine to say all Jews are miserly including
Cohen? That doesn't make much logical sense to me.

~~~
remarkEon
Your point is specious. The people who claim a right not to be offended are
engaging in “discussion” only to redefine the limits of what’s allowed to be
discussed. The limits become arbitrary, and grounded in nothing except
whatever the current moral panic is. The free speech “absolutist”, such as
they actually exist, are of course bounded by the actual law.

I don’t know what your example about Cohen and Jews is attempting to show.
Neither example is “violence”.

~~~
mkane848
>The people who claim a right not to be offended are engaging in “discussion”
only to redefine the limits of what’s allowed to be discussed.

I've gotta say, this sounds real similar to the "very fine people on both
sides" type logic that tries to equate antifa to white supremacists.

~~~
remarkEon
I don’t understand your point. How is antifa or white supremacists at all
related to this?

------
daenz
I just watched it, in its entirety. Some quotes that stuck with me:

    
    
      Freedom of speech is not freedom of reach.
      There is such a thing as objective truth.
      They could fix these problems, if they wanted to.
    

I've said this before, but we need the government to step in and provide a
"free speech" public platform for people to say whatever they'd like,
uncensored. The new public space is the internet, but currently it is only
managed by private entities. We need to carve out a government-protected space
if free speech is going to survive online. It's clear we can't depend on
private businesses to do it.

Half of the arguments I see that are pro private-platform censorship revolve
around the idea that "private businesses can censor who they want." Fine,
that's fair. If you believe that, then also you shouldn't have any problem
with a _public_ space online being _uncensorable._ But pro-censorship people
will have a problem, because that's the true issue, isn't it? What they really
want to stop is the spreading of ideas that they cannot control. People
arguing for pro-censorship under the facade of supporting the rights of
private businesses are only doing it because it's a convenient tool. Take that
out of the equation and you'll see that it's not about the rights of private
businesses at all. But we need that public space online and we need it fast.

~~~
abstractbarista
What I've realized is most people don't believe in freedom of speech. They
believe in freedom of speech that they agree with or enjoy.

It's really a shame, from the perspective of someone who _seriously_ does not
care what others speak.

It's like most people lack the ability to simply _ignore_ what they find
distasteful. They instead feel compelled to destroy it.

These tendencies are at the core of our current online reality. It's a scary
world out there!

~~~
yoavm
> the perspective of someone who seriously does not care what others speak

I'm sorry but I can't help to think that you're only able to speak from this
perspective if you were never threatened. Of course I care if someone says all
Jews should be killed, because I know the next day someone might actually try
to kill me and my children. It's a simple as that. My inner organs shake when
I see something like that online because I know some people do actually take
it seriously. I'm happy for you that you don't have to worry about this, but
history shows that certain words are not only distasteful, they are dangerous.

~~~
jazzdev
This changed my perspective on this. I can see where you are coming from. We
do have laws against inciting violence, but I'm not sure that covers this type
of speech.

------
vorpalhex
Sasha Baron Cohen is a manipulator - that's the basis of his comedy, and for
comedy, it's funny. It's not the person who I want to take cues on freedom of
speech from.

Yes, you can go to a group of people and get them to sing anti-semitic songs,
just as you can bluster them with an unlabeled map or have them fall prey to
trivial parlor magic. That's a terrible basis for attacking basic human rights
on.

He calls the openness of platforms a defect, and he would like to censor every
single word before it is public - that is not freedom, it is authoritarianism.

I suspect he believes that most people are dumb sheep - this is after all how
he made his money - and he sees himself as protecting the poor sheep. He
believes that because his intent is just, his actions are just - that the end
justifies the means. He is the most dangerous kind of strongman: the self-
righteous kind.

~~~
corrys
> and he would like to censor every single word before it is public - that is
> not freedom, it is authoritarianism

He never said that. He said that a publishing delay just enough to filter out
potential illegal content (snuff, hate speech are illegal under US law) would
benefit the society overall.

~~~
manfredo
Neither "snuff" (unless you're talking about CSE or other specific categories)
nor hate speech are illegal in the US. The supreme Court has repeatedly ruled
on this:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snyder_v._Phelps)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_St...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States)

~~~
bduerst
That's because, unlike other countries, the US Supreme Court doesn't define
speech that calls for _imminent violence upon a person or group_ as "hate
speech".

That specific type of imminent danger speech and it's expression are not
protected by first amendment rights. It's right there in your Brandenbug v.
Ohio.

~~~
manfredo
The above commenter wrote that hate speech was illegal. This is not correct.
I'm not sure what you think I'm missing here. The bar for speech to be
inciting imminent lawless action is pretty high:

> Portions of the rally were filmed, showing several men in robes and hoods,
> some carrying firearms, first burning a cross and then making speeches. One
> of the speeches made reference to the possibility of "revengeance" [sic]
> against "Niggers," "Jews," and those who supported them.

This was determined to be protected speech under the First Amendment.

------
reilly3000
I would encourage every single person who sees this headline to take the time
to watch this speech. Its incredibly well done. Many of the commentators here
demonstrate that they only read the headline, which in itself is disturbing.

~~~
rgovostes
Here is the video link hosted on the "greatest propaganda machine in history":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymaWq5yZIYM)

~~~
gfodor
I mean, it's a nice speech but it's not surfacing any new thinking or ideas.

SBC's argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand, he paints tech
companies as greedy, untrustworthy, and arguably evil. At the same time, he
feels that these companies should be trusted to regulate speech to a degree
beyond what they already are doing. (In his example, through regulatory force
telling them to do so.)

In general, he wants the end (no "bad" speech) but doesn't provide a clear
picture of the means to get there. This is common.

The argument against companies regulating more speech is that people who are
_not_ Nazis will be caught in the crossfire, and that will lead to unintended
consequences. In his speech, SBC admits as much, citing Twitter's claim that
algorithmic regulation of speech would result in de-platforming politicians.
SBC claims that this may not be a bad thing. This illustrates the problem: SBC
like many others are perfectly fine with people being de-platformed not just
for true hate speech, but for speech they disagree with, because it is
algorithmically similar to hate speech. This is the crux of the issue, and
it's at least good for someone to admit it: typically proponents of
centralized speech regulation pretend like the issue of false positives
doesn't exist. Such false positives will result in law-abiding citizens being
de-platformed, and that is unacceptable to many.

To whatever degree that strategy is taken, you can bet your money on these
companies losing their power to decentralized platforms. If it's no longer
possible to post on social media without a reasonable risk that your words
will get nuked because of being mis-flagged (and your reputation unjustly
soiled) -- people will move elsewhere. The irony will be that the net effect
will be way worse than today: completely unmoderated, unregulated speech with
global reach. (this is probably inevitable for a variety of reasons, but this
current dynamic probably accelerates it.)

edit: appreciate the downvotes, feel free to check back here in 10 years when
facebook + twitter are no longer serious platforms because they're policed by
over-zealous, government-mandated moderators, and anyone posting anything
interesting is on a decentralized platform or some new centralized platform
which has yet to be put under public scrutiny.

~~~
wyldfire
> In general, he wants the end (no "bad" speech) but doesn't provide a clear
> picture of the means to get there. This is common.

The MPAA example is a _perfect_ and very clear example. Lots of publishers
have gone through the same thing: regulate yourself or be regulated by the
people.

~~~
gfodor
As long the Internet is not subject to government packet filtering based upon
content (ie, the US doesn't become China), there's no way to prevent the
eventual outcome that someone can say bad things and it reach millions of
people. If that person breaks the law, the legal system can hold them
accountable. But if they are not breaking the law, it seems to me that in the
limit such speech cannot somehow be stopped from being spread. It's not a new
lesson. It's hundreds of years old, all that is different now is the speed of
dissemination and scale of reach. The current centralized platforms are
transitional technology. There's some kind of Nash equilibrium where they can
exist in a regime where a certain level of legal speech is stifled, but as
soon as that threshold is breached and a sufficient sub-network of people
conclude their speech needs to go around any centralized provider, the
incentives are there to do the work to make it possible -- and internet
infrastructure which already exists would arguably be the hardest problem
they'd need to solve.

~~~
CharlesColeman
> But if they are not breaking the law, it seems to me that in the limit such
> speech cannot somehow be stopped from being spread.

It can't be stopped, but it can be severely limited. See: 8chan and
Stormfront.

~~~
gfodor
I agree that the centralization of internet infrastructure (like Cloudflare,
who was involved to the sites you mention) is a corollary to my claim that
government packet filtering as a potential regime which could result in
limiting global speech.

------
sktrdie
Wow this touches really deeply and closely - given I use social media all.
the. time.

My love for the Web and freedom of discussion and how it would free us from
the powers of authority. This was me imagining the future of information in
the early 2000s.

I'm thinking this may very well be a lie: as Sasha so eloquently and
comedically touches several points about how these social media giants
(Facebook, Twitter etc) have developed algorithms to satisfy our most basic
"monkey brain" instincts: we want information that is agreeable.

The comparison he made with "fake scientists" on the internet getting more
attention than nobel prize winners really hit me hard.

The issue seems to be that with the internet we got rid of authority, but
another type of hierarchy grew out of this: algorithm hierarchy. Where we
don't have authorities in charge of giving us information, rather we have
algorithms.

An obvious solution to this (from a programmer's point of view) would be to
allow users to freely and openly (through an open source kind of movement)
change these algorithms to fit their needs. For instance I want information
that is "not biased" and I can quickly get the "non biased algorithm" from
github (as an example) and plug it into my social media. If I want information
from academica I would get the "academia algorithm" and plug in. And so on.

I don't know how something like this can help, but it seems we may need to
stop thinking in terms of social media companies being the problem; it's the
fact that we can't change these algorithms that is the problem.

~~~
basch
I over post this, and am turning into a broken record, but this is my favorite
of all time article about predictive ai dystopia.

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7-30a0-9a0a-3ff76e8bfe58)

my fear of everything being decided by algorithms that exist to please us, is
us being trapped in the past and creativity being extinguished. if netflix
makes shows based on what it knows will be popular, what happens to
visionaries that have an idea nobody else can comprehend. risk, exploration,
adventure, _new_ , is replaced by nostalgia, familiarity, comfort.

we can debate fighting google and facebook, or we can come up with a "Human
Best Practices" behavior guide for how to best consume content, and spread it.
There will always be temptation, moderation is either taught or learned. If
not facebook, there will be another mind drug to over indulge. Spend effort
countering the concept of unlimited "picked-just-for-me feed" or "whats
popular with everyone today" intake, not attacking this specific villain. We
need new ways to surface and propagate novel, intelligent, thought provoking
content, AND we need to teach people to resist human hedonistic urges and
impulses, and offer social support and encouragement to deviate from consuming
new and fresh news. Watching the news (on tv anyway) is, and shouldnt be,
looked up to.

If I were making a tldr of guide v.01, it would start: "Supplant your
facebook, google, and reddit intake with
[https://aldaily.com/](https://aldaily.com/)
[https://redef.com/](https://redef.com/)
[https://longform.org/](https://longform.org/)
[https://longreads.com/](https://longreads.com/) "

and here i am now moving on to the next n.yc post.

~~~
MiracleUser
I believe it's an economic problem. There is no reason all of these comfort
services cant exist to help keep the peace among people uninterested in
anything else. If they make up the majority of the economy, then we have other
problems to solve though.

After all, we do need comfort for sleep - so it could be .. maybe the role of
BIG companies should be comfort focused.

Visionaries can still exist - we would only need to improve their
discoverability and ensure they are not at risk of financial crisis as a
result of going outside the line

~~~
basch
discoverability is the end issue.

facebook, reddit, google amplify what is popular, not necessarily ideas with
depth. they in particular incentive things that can be consumed quickly and
moved on from. a person consuming 100 links per hour upvotes at 10x the rate
of someone consuming 10 links per hour. those shorter posts, bits, soundbytes,
images, memes then gain 10x the amplification of longform content.

~~~
MiracleUser
what is popular is not necessarily without depth either.

Also consider propagation of danger alerts. the longer time it takes to
consume the average piece of media, the longer it takes for people to become
aware of dangers. There are, of course, shortcuts for authorities to spread
information about dangers already identified, but danger is a gradient.

Maybe there is an inherent trade-off between quick, scanning behavior being
good for safety and deep, thoughtful consumption being good for progress

------
fdsa_11111
If I understand this correctly, he's pulling back from offline comments he's
made about Hollywood (vis Jewish people) and of course years of negative
Jewish stereotypes in his work.

Before this, he "bent the knee" with his portrayal of Eli Cohen. Wasn't a
terrible film but his reverence for the character was a bit much.

FB is a dumpster fire, I don't think anyone argues otherwise these days. But
differentiating between freedom of speech and "reach" is just as dangerous as
saying we need to treat freedom of speech on a case by case basis.

We either have freedom of speech or we don't. If we don't, sooner or later
we're all fucked.

There are no sounds that I can make with my mouth that are dangerous. If
people are easily convinced to hate other people, the problem is not dangerous
speech or ideas. The problem is a breakdown in fundamental education, i.e.,
those people are dangerously ignorant.

We need to work on the fundamental issues, not grant more power to groups with
specific political / authoritarian agendas.

~~~
Angostura
> There are no sounds that I can make with my mouth that are dangerous. If
> people are easily convinced to hate other people, the problem is not
> dangerous speech or ideas. The problem is a breakdown in fundamental
> education, i.e., those people are dangerously ignorant.

Now open your mouth and make the sounds "education is bad, our young people
are being corrupted by an educational elite that is destroying America".

Thank god those sounds aren't dangerous.

~~~
roenxi
In that sense everything is dangerous and the word 'dangerous' is nearly
meaningless. Just because the idea is stupid and it would be dangerous if
people take it seriously doesn't mean saying it should be treated as
dangerous.

We can cope with people saying stupid things. It happens regularly.

~~~
Angostura
> In that sense everything is dangerous

No. Open your mouth and utter the sounds ‘water is wet’ demonstrate how these
words are dangerous. It is ludicrous to assert that all sentences are equally
liable to be dangerous

------
creaghpatr
Disgusting and hypocritical. Given that the ADL already has outsized
censorship abilities on Google and Twitter amongst other platforms, everyone
should read the transcript to see how self-righteous and presumptuous Cohen is
and their aligned vision of controlling what information you are allowed to
access: [https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-
keynote-...](https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-
address-at-adls-2019-never-is-now-summit-on-anti-semitism)

This coming from the guy who played Borat and Bruno- it was ok when he did it,
because he is _on the right side of history_ you see.

~~~
eranima
If by "controlling what information you're allowed to access" you mean
removing hate speech, then yeah they have the right and the duty to do that. I
really wonder why you're against that.

~~~
0x445442
There's no such thing as "hate" speech. The label is a tool to suppress speech
the accusers don't agree with and I've never encountered anyone who uses the
term to do so objectively.

~~~
huntertwo
That's quite the claim and I don't really think it's defensible. Hate speech
definitely exists. Your claim is equivalent to saying there exists no speech
meant to demean or harm others based on race, gender, religion, etc. Why does
this kind of speech need to be protected from removal? Surely we wouldn't
tolerate it in this forum, why should it be tolerated in others?

~~~
core-questions
> Hate speech definitely exists.

In the USA, it does not exist, in the sense that freedom of speech is
absolute, even when you're demeaning or "harming" others with your words. The
only way in which it is limited is when it is directly inciting action as a
call to violence.

In Canada, hate speech laws exist, but again are designed around the case
where a reasonable person would view the speaker as making credible threats
and inciting violence.

Neither country prohibits you from saying mean things about groups you don't
like. Certainly neither country prohibits you from saying true-but-
uncomfortable, even scientifically backed things that are banned outright on
most platforms for being hateful.

------
devmunchies
>If you pay them, Facebook will run any ‘political’ ad you want, even if it’s
a lie

Most media outlets are propaganda machines, full of white lies. The problem
many have with facebook is there's no longer a high barrier to entry to
control people's opinions.

~~~
julvo
I've been thinking about this as well. it's not only the low barrier to entry,
because large scale is still expensive. the problem is public visibility and
scrutiny. if I spread false information in a newspaper, everyone can see it
and expose the lies. on Facebook, each highly targeted ad will be seen by very
few people and is therefore unlikely to be publicly exposed as misinformation.

~~~
tracker1
That said, it's not like people fact-check CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, Fox News etc
(though Fox News probably gets fact-checked more than the rest). There have
been many times just this year that all of the above have gotten stories
wrong, or published disinformation because it fit a narrative.

This doesn't even get into the number of blog-style news orgs out there. And
it's coming from all sides, and really hard sometimes to tell what is, and
isn't actually truthful. I'm not sure I can expect FB/Twitter to be able to
handle it on an even larger scale.

Everyone is in their bubbles and it's pretty toxic in a lot of ways. And I'm
not sure I could even begin to suggest a way out...

I've been trying to convince people to take the week of Christmas off social
media (5-9 days, depending on weekends) ... and no traction at all. I don't
have a large follower base.

~~~
edavison1
Every organization you listed has fact-checkers, even Fox News, if you can
believe it. That doesn't mean they're infallible, but they will all publish
retractions when they get the facts wrong. The notion that major news outlets
do not fact-check is itself a disinformation campaign... I wonder who might
benefit from such a narrative? ;) I'd add that facts are easy to come by! They
are a super useful tool of disinformation, and presented in the right context
will fit any narrative you like.

~~~
tracker1
It also doesn't mean they always use their fact checkers... or that they do
their jobs effectively.

------
Veedrac
From the speech:

> Twitter could deploy an algorithm to remove more white supremacist hate-
> speech, but they have reportedly haven't because it would eject some very
> prominent politicians from their platform.

> Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.

While I appreciate the sentiment behind a lot of Baron Cohen's speech, and
generally distrust Facebook, the idea of having what can be said on the
platform regulated either by algorithms or by a large number of monitors does
sound to me like a step too far. An algorithm that ejects prominent
politicians is political censorship—that should not be OK.

It seems to me that misinformation should be fought with information, not
censorship. Steps that are already being enacted, like “reduc[ing] the
distribution of that content” and adding fact checking annotations to
incorrect information, seems to do much of the same good while not also
shifting the overton window towards Ministry of Truth roles for our already-
too-powerful tech companies.

~~~
commandlinefan
> ejects prominent politicians is political censorship

And is evidence that the _algorithms aren’t working correctly_. They’re
supposed to pinpoint indisputably hateful rhetoric and if they’re producing
significant false positives then yes, Mr. Cohen, that _is_ a bad thing. A
_very_ bad thing.

~~~
tpush
... or those "prominent politicians" are using "indisputably hateful
rhetoric".

~~~
commandlinefan
Well, that’s the sound-bite/bumber-sticker/I’m-on-the-right-side-of-history-
so-I-don’t-care-what-the-collateral-damage-is-as-long-as-Trump-suffers quip,
but, no, no they aren’t. When I was young, the censors were all right-wing
Christian conservatives, and we successfully (for the most part) fought back
against them. One of the most often-repeated weapons in the fight against
right-wing censorship back then was, “if you accept censorship of obscenity,
you’re going to end up with censorship of political viewpoints”. Yet here we
are, in spite of the relatively victory against right-wing censorship, staring
down the barrel of much worse left-wing KGB-style censorship.

------
birdyrooster
Facebook pays a lot of money so their engineers can forget about privacy as a
fundamental human right and enter the life of an amoral mercenary. “I’m just
trying to do the best for my family (by selling out all of yours).”

~~~
sl1ck731
This is inflammatory. The truth is some people just don't care about these
implications. You can find people in this very thread arguing that it isn't
Facebooks responsibility to filter these (whether or not you agree is not the
issue, it is a valid position). Calling engineers who do not fit your narrow
view "amoral" is disingenuous.

~~~
ajna91
Which is it? That they don't care, or they care but disagree?

The first seems to be pretty much the definition of "amoral".

"Lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of
something."

~~~
sl1ck731
Using amoral implies there is at least a consensus on what is moral and they
are acting opposite to it. This is an entire conversation on what is even
moral to begin with. It is smearing someone by associating your "morality" to
a particularly grey area.

~~~
wordsworst
It’s literally the opposite. “Opposed to moral consensus” is _im_ moral. “Grey
area” is definitionally _a_ moral.

You’re complaining because “amoral” still sounds like a bad thing to call
someone. And it is, exactly because history doesn’t tend to see that “it
seemed like a grey area at the time” defense very charitably.

~~~
mlurp
Wait, is that right?

I thought your definition of immoral there is correct. But I thought that
"gray area" means a person has morals, but the goodness of the topic is tricky
to decide, while "amoral" just means the person doesn't even have a "right and
wrong" scale, or doesn't care.

------
flowerlad
The Communications Decency Act of 1996 permitted Internet Companies to not be
held responsible for content posted by users. That was an interesting
experiment. Looking back we now know that it did some good, but it also did
some bad: It meant that everyone on the internet could become a publisher and
the result has been fake news, unbridled growth in hate speech, terrorist
propaganda, and so on. It meant many users trapped in echo chambers who
receive an untrue view of the world.

It is now time to review the Communications Decency Act and perhaps take back
some of its provisions based on what we have learned in the last 23 years.
Sacha Baron Cohen is right, social media companies should be held to the same
decency standards as traditional publishers.

~~~
zaroth
> _Looking back we now know that it did some good, but it also did some bad:
> It meant that everyone on the internet could become a publisher and the
> result has been fake news, unbridled growth in hate speech, terrorist
> propaganda, and so on. It meant many users trapped in echo chambers who
> receive an untrue view of the world._

From my perspective, your last sentence perfectly describes the prior. The
most prominent purveyor of “fake news” is, by far, the major networks
themselves. Hate speech has never been less unbridled, and terrorist
propaganda never had anything to do with the CDA.

------
bonoboTP
Why is that Facebook's responsibility? If someone advertises something illegal
or in an illegal way, it's not the publisher who is punished, but the one who
posted the ad right? In newpapers, billboards etc.

When a magical cure company makes false claims about the efficacy of their
products, you sue the company, not the newpaper who printed the ad.

Why do people want to give the authority to Facebook to decide whether an ad
is within the acceptable range? That's what laws and courts are for.

~~~
brettnak
Because they are made of human beings and live on planet Earth. A better
question is why do we think companies shouldn't care about that? Why isn't it
their responsibility?

~~~
megaman821
Why is this a standard being uniquely applied to Facebook? There are ads for
x-ray glasses in magazines. The are commercials for security products with
many lies running on all the cable news networks.

I tend the think the source of the lie is the thing that should be attacked.
Who has the most responsibility here: the advertiser for lying, the network
for showing the lie, the ISP for delivering the content with a lie, the laptop
for displaying the lie?

~~~
threeseed
Simple answer.

With magazines, television etc you are targeting everyone. So if you run an ad
that said "Vote for me because I will build a border wall" then you will
attract 30% of the population and alienate the other 70%.

With Facebook you can just target that 30% whilst guaranteeing the 70% won't
be affected since they won't see the ads. That is the feature that is unique
to Facebook that is causing all of the problems.

~~~
k1e
What problems is it causing? How does not affecting other "70%" change things?

~~~
fzeroracer
Let's say you have two groups of people. One group is pro-skub, the other
group is anti-skub.

If you run an ad in the newspaper that says 'pro-skub people want to literally
kill all anti-skubs', that is broadcasted to everyone. People outside of the
target group can independently fact check it and/or apply pressure to the
paper itself to remove an obviously fake and inflammatory ad.

Now let's say you run that same ad on Bookface. You target specifically the
anti-skub people, and especially those that are already predisposed against
those that are pro-skub. Even if your ad is obviously fake, you're
contributing to the radicalization of a group which increases divisiveness.
This becomes much harder to independently fact check because when you search
that ad on Dooble you find results which seem to reinforce that ads message
because all of these algorithms are optimizing for engagement.

------
mrweasel
I really like this quote:

“I think we could all agree that we should not be giving bigots and
paedophiles a free platform to amplify their views and target their victims.”

To me that's a good way of looking at it. Censorship will bring nothing
positive, regardless of much we may dislike the words being said. However, we
don't need to provide the those with opinions we disagree with a platform to
utter those words.

Of cause Facebook is free to provide a platform to who ever they want,
assuming wish to be associated with those messages.

I'm also completely fascinated by the speed of which Facebook will take down a
picture of naked breasts, but they can't screen the ads being run on their
site.

------
HorizonXP
My fear about all of these calls to police speech on social networks is that
eventually people will call for the same to be applied everywhere on the
Internet.

I realize that the major difference is how easy it is for someone to have an
audience on FB/Twitter vs. Running their own blog. But there’s no real barrier
to someone we might not agree with to build that audience outside those
platforms too.

------
thsealienbstrds
I suspect social media companies don't like the message because they don't
like the costs required for good moderation. They don't really care about free
speech, that's just spin.

~~~
Reedx
Or they don't like the costs for moderation _and_ believe in free speech.

~~~
lm28469
Come on, Zuckerberg never designed FB with freedom of speech in mind, it
started as a campus thing and transformed into a money printing machine, he
may or may not care about freedom of speech but it's irrelevant, it's nowhere
near the top of facebook priorities.

"Freedom of speech" is the new mantra you have to repeat if you want Americans
to stop thinking about a problem.

~~~
Reedx
Censorship and propaganda are the tools to limit thinking. More speech = more
thinking, not less.

But yeah, would agree that "freedom of speech" wasn't a design pillar or
anything for FB.

~~~
jessedhillon
> More speech = more thinking

This is as true as saying "more code = more programming" \-- _possibly_ a
technically correct statement, but if your goal is to create something
valuable (to your business, to society) this won't help.

------
jmkd
Deeply thought-provoking. Confronts difficult issues and makes logical,
compelling and important arguments. May have to think about all this a little
differently now.

------
holografix
Oh how mighty are the righteous who now swiftly mount one of the galloping
horses in the stampede against Facebook.

How self-serving they are when the criticism comes from all directions and
they take no risks in joining the chorus.

How conveniently they point their finger to the to the west when a bit further
to the east they’d rather the world’s gaze not firm into a stare and a squint.

~~~
andy_ppp
What are you on about, he basically said _democracy_ needs to police social
networks and hold them to a high standard given their _huge_ amounts of power.
I particularly like the line about a restauranteur not having to serve an 8
course meal to a fascist. This is the correct way to look at freedom of speech
- you can say what you want - but there is no requirement for me to provide
services for you to reach billions of people with your statements.

~~~
alfromspace
If normal people want to hear my message, and there's only one platform they
can effectively locate it through, then I'd say _you are_ required to provide
services to me. At this point, it's like cutting off somebody's internet or
phone service for their political views - the argument that Verizon isn't the
government and is just "muh showing you the door" wears thin.

There seems to be this underlying assumption that nationalism,
paleoconservatism and various commonly-held views that are wrongly called
"fascism" are actually things people want to hear, and if we allow them the
same access to services as any other views, their popularity will overturn
this entire neoliberal scheme that's being artificially propped up by
organizations like the ADL rooting out free speech in every area they can
legally do so. I sort of agree - this entire project would fail without
censorship.

And, if as Baron Cohen implies, we're really just a bunch of stupid hateful
beasts always primed to commit another Holocaust as soon as the boot is off
our neck, well...then we've got deeper problems in our society than a lack of
social media censorship.

~~~
andy_ppp
Your Karma of -9 leads me to worry about the quality of your opinions, however
your arguments are quite well put, so I'll do my best to address them.

Firstly, I mean really hateful fascistic stuff not any of the things you
mention - I don't agree with nationalism (or even patriotism, countries are a
completely made up idea) but would defend your right to talk about it as you
see fit on any platform, paleoconservartism is more than fine too or even talk
about advocating gun laws or anti abortion stuff. All fine.

The problem is the current climate is not a fact based discussion about issues
on their merits, instead the system is being gamed by these platforms and
people using these platforms to wield influence (and craft a society) that
will allow much great abuses of power going forward.

I think the Standford prison experiment and the smaller version Cohen ran in
his film shows you that people are not good, we all can be riled up and lash
out because of strong beliefs we might hold. I think having platforms that
don't try to help tone down and instead encourage hateful thinking really is
dangerous, especially when a lot of these opinions are based on lies.

------
aww_dang
From the video:
[https://youtu.be/ymaWq5yZIYM?t=723](https://youtu.be/ymaWq5yZIYM?t=723)

"This is ideological imperialism. Six unelected individuals in silicon valley
imposing their vision on the rest of the world, unaccountable to any
government..."

"Now here's an idea, instead of letting the silicon six decide the fate of the
world, let our elected representatives voted for by the people of every
democracy of the world have at least some say..."

Democracy is a political system, not a system of rational inquiry. It can not
establish facts, outside of voting statistics. Dressing up censorship with the
pretenses of democracy is nothing more than appealing to the tyranny of the
masses. Democracy as we know it requires a free and open forum for discussion.

The trend towards 'fact checking' disappoints me. Individuals must be capable
of processing and consuming information without authoritarian hand-holding. To
pessimistically dismiss this possibility is to refute the premises of
democracy. It baffles me how proponents of censorship feel that they can have
it both ways here.

Furthermore, the underlying philosophy of fact-checking dismisses the fallible
nature of man. Information is constantly emerging. The horizon is contentious
by definition. What would fact checkers have said to Copernicus? That a
scientific consensus has already been formed?

The popular view that we have somehow escaped these human limitations is
nothing more than special pleading: "This time is different. This is the age
of reason and science. Dogma is dead."

This time is not different. Progress will continue to unfold and regressive
ideologies will continue to limit us. On the historical scale we are becoming
more tolerant. One has to wonder if the pessimistic view which highlights
hatred is accurate.

Is it a meaningful assertion to say that you are intolerant of intolerance?
Should we applaud this as noble? Perhaps a more rational inquiry would be to
ask who would benefit from the proposed censorship and fact-checking regime.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)

------
semiotagonal
A person who made his name manipulating unwitting people probably isn't the
best spokesman for social responsibility.

~~~
sktrdie
He constantly makes comparisons about his comedy and how much more of an
experiment it was to showcase the "hidden prejudice" of people. The content of
his speech are totally valid and agreeable and don't see why he cannot have an
influence for discussing social problems. Actually comedians are of great help
for ethical social concerns; for instance take a look at George Carlin.

~~~
creaghpatr
You're right and I loved Sasha's Made in America show, however George Carlin
would be absolutely fucked in today's day and age. His political/cultural
angles are not nearly as "safe" as Sasha's.

~~~
mistermann
I suspect Carlin would have adapted, as Dave Chappelle has.

~~~
creaghpatr
Chappelle was grandfathered in, imo.

~~~
mistermann
His recent comedy takes aim directly at the cancel culture that most other
comedians don't dare offend. It seems to me that he doesn't need the
acceptance of the system because he largely lives outside it, producing new
specials when it suits his fancy.

------
duaoebg
I wonder how long it will take until it becomes illegal to say that Epstein
didn't commit suicide.

------
hogFeast
Hm, that stuff about Twitter having an algo that is totally effective and not
using it sounds...a lot like a conspiracy theory to me...but that couldn't
be...

Suggesting that companies - remember Zuckerberg is ethnically Jewish, Pichai
is a migrant, Brin is a migrant, Page is ethnically Jewish - want to do
nothing is bizarre (and, again, somewhat conspiratorial). These companies pay
almost no regard to shareholder value (again, this is a conspiratorial point).
The issue is that it is hard to know how to generalise.

To be honest, I don't think anyone has a good grip on this topic. It is
certainly true that political parties have always been allowed to make
inflammatory adverts (and sorry, but it is both sides here). And if you
believe anti-semetic propaganda, is a Facebook post really the thing that puts
you over the edge? Or is it just the thing that we can now observe.

A similar point is that celebrities today often complain about the abuse they
get on social media...but these people have always been there, and some people
won't like you regardless of what you do. That is part of having a public
profile. I have heard minor celebrities recommending that social media gets
shuts down because someone tweeted at them that they found their voice
annoying...everyone hears this kind of stuff in life. It is normal.

I don't know what the solution is but we are still clearly quite a long way
from the point where a solution emerges.

------
pdog
Doesn't Facebook already prohibit all content (not just ads) that incites
violence against groups?

[https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech](https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech)

------
HSO
After the fifth DNC debate, I am convinced the legacy media ("MSM") are
exponentially more dangerous and insidious.

In fact, I suspect that this persistent campaign against "new media" is
nothing more than a turf war, waged as it were by the losers.

Good riddance to the self-appointed gatekeepers. It's no surprise this speech
is sponsored by the ADL. They are probably good allies with racist MSNBC,
lying NYTimes etc.

------
hanniabu
That's a great comment, because I don't doubt at all that this would be the
case.

~~~
empath75
I worked for about half a year on a DHS contract and quit once the family
separations started, and spoke to someone last night about why they're still
working there: "Well, if we don't do it, someone else will."

Which is, I guess, probably true, but man is that a weak way to justify
contributing to an atrocity.

~~~
davidw
Thank you for standing up for what's right.

------
slowmovintarget
The solution is not to censor. The solution is to not allow targeting. If you
change your message based on who you're talking to, everyone should see it,
and get to call you out as a liar.

In a system that permits free speech, the solution to bad speech is good
speech, not controlled speech.

"Select is not broken" in the parlance of Pragmatic Programmer.

------
DSingularity
Too bad he is making these comments at the ADL.

~~~
FatalLogic
_> Too bad he is making these comments at the ADL_

Why is that bad?

~~~
shiado
The ADL is a Zionist organization. It's hard to take their opinions on
ethnonationalism seriously at all when you consider their goals for Israel.

~~~
scarmig
Their goal for Israel: a democratic, two-state solution that provides for the
security of everyone living in Israel and Palestine.

[https://www.adl.org/news/op-ed/dont-destroy-the-two-state-
so...](https://www.adl.org/news/op-ed/dont-destroy-the-two-state-solution)

Sure, they might have a bit of a blind spot that makes them overly favorable
toward Israel, but in a sea of bad actors, they're one of the few groups
acting in good faith.

~~~
alfromspace
[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-1993-04-13-mn-22383-...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-1993-04-13-mn-22383-story.html)

[https://psmag.com/news/kings-garbage-76228](https://psmag.com/news/kings-
garbage-76228)

The ADL spied extensively on not only pro-Palestinian activists, but also on
anti-South African apartheid activists, presumably because they didn't want
their critiques being used on Israel.

~~~
scarmig
I was curious, so I read the articles. For something intended to critique the
ADL, they spend a lot of time listing malign actions of the government of
Israel. Which is annoying, because... I don't care. I oppose Israel having
cooperated with South Africa in the 60s and 70s, but that has pretty much
nothing to do with the ADL in 2019.

The spying seems like a more damning charge. But the word is doing a lot of
work: most prominent political organizations maintain rolodexes of reporters
and activists, along with their stances and perspectives. It's part of what
makes them effective--you can rest assured that e.g. CAIR does the same.
Characterizing it as spying is a bit overwrought.

~~~
alfromspace
We're talking about the ADL being a Zionist organization, and the viewpoints
that caused individuals to be the subjects of spying (or whatever you want to
call it) clearly indicates a pro-Israel and anti-Palestinian bias. I don't
think anyone would argue CAIR isn't a pro-Islamic organization with
accompanying biases.

------
zzzeek
"freedom of speech is not freedom of reach"

"free speech" is not curtailed when Facebook disallows hate groups from
reaching one third of the planet. These groups may have all the "speech" they
want but global media platforms need not facilitate them.

------
naringas
In a way he is blaming the paper (social media) for what people write on it.

Social media merely enable our worst to come out. But it doesn't cause it.

The solution is not censorship. But to somehow make it so that people see
through the bullshit. but how!?

~~~
ourmandave
Social media isn't the piece of paper.

It's handing out copies of what you wrote to potentially countless people.

------
birdyrooster
Facebook pays a lot of money so their engineers can forget about privacy as a
fundamental human right and enter the life of an amoral mercenary. “I’m just
trying to do the best for my family (by selling out all of yours).”

------
bsaul
The hitler example is easy, but it’s almost the exception :

Should someone in 1938 advocating launching war against Germany after they
invaded tchekosloviakia and calling chamberlain a coward be censored as
promoting « hate speech » ?

------
dadarepublic
Wow. An excellent, pointed take.

Facebook has put profit & self-interest over ethics. They have taken a step-
back, reflected, and fully embraced the damage they have caused, are causing,
and will continue to cause.

Some of this is reactionary. Zuckerberg feels that "the left" (as if there is
one, unified left) has gone to war against him (via his company). Front-runner
2020 candidates like Warren and Sanders are explicitly stating they will
examine regulation & oversight legislation to reel in some companies
behaviors. His concern may be legitimate, however his reaction is childlike.

Zuckerberg is now taking private dinners with the current POTUS, probably to
curry policy favor even though there will be inevitable strings attached (as
is always the case). It also means he now has a stake in a "side" of the US
body politic and so his actions will move in the direction of support for that
side.

Attempting to curry policy favor isn't new, is has happened, does happen, and
will happen. That being said, Zuck's newfound eagerness to spread
misinformation via the power of his platform is eyebrow-raising.

I would argue that this lack of ethics will ultimately hurt both "sides" of
the US political spectrum, it will just take longer for one "side" to feel it
than the other.

Note: I use "sides" in quotes specifically because Americans are quite often
divided into two opposing sides, even when there are many actual sides,
interests, groups.

------
dadarepublic
Wow. An excellent, pointed take by SBC.

Facebook has put profit & self-interest over ethics. They have taken a step-
back, reflected, and fully embraced the damage they have caused, are causing,
and will continue to cause.

Some of this is reactionary. Zuckerberg feels that "the left" (as if there is
one, unified left) has gone to war against him (via his company). Front-runner
2020 candidates like Warren and Sanders are explicitly stating they will
examine regulation & oversight legislation to reel in some companies
behaviors. His concern may be legitimate, however his reaction seems childlike
and full of emotion.

Zuckerberg is now taking private dinners with the current POTUS, probably to
curry policy favor even though there will be inevitable strings attached (as
is always the case). It also means he now has a stake in a "side" of the US
body politic and so his actions will move in the direction of support for that
side.

Attempting to curry policy favor isn't new, is has happened, does happen, and
will happen. That being said, Zuck's newfound eagerness to spread
misinformation via the power of his platform is eyebrow-raising.

I would argue that this lack of ethics will ultimately hurt both "sides" of
the US political spectrum, it will just take longer for one "side" to feel it
than the other.

Note: I use "sides" in quotes specifically because Americans are quite often
divided into two opposing sides, even when there are many actual sides,
interests, groups.

------
sniglom
So somebody who has a voice via his fame, argues about which of regular non
famous people that shouldn't have free speech. And he even talks about
tolerance in the same text.

Repulsive.

------
Beefin
To expect a platform with billions of content posted every day to have
algorithms capable of distinguishing the intricacies of what humans
subjectively determine is vulgar, untrue, etc. is insane.

Moreover, who determined what is "banworthy"? This is dangerous territory. I
agree with the sentiment of SBC's speech, but in reality, that's such a
slippery slope into suppressing speech simply because somebody is going to
dictate what penetrates the filters.

------
mcguire
I'm sorry, I'm not taking advice from Borat.

~~~
vernie
Actually this is the actor Sasha Baron Cohen. Borat is just a character he
portrays in television and movies.

~~~
khazhou
Pretty sure he knows that.

~~~
vernie
I was trying out HN-style pedantry; it didn't work.

~~~
mcguire
I thought it was perfect!

------
samirillian
Cohen is funny, but I'm not sure I understand how a guy who made his living
stereotyping everyone else gets on his high-horse when honored by the ADL, a
group with a mile long controversies section on their Wikpedia page.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
Defamation_League](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League)

------
Udik
Cohen is advocating for political censorship in front of an ADL audience. The
ADL, or Anti-Defamation League, for those who don't know it, is a powerful
Jewish organisation claiming to fight agaist anti-Semitism- but mostly
lobbying in support of Israel. Just to make clear where this is going and why
the ADL is so happy to hear this speech, here is a recent press release by the
ADL, praising a resolution of the House Foreign Affairs Committee against the
BDS movement (which advocates political and economic pressure on Israel to
force it to come to a peace with Palestinians):

[https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-commends-
house-f...](https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-commends-house-
foreign-affairs-committee-for-approving-bipartisan)

This means that _currently_ the ADL is already lobbying the American
parliament and government to obstacle, possibly even outlaw, a political and
human rights movement that goes against Israel's interests.

------
air7
This talk touches the very fundamental question of attribution of blame. Say I
read an anti-Semitic leaflet and then perform a hate crime. How much of the
responsibility do I bare and how much does the writer of the leaflet? And how
much does the printing press?

First off, there is a very strong axiom here that "the masses" are extremely
malleable and incapable of critical thinking. So, just like with children,
it's the responsibility of the "influencer" to control the audience
"properly". This is a very strong axiom that, while I personally agree with
it, I'm guessing most people wouldn't when presented explicitly. This axiom
has far reaching consequences for Free Speech as Free Speech only works when
personal responsibility is a given. This is a classic "you can't have it both
ways" situation.

But assuming this axiom and its implications (that people are not 100%
responsible for their actions), the next question is how much of the external
responsibility does the metaphorical printing press have? Is it ok for my OS
to allow me to type "kill jews"? Is it ok for your browser to render said
text? Should Microsoft censor the content of Word documents so they can't be
used to spread hate speech? (this is not so far fetched: Photoshop blocks
attempts to edit images of money bills for fear of being a tool for
counterfeiting) Is it ok for a CDN (like Cloudflare) to decline services to
websites based on their content (like 8chan and Daily Stormer)? If yes, must
they decline and actively police the content of all "19 million Internet
properties that use Cloudflare's service"? Should Google not deliver emails
based on their content? etc.

How much do we want Facebook/Twitter to bare responsibility for the content of
users and advertisers and thus actively censor based on their own criteria?
What should be this criteria be?

~~~
Ozumandias
"Say I read an anti-Semitic leaflet and then perform a hate crime. How much of
the responsibility do I bare and how much does the writer of the leaflet? And
how much does the printing press?"

Here is where this line of doesn't work too well with what Baron Cohen is
saying: Facebook/Twitter/etc are centralized publishers. He is arguing they
are equivalent to Random House, NBC, or TIME. If a hate group owns its own
printing press, it's not the press' fault because they are a publisher of the
organization. But if Random House prints and publishes works of a fringe
group, do you think there would be push back? Why are they giving this group
legitimacy? It legitimizes them if they are published by the same entity as
works of literature. Sacha is saying that by allowing hate groups and non-hate
groups the same publishing capability, Facebook is legitimizing them.

------
stared
> “If you pay them, Facebook will run any ‘political’ ad you want, even if
> it’s a lie.”

Well, I guess that almost every ad-based model has it, as a core principle.
Contemplate sentence "the best washing powder".

I would bet that most of the marketing is precisely about white lies. Every ad
is a piece of propaganda, but business rather than a political option.

------
Invictus0
Let's imagine implementing Cohen's vision for a minute: each piece of content
on YouTube must be reviewed by a moderator and be rated according to MPAA
standards. By some estimates there are 2000+ millennia worth of videos on
YouTube. Some significant portion of this is algorithmically generated or
duplicated, but let's suppose 10% of it is new original content. 200 millennia
is equivalent 1.75E9 hours. Suppose a content moderator earns $3/hr and no
benefits and watches videos at 2x speed. To rate all the content, it would
cost $2.6B. Not actually that infeasible. Society might ease the burden on FB
by making a law that videos only need to be rated after 1000 views.

Frankly I'm not sure this would be effective because of the lawlessness of the
internet and the ease of moving information, but it doesn't seem impossible
either.

------
rayiner
If Facebook would have let Hitler buy ads, Google would have worked with
state-run German universities to develop AI technology that would be used to
advance the authoritarian regime: [https://www.theepochtimes.com/google-works-
on-ai-with-top-ch...](https://www.theepochtimes.com/google-works-on-ai-with-
top-chinese-university-that-has-ties-with-chinese-military_3012365.html)

> The U.S. internet giant has collaborated with Beijing’s Tsinghua University
> since June 2018, when it launched a new AI research body, the Tsinghua
> University Institute for Artificial Intelligence (TUIFAI).

> Earlier that month, it was revealed that the university received significant
> funding from the Chinese military to work on a project aimed to advance the
> military’s AI capabilities.

> Google and Tsinghua The university announced the opening of the TUIFAI on
> June 28, 2018, during a joint Google–Tsinghua symposium held in Beijing.

> During the symposium, Tsinghua University also announced the appointment of
> Jeff Dean, head of Google AI, as a member of the computer science advisory
> committee at the university.

Remember, Tsinghua is a state university, run by the same government that is
currently running concentration camps:
[https://www.businessinsider.com/muslim-woman-describes-
horro...](https://www.businessinsider.com/muslim-woman-describes-horrors-of-
chinese-concentration-camp-2019-10)

> Sauytbay describes being forced to witness a gang rape while at the camp. A
> young woman, she says, was forced to disrobe after being forced to "confess"
> her sins in front of around 200 prisoners. The young woman was then raped by
> several police officers, Sauytbay said.

> "While they were raping her they checked to see how we were reacting. People
> who turned their head or closed their eyes, and those who looked angry or
> shocked, were taken away and we never saw them again."

~~~
bduerst
Epoch times is a fake news blog, FYI. They spread conspiracies like chemtrails
and lizard people:

1\. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/nervous-system-damage-from-
the...](https://www.theepochtimes.com/nervous-system-damage-from-the-
sky_1480936.html)

2\. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/space-aliens-live-quietly-
amon...](https://www.theepochtimes.com/space-aliens-live-quietly-among-us-say-
some-scientists-and-officials-did-you-meet-one-today_480029.html)

~~~
rayiner
Venture Beat says the same thing:
[https://venturebeat.com/2018/06/28/tsinghua-university-
plans...](https://venturebeat.com/2018/06/28/tsinghua-university-plans-to-
open-ai-research-center-in-china-names-googles-ai-chief-as-advisor/)

~~~
bduerst
No, Venture Beat simply announces the A.I. center. They say nothing about the
jingoist conspiracy.

~~~
rayiner
> It’ll also work closely with Google, which opened an AI center in Beijing in
> December 2017. The Mountain View-based company is already involved in
> research at Peking University, the University of Science and Technology of
> China, and other institutions in the region.

Google is actively working with a government that is currently going full nazi
on muslims in China. They’re not just buying and selling products in the
stream of commerce, they’re partnering with and arming a hostile foreign
dictatorship.

It’s not some wacko conspiracy theory: [https://www.thedailybeast.com/google-
snubbed-the-pentagonbut...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/google-snubbed-the-
pentagonbut-not-the-chinese-military)

> General Joseph Dunford, America’s top military officer, has announced he
> will be meeting with Google representatives this week to talk about the
> company’s assistance to China’s People’s Liberation Army.

> Similarly, acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan sounded the alarm at
> that Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on March 14. “The fusion of
> commercial business with military is significant,” he said. “The technology
> that is developed in the civil world transfers to the military world. It’s a
> direct pipeline. Not only is there a transfer, there’s also systematic theft
> of U.S. technology that facilitates even faster development of emerging
> technology.”

------
shrimpx
Freedom of speech is not freedom to microtarget billions of people, aided by
technology to change their minds to act according to bigoted principles.

I'm fully on board with Cohen, except that he doesn't go into enough detail
about what Facebook is. Facebook is no longer a social network on which you
can connect with friends and share your thoughts and aspects of your life.
Facebook is an _influence-amplification network_ where with enough money you
may _change the minds_ of hundreds of millions of people.

In other words it's _ad targeting_ that when taken to its logical conclusion
becomes the ultimate propaganda system.

------
samdixon
Let's get Ja's opinion on this matter.

~~~
zootme
I don't want to dance I'm scared to death

------
mirimir
Written version: [https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-
keynote-...](https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-
address-at-adls-2019-never-is-now-summit-on-anti-semitism)

Counterpoint:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191122/00412943432/sacha...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191122/00412943432/sacha-
baron-cohen-is-wrong-about-social-media-wrong-about-section-230-even-wrong-
about-his-own-comedy.shtml)

------
daenz
We should be above this level of incendiary, hyperbolic, un-nuanced
discussion.

------
gao8a
Here’s a fun theory that he’s just a master comic:

\- He admits he’s played a lot of characters, and he’s now playing his least
favourite for the first time, Sasha Baron Cohen.

\- He admits all the times he’s gotten people, many of which were important
and intelligent, to side with him and his ideas while he’s in character.

\- It would be a good comedy and satire to see an entity like the ADL rave and
cheer for certain ideas. Then again, he admits some people might not find it
funny.

Thank you Mr. Cohen, my new favourite character ;)

------
leitasat
'Final solution' was classified all the way till the end of the war, only some
of the party and SS officers knew about the scale of the plan and the name
itself. Ordinary Germans, both soldiers and civilians, knew little about it.
Any kind of deliberate violence was never on Nazi's electoral leaflets (who
would voluntarily vote for it?).

This speech is precisely an example of what it is exposing – clickbaits.

~~~
node-bayarea
Exactly!

------
beernutz
I really think he is wrong on almost all counts.

This TD article sums it up well i think:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191122/00412943432/sacha...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191122/00412943432/sacha-
baron-cohen-is-wrong-about-social-media-wrong-about-section-230-even-wrong-
about-his-own-comedy.shtml)

------
ourmandave
Here's the video with a transcript.

[https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-
keynote-...](https://www.adl.org/news/article/sacha-baron-cohens-keynote-
address-at-adls-2019-never-is-now-summit-on-anti-semitism)

It's really disturbing that FB will run any political ad given the Russians
are still f'ing with our elections.

------
beernutz
I think TechDirt has the best commentary on this:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191122/00412943432/sacha...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20191122/00412943432/sacha-
baron-cohen-is-wrong-about-social-media-wrong-about-section-230-even-wrong-
about-his-own-comedy.shtml)

------
z9e
This speech reminds me of the following Adam Curtis documentary, where he
touches upon the same observations that Sacha brings up. It's an interesting
watch, and aired on BBC back in 2016.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh2cDKyFdyU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh2cDKyFdyU)

------
jstewartmobile
rich, coming from a guy whose entire career is stereotype "comedy"

if censorship is cool now, how about starting with the crass bullshit people
like SBC beam into people's living rooms?

i'm willing to bet money that people will do a better job sorting fact from
fiction when they're no longer immersed in hollywood stupidity 24x7.

~~~
knolax
I can't believe the same man responsible for the vile minstrel show that was
Borat is so often lauded as some sort of progressive champion. I guess it's ok
to be racist as long as the targets are Kazakhs and not Jews.

~~~
EliRivers
Kazakhs weren't the targets.

~~~
zozbot234
Yup, the controversial scenes in Borat's "home village" were actually shot in
rural Romania. But I'm not sure that stereotyping poor, rural Romanians is any
better.

~~~
gherkinnn
Neither Romanians nor Kazakhs were the but of the joke.

They were a vehicle to poke fun at ignorant westeners.

~~~
zozbot234
> Neither Romanians nor Kazakhs were the but of the joke.

How could one tell?

~~~
gherkinnn
A few things

\- Kazakh people (mostly) look nothing like Borat

\- It was clearly (to me, a European) set in eastern Europe

\- Cohen played on our ignorance to make us believe Rumania is Kazakhstan

\- Everybody he encounters thereafter is American

\- Cohen uses Borat to mock stereotypical American[0] behaviour

\- I am aware just how much juvenile humour there was too

[0] applies to most places, but the film is set in America

------
xaedes
Not sure if he is serious (sounds a lot like ministry of truth and stuff) or
if it is just his best performance so far. I think it is the latter and he is
trolling his audience yet again. He is doing it in the same way he described
his previous performances. Just geniuos.

------
metalgearsolid
Cohen is right. It's total nonsense Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc. can not
_and are not_ algorithmically remove hate speech and dangerous lies. If they
can detect a nipple, they can detect a nazi.

~~~
lemmsjid
And it should be a two pronged effort. The baseline should be companies
employing teams of people of sufficient size to review their products, then
using and tuning algorithms to increase the efficiency.

------
michaf
It's interesting that this story has already vanished from at least the first
100 'news' entries on HN, 9 hours after posting, and currently at 400
comments.

------
Simon_says
If you don’t like the popular social media sites, it’s never been easier to
make your own.

~~~
smt88
It has also never been harder to opt out of popular social media sites. You
literally can't, even with aggressive ad-blockers and a PiHole.

You can't even choose to visit websites that are free from Google ads. They're
too ubiquitous.

You have no choice as a consumer. There is no invisible hand that can hurt
Google or Facebook now, which is why the breakup talk is important.

~~~
Beefin
Eh debatable. There are plenty of folks that go Google-free, Facebook-free,
Twitter-free, etc. It's not hard to apply digital minimalism. SDC is right:
outrage is what drives clicks and the recommendation algorithms are designed
to maximize clicks. However, it really just comes down to education. You need
to be an educated consumer to make an informed decision on your own. It really
isn't the responsibility of the publisher, data broker, etc. if you form an
opinion using their platform. If that were the case, then we'd filter every
single website that touts anything false - it's just not possible. People need
more critical thinking skills, not Facebook.

~~~
smt88
You can't browse the web without Facebook and Google tracking you. Website
owners cooperate with them. You could avoid their sites, but you'll still be
in their data sets.

You also can't contact Google Fi or Gmail users without Google tracking you.

------
yowlingcat
I'm glad SBC brought up Myanmar. The headline seems overly muted (something I
never thought I'd say about headlines) -- FB already _sold_ ads facilitating
genocide. I wish the general American public took that more seriously.

------
mic47
The actual policy is not to fact check political ads, but they will still take
down "ads that encouraged violence or seek to suppress voting." (after quick
googling I found this, there are probably better sources:
[https://apnews.com/64fe06acd28145f5913d6f815bec36a2](https://apnews.com/64fe06acd28145f5913d6f815bec36a2)
)

I don't know like you, but Hitler's 'final solution' seems to be fitting the
violence bucked, so should be taken down. So at least the title is not right.

------
throwaway122378
Social media’s ability to spread fake news (both left and right wing) is
equally dangerous as is their ability to suppress real news that counters
their own corporate agendas.

------
throw7
The solution is not crying to facebook/google/etc. to censor any talk of flat-
earthers or remove the accounts of holocaust deniers.

The solution is to educate others how to understand and process the sources of
information they're getting/receiving; what's being said and not said. This
applies to everything, not just "social media".

------
ggambetta
*Sacha

~~~
ajg360
Thank you.

------
panpanna
(thought this was about deep fake, kinda disappointed)

Wait a minute. Zuck, a Jew himself, is saying the Holocaust denier ads are
okay-ish?

Edit: note that (1) paid ads are not free speech and (2) while you can say
what you want, a commercial entity has no obligation to amplify your voice.

~~~
throwaway122378
I’m also Jewish and believe anyone even stupid misinformed people should have
the right to free speech. Corporations shouldn’t have power to determine what
is or isn’t true

~~~
RickJWagner
Thank you for this refreshing viewpoint.

There is great value in allowing everyone to speak their minds, and sorting
out who the idiots are afterward. Freedom of speech works very well.

~~~
AlexandrB
That’s not what ads are. Facebook is letting anyone _with money_ speak their
minds. The “organic” feed is already filtered algorithmically. To counter them
you would also have to spend money. Facebook gets paid twice.

This seems like a very convenient coincidence of “morals” and economic
incentives.

------
bloody-crow
I've watched the whole thing and while I appreaciate the sentiment, I can't
agree with it. I mostly agree with his description of the state of the worlds
where platforms attempting to maximize for "engagement" prioritize fake news
and conspiracy theories aimed at basic instincts. Hovewer, the solutions he
like many other commentators on the subject is proposing, releval poor
understanding and lack of consideration of the complexity and potential
ramifications.

Here's some quotes of him that I believe illustate it really well.

> This is not about limiting anyone's free speech. This it about giving people
> including some of the most reprehensible people on Earth the biggest
> platform in history to reach the third of the planet.

This basically advocates for banning people off Facebook if they fall into a
certain category deemed undesirable.

In a tightly connected world social networks like Facebook play increasingly
important role in people's lives. More and more social live migrates there and
losing access would have very significant career and social implications. In a
way, you could compare modern day social networks to roads and highways,
except privately owned. Imagine being "banned" from drinving on the road.
Sure, you can still walk to some places, but so much opportunity would become
unavailable to you just because travelling trivial distances is prohibitively
expensive. In this sense, social networks become much closer to being a
"utility" rather just a service one could choose to use or not to. I don't
think this trend is going to slow down any time soon.

So, maybe losing access to Facebook is not 100% equal to limiting free speech,
but it's quite close.

Again, maybe we could somehow limit the reach of information that has
undesirable effect, but more on that futher...

> We're not asking these companies to determine the boundaries of free speech
> across society, we just want them to be responsible on their platforms.

Leaving the ambiguity of "be responsible" aside here, I think these platforms
are quite representative of the society as a whole. Again, Facebook is not
some elitist club, it's almost an utility being used across all of the
society.

> Now if a neo-nazi comes into a restaurant and starts threatening all the
> customers and say he wants to kill jews, would the owner of the restaurant,
> a private business, be required to serve him an elegant eight-course meal?
> Of cource not. The restaurant owner has every legal right and moral
> obligation to kick this nazi out

This is a perfect example of false equivalence. SBC raves about the importance
of Facebook, and then compares this situation to some private restaurant.
Facebook is a more like a restaurant chain, available all over the world, that
dominates the market to the point where none other restaurants are able to
compete and are forced to shut down. If you're not welcome in Facebook-
restaurant, you're not welcome in all restaurants. There's no other place you
can go to to have a meal. This is a very important distinction imo.

> Six unelected individuals in Silicon Valley imposing their vision on the
> rest of the world, unaccountable to any government and acting like they're
> above the reach of law. It's like we're living in the Roman Empire and Mark
> Zeckenberg is Caesar.

Except it's the opposite. SBC critisizes people who refuse to become arbiters
of what's acceptable and permissible on their platforms as "imposing their
vision" and urges them to impose more control of their own vision on their
platforms. This is a very clear contradiction.

Again, he calls Zuch unaccountable Ceasar for refusing to exercise his power
to control.

> Now here's an idea. Instead of letting the Silicon Six decide the fate of
> the world, let our elected representatives, voted for by the people of every
> democracy in the world, have at least some say.

Multiple problems with this one.

Certain democracy in the world have elected Donald Trump. This individual has
a known tendency to call any information not representing him in the best way
possible "fake news". He, while not being terribly informed, has opinions on
almost every subject and has would love to "have some say" in what Facebook
should and should not allow to host and what Google/Youtube should show in its
search results.

Having politicians control what is allowed in public discource is a terrible
idea and I'm surprized SBC actually uttered this with a straight face and
audience cheered. Have we all lost our minds?

> Objective facts do exist and if these internet companies really want to make
> a difference, they should hire enough monitors to actually monitor.

This is so naive and idealistic and impossible in real world with the current
state of technology and failing to recognize it is a massive issue.

> Yes, drawing the line can be difficult, but here's what he's actually
> saying: removing those lies and conspiracies is just too expensive. These
> are the richest companies in the world, and they have the best engineers in
> the world. They can fix these problems if they wanted to.

Nobody has yet proposed a solution that is actually viable and not prohibitely
expensive. It doesn't mean that the solution doesn't exist necessary, it just
means that similar to traveling salesman problem, existing tech can't solve it
at a large enough scale.

> Twitter could deploy an algoritm to remove more white supremacist hate
> speech, but they have reportedly haven't because it would eject some very
> prominent politicians...

Define "white supremacist" first. There's some fringe tankies on Twitter who
consider Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters white supremacists. Whose
definition of "white supremacy" should Twitter use here? Yours? Well, you're
also one according to some.

It's easy to speculate on how Twitter could just do this or that when you
forget that other people might have criteria that is significanly different
from yours.

Twitter is already in some very interesting position where they're forced to
remove tweets quoting established scientific facts in response to some crazed
trans-activists because those are deemed hate-speeach (see
[https://twitter.com/louiecaruana/status/1186861368835788801](https://twitter.com/louiecaruana/status/1186861368835788801))

Nobody can agree on what is or is not bigotry anymore, and forcing their hand
here is hardly beneficial to anyone.

------
rayiner
Is anyone tired yet of the over the top rhetoric? The only group of people
currently in the world who belong in the same sentence as Hitler is the
communist Chinese government. After having conducted tens of millions of
forced abortions and sterilizations, it is running actual concentration camps
in which members of the Chinese Muslim minority are being tortured and
mutilated. And guess what, Google, etc., are happy to publish ads from Chinese
state-sponsored companies, universities, etc.

It's indicative of profound moral confusion that we're talking about Alex
Jones for some reason instead.

~~~
minikites
>it is running actual concentration camps in which members of the Chinese
Muslim minority are being tortured and mutilated

Are you unaware of what the US is doing to asylum-seekers at the US-Mexico
border?

~~~
rayiner
That is what I mean by over-the-top rhetoric. On the scale of bad things, the
asylum situation on the US-Mexico border is below what Australia is doing on
Manus Island, below what India is doing on the border with Bangladesh, and
none of those should even be discussed in the same paragraph as what China is
doing.

It's Orwellian. When you contort the rhetoric and language such that you're
unable to describe graduations and degrees in what we might all agree are bad
things, you lose the ability to think clearly and make judgments rationally.

------
droithomme
Pretty incredible speech. He explains that his racist films have been civil
rights advocacy all along. How foolish of anyone to think otherwise,
apparently only bigots would have thought there was a problem with wearing
blackface. Trudeau as well is another civil rights advocate who uses the
blackface medium to call attention to the disenfranchisement of minorities and
the damage that negative stereotypes can do. Cool.

------
dominotw
related
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)

~~~
DSingularity
Not really. Take the current position of Facebook. Assume Facebook was around
in 1930. Now answer, would Facebook block nazi propaganda?

~~~
zacharytelschow
Propoganda? No. Outright ads on the final solution? Probably yes, but also
bear in mind the Nazis weren't exactly broadcasting their plans to the outside
world. (At least I don't think they were - am I wrong on this point?)

~~~
supercanuck
>Probably yes,

real vote of confidence there.

------
generalpass
Given that the NAZI movement could be classified as a populist movement, it
seems safe to say that most companies and most people in Germany would have
supported actions taken by NAZIs.

However, my understanding is that the NAZI party did not run any ads for the
'final solution', despite Hitler's having totalitarian rule over the NAZI
empire, thus, were facebook in existence during the period of Hitler's rule,
Hitler would likely not have ran ads through facebook for the 'final
solution'.

------
classified
If ads (political or not) had to be true to be run then nobody would run any
ads at all, ever. Ads are all lies and everyone knows that.

Also, as for the role of truth in public discourse: If at least a majority
still gave a shit, Trump couldn't be president. The propagandists produce, but
the masses gobble up that crap as if it meant their life. Entertainment has
won over truth and without the customers ("users", like if the product were a
drug) that buy it the propagandists, and Zuckerberg, would have no market and
nothing to sell.

~~~
clouddrover
> _Ads are all lies and everyone knows that._

No. Some ads are simply straightforward and factual. Ads which tell you that
"the election is on" or "the circus is in town" or "items are now half the
usual price" aren't lies.

~~~
smt88
While you're absolutely correct, I've never seen an ad like that. They must
exist, but they're also a tiny fraction of all ads.

One might also argue that a purely factual, straightforward ad is a fairly
ineffective one -- one of the reasons no major corporation would point you to
Wikipedia or an investigative news piece to learn more about them.

Assuming some amount of Darwinism in the ad space, people who make purely
factual ads will go out of business pretty soon.

~~~
clouddrover
Here are some effective, factual ads:

\- An ad for a tour of parliament:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5tEKKRf8WY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5tEKKRf8WY)

\- An ad for an exhibition:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeM0ktptknI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeM0ktptknI)

\- An ad for ballet performances:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC13KUebpxE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC13KUebpxE)

\- An ad for concert dates:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf3Ih7aaBq4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf3Ih7aaBq4)

They tell you what it is, they tell you when it's on. If they're lies then
they won't be getting any bookings and they will be going out of business.

~~~
smt88
Like I said, I believe you that these exist, but they are a tiny fraction of
total ads. It's not unlikely that most ads aren't even for legitimate
products/services.

~~~
clouddrover
> _but they are a tiny fraction of total ads_

Prove it. Factual ads are far more likely to be the largest fraction purely
because they're simpler and cheaper to make.

~~~
smt88
I can’t prove it other than to say: go to literally any website and count.

My claim, that ads are more dishonest than honest, seems much less
controversial. If you can find me even a single podcast episode with only
honest ads, I’ll concede.

------
angel_j
Good speech. Had to come from a comedian, cuz who else is going to say these
things? Politicians? Tech CEO? FHO.

------
knolax
Most of SBC's "comedy" would itself be considered hate-speech if they weren't
targetting socially undesirable groups and other easy targets.

------
surfsvammel
Most, if not all, points have been made before. That doesn’t make them less
important.

We need more officials with common sense—and I’d like to say we need officials
with guts, but it seems there is one with guts, who made it to president of a
very large country, lacking all other attributes one would expect from a world
leader, so obviously guts is not enough—and integrity. Most cases are not
gray-zone free speech or not. Most cases are pretty damn clear cut.

------
nafix
Why is everyone who disagrees with SBC getting down voted? Are people not
allowed to have different opinions on this? This article and speech are
extremely subjective in their own right. Not too mention it's being sponsored
by a literal _lobbying_ group. What am I missing here?

~~~
zzzeek
how does a downvote imply that one is not allowed to have written something?
Comments and votes are both open.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
> He added: “The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the
> type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser
> instincts and that trigger outrage and fear.

This is rich coming from Sacha Baron Cohen who made a career out of appealing
to our baser instincts. Pretty much all his films are built on outrageous
scenes and mocking people.

~~~
aaomidi
His movies are ridiculous social commentary. He's making fun of people's
fears.

~~~
serf
>He's making fun of people's fears.

I must've missed that facet in 'Da Ali G Show'. Aside from the occasional
accidentally poignant political interview, he mostly just made fun of people
who were similar to his character, and the trope of British 'chavs'.

>His movies are ridiculous social commentary.

I agree, but much like Michael Moore, the ridiculousness of your person limits
your credibility in 'Real Life' at a certain point.

~~~
mola
Ali g was full of social commentary of the type that culminated with the Borat
movie. You must also take into account that that show was some time ago, his
awareness and opinions might have changed since His current stuff mostly deals
with mocking late capitalism ridiculousness. Micheal Moore is another beast,
he uses propaganda techniques to get his point across. He 'sins' in the same
way his targets do.

Cohen uses, supposedly, inferior slapstick humor to build very poingent satire
about racism consumerism bro culture fakeness etc.

------
juanbyrge
Isn't it ironic that this is said by Sacha Baron Cohen, who made a fortune
from creating fake characters that attempt to trigger folks with existing
prejudices? His characters try to get a reaction from people's antisemitism,
islamiphobia, bigotry, etc.. I am not at all disagreeing with what he is
saying in the video, and I love all of his content, but it strikes me as
hypocritical. Why is it okay for him to gain personally from provoking these
reactions from people, yet it is evil when others do the same?

~~~
threeseed
It's about the aims.

Sacha Baron Cohen does it for comedic effect. Others do it to influence
elections, destabilise societies, hurt minorities etc.

~~~
0x445442
I think it would be reasonable to conjecture that part of the reason he does
it is to hurt, or at least humiliate, those he doesn't agree with politically
and thus, to indirectly influence elections.

~~~
cycrutchfield
By that logic, any action we take indirectly influences elections. See how
ridiculous this reductionist argument is?

~~~
0x445442
About as ridiculous as suggesting Cohen's only motivation is comedy.

~~~
cycrutchfield
Hmmm, I’m starting to feel like you might be sympathetic to the kind of people
that Cohen is satirizing. Perhaps you may even share their same viewpoints as
well.

Did you feel personally attacked by ”Who Is America”?

~~~
0x445442
Nope, just pointing out the cognitive dissonance.

------
bmsd_0923
Ironic coming from a guy whose entire career is built on racist, classist, and
homophobic caricatures.

~~~
baggachipz
The entire purpose of his characters and his comedy is to hold up a mirror to
society, and it works(ed) very well.

~~~
bmsd_0923
"Sometime my sister, she show her vazhin to my brother Bilo and say 'You will
never get this you will never get it la la la la la la.' He behind his cage.
He cries, he cries and everybody laughs. She goes "You never get this." But
one time he break cage and he 'get this' and then we all laugh. High five!"

 _eyeroll_ yeah, real biting satire. Really makes me reflect on society's ills
and totally wasn't just a thinly-veiled excuse for racist frat boys to laugh
at brown muslims amidst a backdrop of endless illegal wars on muslim
countries.

