January 10, 2023 • 36 mins
Nicole Gill with Accountable Tech joins us to discuss how to stop hate speech on Twitter.
(Originally aired Date 10Jan22)
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:00):
The views and opinions expressed in this program are those
of the Speaker's and do not necessarily reflect the views
or positions of any entities they represent, including OLAS Media.
(00:21):
OLASvMedia Presents Nation State of Play. Welcome to the Nation
State of Play podcast. I'm your host, Bryan Miller. And
each episode we explore the political stories that are driving
(00:43):
public policy in California. We explore these stories with political insiders,
business leaders, journalists and policymakers themselves to get below the
surface of the headlines and show you the true forces
shaping our nation's state. Thanks for listening. Today we have
a great guest, Nicole Gill with Accountable Tech, really working
on holding big tech accountable for the many different troubling
(01:06):
things that are going on these days, particularly the violence,
the hate speech, really the toxic nature of communications in general.
And we have a conversation about Twitter to spin the
news a lot. And so it's really hard to keep
up with these developments. We try to cover the latest,
but more importantly, get into the solutions for what people
(01:27):
can do and what advertisers can do to really change
what's going on, which is fueling hate speech across the Internet.
And it's just a hugely important topic. So this is
episodes near and dear to our heart and really glad
to have Nicole on. It's one of the country's leading
experts to talk about this. Stay with us. Nicole Gill with Accountable Tech .
(01:47):
Coming up right after this.
S2 (01:53):
Listen to our weekly podcast. How to Win Friends and
Save the Republic. To hear the latest updates from the
Democracy reform space, subscribe and learn more about us at
nonpartisan Reformers dot org.
S1 (02:06):
Welcome back to the Nation State of Play podcast. Nicole,
thanks so much for being on the show today. It's
a pleasure to have you.
S2 (02:12):
Thanks for having me.
S1 (02:14):
Could you start by telling us just a little bit
about your organization, what you focus on?
S2 (02:18):
Yeah, sure. So I'm the co-founder and executive director of
Accountable Tech. We are a nonprofit advocacy group that holds
big tech companies accountable for the harms that they're inflicting
on our society, and especially democracy.
S1 (02:35):
Great. So I couldn't think of anything more Top career.
I've got a lot of issues going on and we
focus on California policy, but it's a federal policy that
impacts California. And so I've said many times on the show,
these are almost exclusively California companies that we're talking about.
I think we have a special obligation here in California
to tackle these issues. And we're not doing much of
(02:57):
anything about it actually, right now. And I want I
want to start with the Twitter story because it's it's
it's the thing that's in the news the most in
almost impossible to keep up with the daily developments from
the erratic Mr. split. What you're running a campaign is
called Stop Toxic Twitter. Can you tell us a little
bit about what your focus there is?
S2 (03:18):
Yeah, I mean, by the time this airs, I'm sure
there'll be new Musk induced news to discuss it that
he seems to be doing that every few hours. So
we have been opposed accountable tech has been opposed to
Elon Musk purchasing Twitter since that was first announced in April.
(03:39):
Our social media companies play a dominant role in how
we communicate and how information is shared. You know, shouldn't
be in the hands of unaccountable billionaires like Elon Musk,
and we have concerns about what he would do to
the platform, how he might cut staff, how he might,
(04:01):
you know, reduce the safety and security and would data
be safe. And all of those worries have really borne
out incredibly quickly. Yeah, incredibly quickly. I think quicker than
I thought. He's really gone full tilt here. So the
(04:21):
Stop Toxic Twitter campaign is a coalition of more than
60 organizations that came together immediately after the sale closed
to demand that advertisers, at a minimum, hold Ellen accountable
for keeping basic content, moderation and safety procedures and protocols
(04:43):
in place on the platform. And that kind of quickly
became apparent that that wasn't going to happen. And so
we are calling on all advertisers to stop advertising on
Twitter because they're giving money towards this regime. And their
ad dollars actually make an incredible impact on Twitter. And
(05:06):
in the last year with available data, 90% of Twitter's
revenue came from advertising. So that makes a big difference.
S1 (05:15):
Well, and that's exactly what I want to unpack more,
because I certainly agree, is that it's the hard topic.
But let's go into a little more detail on what
he has done to remove the safeguards on the content for.
So he he dissolved, I think it was this week abruptly,
the Trust and Safety Council. Is that right?
S2 (05:33):
Yeah. Yeah. I think he did that last week.
S1 (05:35):
Sort of the final theoretical guardrail on an.
S2 (05:40):
And that was it like just a council of outside
experts that were coming on board to advise and counsel
the leadership of Twitter. They were making decisions, but for
some reason he decided that was intolerable to him. He
immediately fired all of the top executives, including their head
(06:02):
of trust and safety. He has now reduced the workforce.
I saw something this morning that he's cut 70% of
the workforce. It's just not physically possible to maintain the
safety and security of a platform as large as Twitter
with 70% less people. You know that that makes a
(06:27):
huge difference, not only in the sense of, you know,
there might not be enough people to do the job,
but also just institutional knowledge, you know, where knowing where
to go or who to call when something breaks, they
don't have that anymore. And and Elon doesn't seem to
care all that much about it.
S1 (06:49):
So in addition to removing employees and outside advisors who
are responsible for safety, he has reinstated going to exclude
that because he initially reinstated all accounts that he started.
Then he started suspending random different accounts for different reasons.
(07:10):
But initially he basically said all suspended accounts are reinstated.
That I did. I get that right.
S2 (07:17):
Yeah. And all suspended accounts that didn't weren't like charged
with breaking the law I think was his his line
but yeah he's he's re platformed neo-Nazis leaders of Q
or not infection. Like, not like, you know, objectively not
(07:39):
great people that are just on the platform to spread
a hateful, nasty, violent message.
S1 (07:46):
People who use Twitter to help plan the January six insurrection.
S2 (07:51):
Absolutely.
S1 (07:51):
Including former President Trump. It's not like I think it
hasn't come back on. It has been. Welcome back. He
hasn't come back because he hasn't.
S2 (07:59):
Yeah, his account has been reinstated, but he hasn't tweeted yet.
He's been sticking to truth social. And, you know, we'll
see how long it takes for him to cave in
and come back to Twitter. Donald Trump is like Elon Musk,
I think, a man who enjoys the spotlight. And Twitter
provided a lot of that for him over the years.
S1 (08:21):
And just for context, on how Trump is currently using
his own social media platform, it's this is a matter
of Twitter. He recently called for the suspension of the
United States Constitution on his own platform. And this is
the kind of thing that would be. Welcome back on Twitter.
S2 (08:41):
Yeah, he called for the suspension of the US Constitution
again because he believes that the 2020 election was stolen
from him. So he's still pushing the big lie. We
did research that was released last week showing that we
looked at about a five month period of Trump's posts
(09:02):
on True social. And this might be getting ahead, but
we we aligned them to Facebook's safety guidelines and community
standards to see how they would hold up against kind
of the rules of that platform. And it was like
360 posts that clearly violated Facebook's community standards. And those
(09:27):
posts were mainly amplifying and false and amplifying kind of
Q and I in content. Q And on leaders sympathizers
of that, which is a violent, you know, violent, anti-Semitic,
racist movement. He also spent a ton of time spreading
(09:49):
harmful election related disinformation that is just intended to undermine
safety and trust that Americans have in our election system.
And so in the last two years since, Trump has
has not been on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube, his
rhetoric has actually only amplified. He's gotten more bold, more
(10:11):
willing to make threats of violence. And there's no reason
that we think that would change if he was allowed
back on a more mainstream platform.
S1 (10:21):
Right. Okay. So I know it sounds like a dwelling
on silencers, but I want to make sure we articulate
all the parade of horribles of people who are now
back on Twitter because of why we're talking about this.
And so, you know, you mentioned you're not but racists, anti-Semites,
anti LGBTQ bigots, people who spread misinformation, people spread election misinformation,
(10:44):
criminals who actively use Twitter to plan crimes, including January six,
as we mentioned, school shootings. What what am I what
am I missing off from from this culture of sucks.
S2 (10:57):
The pretty awful, awful list to start with. I mean
you know he's taken a particular interest in anti-trans rhetoric. Yeah.
Which is just so so harmful and apparently Ellen has
a trans child is incredibly anti-trans and is spending time
(11:21):
you know replatforming folks who spread that that kind of
vitriol and message and also sometimes amplifying it himself and
that that one has has real world consequences. This is
a community that we know is already experiencing extensive mental
health challenges and online bullying and harassment. And and when
(11:45):
the well, he's not the richest man in the world anymore,
but when then the richest man in the world is
amplifying that content, it just offers a permission structure to
others who might have held those beliefs, but kept them
back to be public and forthright with them.
S1 (12:02):
Absolutely. Okay. I want to get to the advertising issue.
But before I do that, I've been really disheartened to
see how few politicians have left Twitter. And so I
want to ask you about that. And I do want
to flag a few people who have been bold and
brave on this locally here. Jeff Rosen, who is the
data from Santa Clara County, was one of the first
(12:22):
people I saw in Northern California to leave Twitter. And
he said it all the things that we're talking about
right now and being a D.A. from the heart of
Silicon Valley, I actually thought that was really important because
you talked about the law enforcement. Issues that Twitter is
making much more dangerous is the violence and hate speech
and planning crimes on Twitter. And then it was yesterday
(12:47):
the former mayor of Los Angeles and 20 years ago
said that he was leaving Twitter. And I thought he
wrote a really thoughtful statement. So I recommend everybody to
read that. Those are the only two I can think of.
I'm sure I've missed some. But what do you see
going on in this space from sort of mainstream politicians
staying on Twitter?
S2 (13:06):
So you're right, very few politicians have decided to get
off the platform. There's been some celebrities that have and
have made quite public posts about it. Elton John is
the most prominent that comes to my mind right now.
I think that's a little bit of what's the alternative.
And there isn't really a viable alternative at the moment
(13:29):
to Twitter. And what Twitter is now took, you know,
a decade to make. I joined Twitter in 2008, and
that was, I think, in the early years. But that
was 14 years ago. Right. And so this platform has
been a central component of our news making system, our
(13:49):
news sharing system, for almost two decades. And to just
pop something up that can replicate that is is challenging.
There are people who are trying to do that. But
I think it's going to take time and trial and error,
which is probably right to to do that, to give
it some time. So, you know, there haven't been many
(14:15):
politicians who who have left. I think the other big
category people here who have power is journalists and news organizations.
So last week, Elon went on a banning spree of
journalists who have written or spoken out against or just
not against him, but reporting they're reporting the facts and
(14:38):
he doesn't like that. And so he went ahead and
banned a bunch of them. He's let some of them
back on. He hasn't let them all, but he has
let some. And I think in this moment, you know, again,
like an individual reporter, it's hard for that type of
person to leave the platform. And it says it's a
(15:01):
place they get sources. It's where they build an audience.
But a news organization should consider what it is doing
to fuel Elon Musk's Twitter. You know, there are some
that are still advertising on the platform. I would encourage
those news organizations to stop immediately. You're you're paying an actor,
(15:23):
a bad actor, who is banning and essentially censoring the
free press. I also think that platform, not platform, sorry,
that news entities are going to have to really consider
how long they can stay as an entity on this platform.
(15:44):
And if news organizations start to make moves or start
to put conditions on Ellen, I think that is a
huge source of power and leverage on him because news
is such a function of what Twitter is and why
it's so valuable.
S1 (16:03):
What kind of conditions would be an example.
S2 (16:05):
If they could put the same conditions on them, on
him that we did, you know, uphold and maintain your content,
moderation and safety standards. Journalists have been getting attacked on
Twitter long before Ellen, but it's also gotten worse because
there are less people to report it to and there's
(16:28):
more people who are emboldened on the platform. And I
think also this idea of banning journalists whenever you want to,
for whatever reason you want to his excuse was that
they were doxing his son. There's been no evidence to
show that was was the case. And so I don't
(16:50):
think that that is something we want to allow and
become comfortable with in a democratic society.
S1 (16:56):
The censorship in your in your book, your point is
they should cease advertising and potentially cease being on the
platforms as organizations if those things don't happen. Right.
S2 (17:05):
Yeah, I think they should consider what they're contributing by
either advertising or being on the platform at some point.
S1 (17:13):
So to this point, one of the strange things is
I think actually The Washington Post covered this story, which
is sort of met on two levels. But even when
their own or even when the some of these organizations
own journalists were being banned over the last few weeks,
the organized the organizations themselves stayed on Twitter during the
May and may have kept advertising, I think. Two. But
(17:35):
that seems like table stakes. It's like, okay, we don't
want to hurt her. We're not going to be on
as as a paper, sweetie. Right?
S2 (17:43):
Right. Once you're, you know, threatening the freedom of the press.
And yeah, I think as an organ, a news organization,
it's time to look at your policies and whether or
not it's worth being on a platform that is choosing
to censor.
S1 (18:01):
Yeah, and that's a pretty is one for me. So
before you mentioned there's no alternative, but but I want
to press you on that a little bit. First of all,
at a high level, why do we need an alternative
sort of platform where we can stream of consciousness first,
whatever comes to our head?
S2 (18:18):
One factor is, you know, often when we are talking
about Twitter and thinking about Twitter, we think about national
news organizations, prominent local officials or national officials. And it's
actually used in so many local cases. So, you know,
(18:41):
my city councilor, for example, uses his Twitter account and
I follow him. And, you know, he gives us updates
on Twitter about. There's a park in my neighborhood that's
supposed to be getting redone and I'm very would like
the park to be redone. And it's just an easy
method of communication between local officials, especially and their communities.
(19:05):
You know, you think about local election officials or sending
out public safety notices. We've all kind of become accustomed
to those showing up on Twitter first.
S1 (19:18):
But why can't you do that on Facebook and Instagram?
What's what is a practical matter? What? Well.
S2 (19:25):
I mean, first of all, it's interesting that nobody is
suggesting that, right? Nobody has suggested that we go back
to Facebook as an alternative, says something about Facebook or not. Yeah,
I think there are some folks that are. But Twitter
was kind of a pared down, cleaner platform for news specifically.
(19:50):
And Facebook is known as where you go to see
your racist uncle spew off about something racist.
S1 (19:57):
Right.
S2 (19:58):
So it would be competing with other content that is
designed to drive outrage, which is really how Facebooks algorithm works.
The more outrageous something it is, the more engagement it
gets and therefore the more reach it gets. And so
that would I mean, we think Twitter's bad at incentivizing
soundbites and headlines like Facebook's algorithm would really reward that.
S1 (20:23):
Okay. So it sounds like you've stayed on Twitter personally.
S2 (20:27):
I have Twitter. I'm on Twitter. I do have an
Instagram account, although I don't post on it and haven't
for years. And this past summer, I did try to
post my dog Dine, and I wanted to let people know,
like friends from my past. And it was. Complicated to
(20:50):
figure out how to post like these apps have gotten
pretty intense. And and I think that's important to think
about when we talk about parental controls or safety features.
Like I couldn't figure out how to post a picture
of my dog on Instagram. So I'm on Instagram and
I have joined new two new platforms, Mastodon and Post.
(21:16):
And those are the only platforms I on.
S1 (21:19):
So your advice to people is not to leave Twitter,
but I want to again, I to talk about this
advertising issue. But as personal users, you're not asking people
to really close their Twitter accounts or what what's what's
your reaction when something as I mentioned before, a bunch
of people that have no.
S2 (21:36):
I think the people that have power here are advertisers.
So that's why our actions and ads have gone directly
to advertisers. And then, you know, kind of like I
said earlier, I think news outlets also have a lot
of power here and they haven't exercised that individual users.
I think there's a lot of people who have realized
(21:56):
and identified how toxic Twitter has gotten over the past
few years and made a decision to get off the platform.
You know, that's an individual decision, and I think folks
should make the decision that is best for them and
their mental health especially.
S1 (22:13):
I just want to say I am one of those
people and I'm completely off. It feels great. And I
can I commend at least trying it to everybody. I'm
not trying to suggest that this should be a permanent state.
But if one of the writers that like we want you.
S2 (22:30):
Yeah. Are you on other platforms?
S1 (22:33):
I'm you know, I'm an Instagram, but I don't post
I view it. I use it purely for keeping up
on a few niche sports that I follow. Okay. So
I have a completely non-work curated Instagram account where I'm
just a voyeur for particular action sports news, which just
(22:53):
for those who are listening out there, know what I'm
talking about. If you want to find out the latest skateboarding, surfing, snowboarding,
Instagram is it's where people post the cool tricks. So,
I mean, that is fairly non-toxic to my mental health
unless it gets me to try it, try something when
I'm still doing those sports. As a middle aged person,
that hurts myself. That's my own fault. But it's mostly
(23:16):
my mostly my own. So. So yeah, I just I
just find the whole like, the whole freedom of not
feeling like I have to share my opinions on things.
Just really liberating. You don't always have to have an
opinion or at least share the opinion. So anyway, I
would just suggest maybe try it for a week, see
(23:39):
how it feels. Usually if we think we can't live
without somebody, that's probably what we need to try to
live without it the most. But but anyway, back to
the advertising point, which I certainly agree with you. This
is the heart of this issue. So so let's talk
about what's happening here. And I think one of the
things I find confusing here is I see your point
about politicians and individuals not necessarily having great alternatives, but
(24:02):
there's plenty of advertising alternatives to Twitter. Twitter is just
one of many things any big company does. Maybe it's
better for certain products and has has niches and performs
well on things, but I don't think we there's no
company that only advertises on tours or no major company
(24:24):
that only average prices on Twitter. So Twitter itself, what's
what's going on here from your point?
S2 (24:30):
Yeah, I agree that Twitter is often kind of the
afterthought on any CMO's budget line. And for that reason,
I think it should be even easier to decide.
S1 (24:43):
That's my point. Why isn't that right?
S2 (24:45):
Yeah, I think there's a couple of things happening. One
is a lot of the buys that are still existing,
so are on Twitter were pre-buy. They were bought before
Elon took over. A lot of large companies do this.
They buy for the year in advance. And so some
(25:08):
of those are just cycling hours.
S1 (25:11):
So that's a reason for some potential optimism here.
S2 (25:14):
Yeah. Yeah, I think so. I, I think.
S1 (25:19):
It can start. Do you think some of that comes
to the end now, like at the end of 2022?
I think we're getting some chatter.
S2 (25:25):
Yeah, I think January and first quarter 2023 will be
really interesting. It's also just a period of lower advertising
right after the holidays. And so we'll get to see
who was maybe maintaining their ads for kind of consumer
purchases like advertising products or services that could be holiday gifts.
(25:48):
Some of those might drop off. Iwan is a bully.
He is a bully on and off Twitter. And I
don't think anyone is free of his grasp. And I
think some of these brands are understandably concerned about what
(26:09):
happens when he finds out that they have completely stopped
their advice. And anecdotally, we have heard that from brands
that they just reduced their spend to maybe $500 a
week or a fraction of what it was, but they're
maintaining something so that they can't be called out and
(26:30):
then become prey for Ellen to pounce on.
S1 (26:34):
Well, into to your point, he attacked Apple was the
most valuable company in the world. And Tim Cook specifically.
So if he's not going to take on Apple, it's
probably going to take on.
S2 (26:43):
Yeah. And Apple is like has upped their advertising like
Apple is full speed ahead on Twitter right now.
S1 (26:51):
I want to close when I think this is really
a strange subset of the story. So I'm glad you
mention that because initially they basically it looked like they
stopped the advertising. Right. And Musk called out Apple and
then it sounds like they spoke afterwards.
S2 (27:09):
Well, his he I guess like after he bought Twitter,
he found out that the Apple App Store takes a 30%
cut of all purchases, downloads made in the App Store.
And he decided that this was like state secrets that
he had just found out. I mean, this is fairly
(27:30):
well known. There's been a court case about it for
the last few years. Epic Games has been suing Apple
for that very reason. And so that is what he
really tried to take. That is what got him really
upset about Apple as he was thinking about and has
(27:54):
kind of launched sort of launched his Twitter blew his,
you know, pay for checkmark system. He quickly realized that 30%
of every $8 fee a month was going to go
to Apple and decided to try to spark outrage about this.
I think all the other app developers, whether they're big
(28:16):
or small in the App Store right now, said, Yeah, bro,
like we know we've been saying this for a while.
Welcome to the fight.
S1 (28:24):
Right? Okay, but then but then there was this advertising discussion,
apparently Cook and musk. And I'd love to be a
fly on the wall in that one because. Because Twitter
and it just gets into a few strange sub threads. So,
so so bear with us listeners for a minute. So initially,
Musk said something along the lines of does Apple hate
(28:45):
free speech because they have reduced their advertising and they're getting.
S2 (28:52):
I mean, that's just such a mist under our misunderstanding.
Of what? Free speech. Oh.
S1 (28:59):
And that's what I want to get. That's exactly what
it is out here. Yeah, but but just in terms
of the sequence, it's like he. But it did seem
like initially Apple reduced its advertising. Is that initially what happens?
S2 (29:11):
You know, honestly.
S1 (29:13):
There's so much chaos it's it's impossible to keep up
but let's get it to stipulate to it. That's my
recollection is is what happened initially. Yeah Apple pulled back
on its advertising that caused this this Yeah nonsensical free
speech quote and this is this is I'm glad you
mention how crazy this is so I see this as
(29:33):
a reform self-hating lawyer. Okay. But but let's just get
down what free speech is and what it's not. And
and Stephen Colbert, if you had seen the clip, just
said this absolutely perfectly a few weeks ago. Okay, So
freedom of speech is about the government telling you what
you can or can't say. It is not about advertisers
being forced to ban hate speech or speech that they
(29:55):
disagree about. It's about government action. Okay. Am I getting
any of that room so far? No. You're going to
hear it. Well, again, again, I'm a self-hating record player,
but I but I've had people who I consider smart people,
even other even other lawyers repeat this nonsense back to me.
So I just want to do that. Okay. Yeah. So one,
(30:17):
it's it's about what the government does. If you don't
believe me, read the First Amendment to the Constitution. It's
very clear. Says Congress shall make no law, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So Congress, that's what we're talking about. So, so the
idea that if an advertiser decides as a private entity
not to advertise on a platform, that that somehow violation
(30:38):
of free speech, that's just you're you're just talking about
comparing apples and chicken chickens, it's just you've builded so
many different concepts and it's simply silly. But I also
want to call out the hypocrisy in Republicans making this
argument in particular, because it strikes me as especially rich
that the party who's always talking about how the private
(31:01):
sector can regulate itself, when you see the private sector
regulating itself by pulling advertising from a platform that is
like hate speech, then the Republicans complain that that violates
the Constitution, that it's somehow big government is requiring you
to fund that hate speech. And it might be I
(31:23):
want to see some crazy that is for the Republicans
to make to make that argument.
S2 (31:28):
Yeah, I mean, look, Republicans only believe in logic to
the extent that it supports the argument they want to make.
So I think you're completely right. They will use any
instance like this to claim censorship. And, you know, in
the same way that Apple or any company has the
(31:51):
power and the right to either advertise or not advertise somewhere,
that platform has the right an ability to decide whether
or not they're going to take that advertisement or not. Right. Right.
You want also has power in this company rejecting other advertisers.
(32:13):
We don't know. We don't know because there are private
company and they haven't said it. And so it's extremely hypocritical.
And I think your point is right on.
S1 (32:25):
Well, and again, I want to commend people to Mayor
Villaraigosa statement on this that that he posts on Facebook
and Twitter explaining why he likes Twitter yesterday and keep going.
He did a really good job of calling this out.
So and maybe we should have him on the show
some time to talk about this more as I think
about it. Okay. But but back to this point about
why the advertisers are running. So maybe some optimism that
(32:47):
it's just they want to keep a toehold in. They're
getting they're getting bullied. That's interesting. I hadn't thought about that,
that perspective. And maybe it's just some cycling coming off,
but clearly there's alternatives. As you say, Twitter's an afterthought
for most of us. Quite frankly, the reasons the platform
(33:08):
is not making money is like it's not a particularly
good advertising platform. It's where, as you say, 90% of
that revenue comes from, but it's still not very good
at it, which is why it's on the verge of bankruptcy.
So so to advertisers out there, like what would you
say in terms of like, you know, alternatives out there
(33:30):
or just asking them why they're continuing to advertise on
clearly a step up to the advertising platform when it happens?
S2 (33:37):
I think.
S1 (33:38):
That.
S2 (33:39):
The you know, the decision of why and how they
advertise is up to them. I think at this point
it's very clear that they are if they're ever to.
I think on Twitter, they're funding the spread of violent rhetoric.
They're funding the spread of anti-Semitism on a Q and
(34:00):
on theories of hate speech and racist content and anti
LGBTQ plots and trans content. And they're directly responsible for
that because their funds are enabling the platform to still run. And,
you know, if I was a brand that had my
(34:21):
dollars running on Twitter, you know, I also would be
pretty scared about what what type of content my ads
are showing up next to. You know, the more of
these bad actors he's got on, the more just really
inappropriate and awful content. GREENE We'll see. And I don't
(34:42):
want my friend to be seen next to anti-Semitism. That's
a that's a horrible look for my brand.
S1 (34:50):
Okay. So we're going to stop there. I was we
didn't have a chance to even get to some of
the other platforms. The Twitter stuff is just such a
cauldron of crazy that it is time well spent. So
I appreciate you indulging in that. Maybe we could have
you back some time to talk about some of your
other campaigns, which are also really important. But I first
of all, want to thank you for what you do.
And I think you being one of the few voices
(35:11):
who's articulating this. But if people who are listening want
to hear more about your work, read more about your work,
how can they get involved? Where should they go?
S2 (35:19):
Yeah, we're at Accountable Tech, dawg, and we're on a
couple of social platforms. We're still on Twitter. We're starting
on Instagram and starting to grow on other platforms, but
just look up accountable tech, dawg, for more information about
us and our work.
S1 (35:39):
Great. Nicole, thanks so much for being on the show.
It's a pleasure to have.
S2 (35:43):
Thank you.
S1 (35:49):
We invite you to share ideas for guests, ask questions
in the comments. You can find us at Neptune Ops dot com .
Follow us and subscribe whereever you get your podcasts as we continue to
explore the inside stories driving California politics. This is the
Nation State of Play podcast. I'm your host, Bryan Miller,
and thank you for listening. OLAS Media.
The views and opinions expressed in this program are those
of the Speaker's and do not necessarily reflect the views
or positions of any entities they represent, including OLAS Media.
(00:21):
OLASvMedia Presents Nation State of Play. Welcome to the Nation
State of Play podcast. I'm your host, Bryan Miller. And
each episode we explore the political stories that are driving
(00:43):
public policy in California. We explore these stories with political insiders,
business leaders, journalists and policymakers themselves to get below the
surface of the headlines and show you the true forces
shaping our nation's state. Thanks for listening. Today we have
a great guest, Nicole Gill with Accountable Tech, really working
on holding big tech accountable for the many different troubling
(01:06):
things that are going on these days, particularly the violence,
the hate speech, really the toxic nature of communications in general.
And we have a conversation about Twitter to spin the
news a lot. And so it's really hard to keep
up with these developments. We try to cover the latest,
but more importantly, get into the solutions for what people
(01:27):
can do and what advertisers can do to really change
what's going on, which is fueling hate speech across the Internet.
And it's just a hugely important topic. So this is
episodes near and dear to our heart and really glad
to have Nicole on. It's one of the country's leading
experts to talk about this. Stay with us. Nicole Gill with Accountable Tech .
(01:47):
Coming up right after this.
S2 (01:53):
Listen to our weekly podcast. How to Win Friends and
Save the Republic. To hear the latest updates from the
Democracy reform space, subscribe and learn more about us at
nonpartisan Reformers dot org.
S1 (02:06):
Welcome back to the Nation State of Play podcast. Nicole,
thanks so much for being on the show today. It's
a pleasure to have you.
S2 (02:12):
Thanks for having me.
S1 (02:14):
Could you start by telling us just a little bit
about your organization, what you focus on?
S2 (02:18):
Yeah, sure. So I'm the co-founder and executive director of
Accountable Tech. We are a nonprofit advocacy group that holds
big tech companies accountable for the harms that they're inflicting
on our society, and especially democracy.
S1 (02:35):
Great. So I couldn't think of anything more Top career.
I've got a lot of issues going on and we
focus on California policy, but it's a federal policy that
impacts California. And so I've said many times on the show,
these are almost exclusively California companies that we're talking about.
I think we have a special obligation here in California
to tackle these issues. And we're not doing much of
(02:57):
anything about it actually, right now. And I want I
want to start with the Twitter story because it's it's
it's the thing that's in the news the most in
almost impossible to keep up with the daily developments from
the erratic Mr. split. What you're running a campaign is
called Stop Toxic Twitter. Can you tell us a little
bit about what your focus there is?
S2 (03:18):
Yeah, I mean, by the time this airs, I'm sure
there'll be new Musk induced news to discuss it that
he seems to be doing that every few hours. So
we have been opposed accountable tech has been opposed to
Elon Musk purchasing Twitter since that was first announced in April.
(03:39):
Our social media companies play a dominant role in how
we communicate and how information is shared. You know, shouldn't
be in the hands of unaccountable billionaires like Elon Musk,
and we have concerns about what he would do to
the platform, how he might cut staff, how he might,
(04:01):
you know, reduce the safety and security and would data
be safe. And all of those worries have really borne
out incredibly quickly. Yeah, incredibly quickly. I think quicker than
I thought. He's really gone full tilt here. So the
(04:21):
Stop Toxic Twitter campaign is a coalition of more than
60 organizations that came together immediately after the sale closed
to demand that advertisers, at a minimum, hold Ellen accountable
for keeping basic content, moderation and safety procedures and protocols
(04:43):
in place on the platform. And that kind of quickly
became apparent that that wasn't going to happen. And so
we are calling on all advertisers to stop advertising on
Twitter because they're giving money towards this regime. And their
ad dollars actually make an incredible impact on Twitter. And
(05:06):
in the last year with available data, 90% of Twitter's
revenue came from advertising. So that makes a big difference.
S1 (05:15):
Well, and that's exactly what I want to unpack more,
because I certainly agree, is that it's the hard topic.
But let's go into a little more detail on what
he has done to remove the safeguards on the content for.
So he he dissolved, I think it was this week abruptly,
the Trust and Safety Council. Is that right?
S2 (05:33):
Yeah. Yeah. I think he did that last week.
S1 (05:35):
Sort of the final theoretical guardrail on an.
S2 (05:40):
And that was it like just a council of outside
experts that were coming on board to advise and counsel
the leadership of Twitter. They were making decisions, but for
some reason he decided that was intolerable to him. He
immediately fired all of the top executives, including their head
(06:02):
of trust and safety. He has now reduced the workforce.
I saw something this morning that he's cut 70% of
the workforce. It's just not physically possible to maintain the
safety and security of a platform as large as Twitter
with 70% less people. You know that that makes a
(06:27):
huge difference, not only in the sense of, you know,
there might not be enough people to do the job,
but also just institutional knowledge, you know, where knowing where
to go or who to call when something breaks, they
don't have that anymore. And and Elon doesn't seem to
care all that much about it.
S1 (06:49):
So in addition to removing employees and outside advisors who
are responsible for safety, he has reinstated going to exclude
that because he initially reinstated all accounts that he started.
Then he started suspending random different accounts for different reasons.
(07:10):
But initially he basically said all suspended accounts are reinstated.
That I did. I get that right.
S2 (07:17):
Yeah. And all suspended accounts that didn't weren't like charged
with breaking the law I think was his his line
but yeah he's he's re platformed neo-Nazis leaders of Q
or not infection. Like, not like, you know, objectively not
(07:39):
great people that are just on the platform to spread
a hateful, nasty, violent message.
S1 (07:46):
People who use Twitter to help plan the January six insurrection.
S2 (07:51):
Absolutely.
S1 (07:51):
Including former President Trump. It's not like I think it
hasn't come back on. It has been. Welcome back. He
hasn't come back because he hasn't.
S2 (07:59):
Yeah, his account has been reinstated, but he hasn't tweeted yet.
He's been sticking to truth social. And, you know, we'll
see how long it takes for him to cave in
and come back to Twitter. Donald Trump is like Elon Musk,
I think, a man who enjoys the spotlight. And Twitter
provided a lot of that for him over the years.
S1 (08:21):
And just for context, on how Trump is currently using
his own social media platform, it's this is a matter
of Twitter. He recently called for the suspension of the
United States Constitution on his own platform. And this is
the kind of thing that would be. Welcome back on Twitter.
S2 (08:41):
Yeah, he called for the suspension of the US Constitution
again because he believes that the 2020 election was stolen
from him. So he's still pushing the big lie. We
did research that was released last week showing that we
looked at about a five month period of Trump's posts
(09:02):
on True social. And this might be getting ahead, but
we we aligned them to Facebook's safety guidelines and community
standards to see how they would hold up against kind
of the rules of that platform. And it was like
360 posts that clearly violated Facebook's community standards. And those
(09:27):
posts were mainly amplifying and false and amplifying kind of
Q and I in content. Q And on leaders sympathizers
of that, which is a violent, you know, violent, anti-Semitic,
racist movement. He also spent a ton of time spreading
(09:49):
harmful election related disinformation that is just intended to undermine
safety and trust that Americans have in our election system.
And so in the last two years since, Trump has
has not been on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube, his
rhetoric has actually only amplified. He's gotten more bold, more
(10:11):
willing to make threats of violence. And there's no reason
that we think that would change if he was allowed
back on a more mainstream platform.
S1 (10:21):
Right. Okay. So I know it sounds like a dwelling
on silencers, but I want to make sure we articulate
all the parade of horribles of people who are now
back on Twitter because of why we're talking about this.
And so, you know, you mentioned you're not but racists, anti-Semites,
anti LGBTQ bigots, people who spread misinformation, people spread election misinformation,
(10:44):
criminals who actively use Twitter to plan crimes, including January six,
as we mentioned, school shootings. What what am I what
am I missing off from from this culture of sucks.
S2 (10:57):
The pretty awful, awful list to start with. I mean
you know he's taken a particular interest in anti-trans rhetoric. Yeah.
Which is just so so harmful and apparently Ellen has
a trans child is incredibly anti-trans and is spending time
(11:21):
you know replatforming folks who spread that that kind of
vitriol and message and also sometimes amplifying it himself and
that that one has has real world consequences. This is
a community that we know is already experiencing extensive mental
health challenges and online bullying and harassment. And and when
(11:45):
the well, he's not the richest man in the world anymore,
but when then the richest man in the world is
amplifying that content, it just offers a permission structure to
others who might have held those beliefs, but kept them
back to be public and forthright with them.
S1 (12:02):
Absolutely. Okay. I want to get to the advertising issue.
But before I do that, I've been really disheartened to
see how few politicians have left Twitter. And so I
want to ask you about that. And I do want
to flag a few people who have been bold and
brave on this locally here. Jeff Rosen, who is the
data from Santa Clara County, was one of the first
(12:22):
people I saw in Northern California to leave Twitter. And
he said it all the things that we're talking about
right now and being a D.A. from the heart of
Silicon Valley, I actually thought that was really important because
you talked about the law enforcement. Issues that Twitter is
making much more dangerous is the violence and hate speech
and planning crimes on Twitter. And then it was yesterday
(12:47):
the former mayor of Los Angeles and 20 years ago
said that he was leaving Twitter. And I thought he
wrote a really thoughtful statement. So I recommend everybody to
read that. Those are the only two I can think of.
I'm sure I've missed some. But what do you see
going on in this space from sort of mainstream politicians
staying on Twitter?
S2 (13:06):
So you're right, very few politicians have decided to get
off the platform. There's been some celebrities that have and
have made quite public posts about it. Elton John is
the most prominent that comes to my mind right now.
I think that's a little bit of what's the alternative.
And there isn't really a viable alternative at the moment
(13:29):
to Twitter. And what Twitter is now took, you know,
a decade to make. I joined Twitter in 2008, and
that was, I think, in the early years. But that
was 14 years ago. Right. And so this platform has
been a central component of our news making system, our
(13:49):
news sharing system, for almost two decades. And to just
pop something up that can replicate that is is challenging.
There are people who are trying to do that. But
I think it's going to take time and trial and error,
which is probably right to to do that, to give
it some time. So, you know, there haven't been many
(14:15):
politicians who who have left. I think the other big
category people here who have power is journalists and news organizations.
So last week, Elon went on a banning spree of
journalists who have written or spoken out against or just
not against him, but reporting they're reporting the facts and
(14:38):
he doesn't like that. And so he went ahead and
banned a bunch of them. He's let some of them
back on. He hasn't let them all, but he has
let some. And I think in this moment, you know, again,
like an individual reporter, it's hard for that type of
person to leave the platform. And it says it's a
(15:01):
place they get sources. It's where they build an audience.
But a news organization should consider what it is doing
to fuel Elon Musk's Twitter. You know, there are some
that are still advertising on the platform. I would encourage
those news organizations to stop immediately. You're you're paying an actor,
(15:23):
a bad actor, who is banning and essentially censoring the
free press. I also think that platform, not platform, sorry,
that news entities are going to have to really consider
how long they can stay as an entity on this platform.
(15:44):
And if news organizations start to make moves or start
to put conditions on Ellen, I think that is a
huge source of power and leverage on him because news
is such a function of what Twitter is and why
it's so valuable.
S1 (16:03):
What kind of conditions would be an example.
S2 (16:05):
If they could put the same conditions on them, on
him that we did, you know, uphold and maintain your content,
moderation and safety standards. Journalists have been getting attacked on
Twitter long before Ellen, but it's also gotten worse because
there are less people to report it to and there's
(16:28):
more people who are emboldened on the platform. And I
think also this idea of banning journalists whenever you want to,
for whatever reason you want to his excuse was that
they were doxing his son. There's been no evidence to
show that was was the case. And so I don't
(16:50):
think that that is something we want to allow and
become comfortable with in a democratic society.
S1 (16:56):
The censorship in your in your book, your point is
they should cease advertising and potentially cease being on the
platforms as organizations if those things don't happen. Right.
S2 (17:05):
Yeah, I think they should consider what they're contributing by
either advertising or being on the platform at some point.
S1 (17:13):
So to this point, one of the strange things is
I think actually The Washington Post covered this story, which
is sort of met on two levels. But even when
their own or even when the some of these organizations
own journalists were being banned over the last few weeks,
the organized the organizations themselves stayed on Twitter during the
May and may have kept advertising, I think. Two. But
(17:35):
that seems like table stakes. It's like, okay, we don't
want to hurt her. We're not going to be on
as as a paper, sweetie. Right?
S2 (17:43):
Right. Once you're, you know, threatening the freedom of the press.
And yeah, I think as an organ, a news organization,
it's time to look at your policies and whether or
not it's worth being on a platform that is choosing
to censor.
S1 (18:01):
Yeah, and that's a pretty is one for me. So
before you mentioned there's no alternative, but but I want
to press you on that a little bit. First of all,
at a high level, why do we need an alternative
sort of platform where we can stream of consciousness first,
whatever comes to our head?
S2 (18:18):
One factor is, you know, often when we are talking
about Twitter and thinking about Twitter, we think about national
news organizations, prominent local officials or national officials. And it's
actually used in so many local cases. So, you know,
(18:41):
my city councilor, for example, uses his Twitter account and
I follow him. And, you know, he gives us updates
on Twitter about. There's a park in my neighborhood that's
supposed to be getting redone and I'm very would like
the park to be redone. And it's just an easy
method of communication between local officials, especially and their communities.
(19:05):
You know, you think about local election officials or sending
out public safety notices. We've all kind of become accustomed
to those showing up on Twitter first.
S1 (19:18):
But why can't you do that on Facebook and Instagram?
What's what is a practical matter? What? Well.
S2 (19:25):
I mean, first of all, it's interesting that nobody is
suggesting that, right? Nobody has suggested that we go back
to Facebook as an alternative, says something about Facebook or not. Yeah,
I think there are some folks that are. But Twitter
was kind of a pared down, cleaner platform for news specifically.
(19:50):
And Facebook is known as where you go to see
your racist uncle spew off about something racist.
S1 (19:57):
Right.
S2 (19:58):
So it would be competing with other content that is
designed to drive outrage, which is really how Facebooks algorithm works.
The more outrageous something it is, the more engagement it
gets and therefore the more reach it gets. And so
that would I mean, we think Twitter's bad at incentivizing
soundbites and headlines like Facebook's algorithm would really reward that.
S1 (20:23):
Okay. So it sounds like you've stayed on Twitter personally.
S2 (20:27):
I have Twitter. I'm on Twitter. I do have an
Instagram account, although I don't post on it and haven't
for years. And this past summer, I did try to
post my dog Dine, and I wanted to let people know,
like friends from my past. And it was. Complicated to
(20:50):
figure out how to post like these apps have gotten
pretty intense. And and I think that's important to think
about when we talk about parental controls or safety features.
Like I couldn't figure out how to post a picture
of my dog on Instagram. So I'm on Instagram and
I have joined new two new platforms, Mastodon and Post.
(21:16):
And those are the only platforms I on.
S1 (21:19):
So your advice to people is not to leave Twitter,
but I want to again, I to talk about this
advertising issue. But as personal users, you're not asking people
to really close their Twitter accounts or what what's what's
your reaction when something as I mentioned before, a bunch
of people that have no.
S2 (21:36):
I think the people that have power here are advertisers.
So that's why our actions and ads have gone directly
to advertisers. And then, you know, kind of like I
said earlier, I think news outlets also have a lot
of power here and they haven't exercised that individual users.
I think there's a lot of people who have realized
(21:56):
and identified how toxic Twitter has gotten over the past
few years and made a decision to get off the platform.
You know, that's an individual decision, and I think folks
should make the decision that is best for them and
their mental health especially.
S1 (22:13):
I just want to say I am one of those
people and I'm completely off. It feels great. And I
can I commend at least trying it to everybody. I'm
not trying to suggest that this should be a permanent state.
But if one of the writers that like we want you.
S2 (22:30):
Yeah. Are you on other platforms?
S1 (22:33):
I'm you know, I'm an Instagram, but I don't post
I view it. I use it purely for keeping up
on a few niche sports that I follow. Okay. So
I have a completely non-work curated Instagram account where I'm
just a voyeur for particular action sports news, which just
(22:53):
for those who are listening out there, know what I'm
talking about. If you want to find out the latest skateboarding, surfing, snowboarding,
Instagram is it's where people post the cool tricks. So,
I mean, that is fairly non-toxic to my mental health
unless it gets me to try it, try something when
I'm still doing those sports. As a middle aged person,
that hurts myself. That's my own fault. But it's mostly
(23:16):
my mostly my own. So. So yeah, I just I
just find the whole like, the whole freedom of not
feeling like I have to share my opinions on things.
Just really liberating. You don't always have to have an
opinion or at least share the opinion. So anyway, I
would just suggest maybe try it for a week, see
(23:39):
how it feels. Usually if we think we can't live
without somebody, that's probably what we need to try to
live without it the most. But but anyway, back to
the advertising point, which I certainly agree with you. This
is the heart of this issue. So so let's talk
about what's happening here. And I think one of the
things I find confusing here is I see your point
about politicians and individuals not necessarily having great alternatives, but
(24:02):
there's plenty of advertising alternatives to Twitter. Twitter is just
one of many things any big company does. Maybe it's
better for certain products and has has niches and performs
well on things, but I don't think we there's no
company that only advertises on tours or no major company
(24:24):
that only average prices on Twitter. So Twitter itself, what's
what's going on here from your point?
S2 (24:30):
Yeah, I agree that Twitter is often kind of the
afterthought on any CMO's budget line. And for that reason,
I think it should be even easier to decide.
S1 (24:43):
That's my point. Why isn't that right?
S2 (24:45):
Yeah, I think there's a couple of things happening. One
is a lot of the buys that are still existing,
so are on Twitter were pre-buy. They were bought before
Elon took over. A lot of large companies do this.
They buy for the year in advance. And so some
(25:08):
of those are just cycling hours.
S1 (25:11):
So that's a reason for some potential optimism here.
S2 (25:14):
Yeah. Yeah, I think so. I, I think.
S1 (25:19):
It can start. Do you think some of that comes
to the end now, like at the end of 2022?
I think we're getting some chatter.
S2 (25:25):
Yeah, I think January and first quarter 2023 will be
really interesting. It's also just a period of lower advertising
right after the holidays. And so we'll get to see
who was maybe maintaining their ads for kind of consumer
purchases like advertising products or services that could be holiday gifts.
(25:48):
Some of those might drop off. Iwan is a bully.
He is a bully on and off Twitter. And I
don't think anyone is free of his grasp. And I
think some of these brands are understandably concerned about what
(26:09):
happens when he finds out that they have completely stopped
their advice. And anecdotally, we have heard that from brands
that they just reduced their spend to maybe $500 a
week or a fraction of what it was, but they're
maintaining something so that they can't be called out and
(26:30):
then become prey for Ellen to pounce on.
S1 (26:34):
Well, into to your point, he attacked Apple was the
most valuable company in the world. And Tim Cook specifically.
So if he's not going to take on Apple, it's
probably going to take on.
S2 (26:43):
Yeah. And Apple is like has upped their advertising like
Apple is full speed ahead on Twitter right now.
S1 (26:51):
I want to close when I think this is really
a strange subset of the story. So I'm glad you
mention that because initially they basically it looked like they
stopped the advertising. Right. And Musk called out Apple and
then it sounds like they spoke afterwards.
S2 (27:09):
Well, his he I guess like after he bought Twitter,
he found out that the Apple App Store takes a 30%
cut of all purchases, downloads made in the App Store.
And he decided that this was like state secrets that
he had just found out. I mean, this is fairly
(27:30):
well known. There's been a court case about it for
the last few years. Epic Games has been suing Apple
for that very reason. And so that is what he
really tried to take. That is what got him really
upset about Apple as he was thinking about and has
(27:54):
kind of launched sort of launched his Twitter blew his,
you know, pay for checkmark system. He quickly realized that 30%
of every $8 fee a month was going to go
to Apple and decided to try to spark outrage about this.
I think all the other app developers, whether they're big
(28:16):
or small in the App Store right now, said, Yeah, bro,
like we know we've been saying this for a while.
Welcome to the fight.
S1 (28:24):
Right? Okay, but then but then there was this advertising discussion,
apparently Cook and musk. And I'd love to be a
fly on the wall in that one because. Because Twitter
and it just gets into a few strange sub threads. So,
so so bear with us listeners for a minute. So initially,
Musk said something along the lines of does Apple hate
(28:45):
free speech because they have reduced their advertising and they're getting.
S2 (28:52):
I mean, that's just such a mist under our misunderstanding.
Of what? Free speech. Oh.
S1 (28:59):
And that's what I want to get. That's exactly what
it is out here. Yeah, but but just in terms
of the sequence, it's like he. But it did seem
like initially Apple reduced its advertising. Is that initially what happens?
S2 (29:11):
You know, honestly.
S1 (29:13):
There's so much chaos it's it's impossible to keep up
but let's get it to stipulate to it. That's my
recollection is is what happened initially. Yeah Apple pulled back
on its advertising that caused this this Yeah nonsensical free
speech quote and this is this is I'm glad you
mention how crazy this is so I see this as
(29:33):
a reform self-hating lawyer. Okay. But but let's just get
down what free speech is and what it's not. And
and Stephen Colbert, if you had seen the clip, just
said this absolutely perfectly a few weeks ago. Okay, So
freedom of speech is about the government telling you what
you can or can't say. It is not about advertisers
being forced to ban hate speech or speech that they
(29:55):
disagree about. It's about government action. Okay. Am I getting
any of that room so far? No. You're going to
hear it. Well, again, again, I'm a self-hating record player,
but I but I've had people who I consider smart people,
even other even other lawyers repeat this nonsense back to me.
So I just want to do that. Okay. Yeah. So one,
(30:17):
it's it's about what the government does. If you don't
believe me, read the First Amendment to the Constitution. It's
very clear. Says Congress shall make no law, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So Congress, that's what we're talking about. So, so the
idea that if an advertiser decides as a private entity
not to advertise on a platform, that that somehow violation
(30:38):
of free speech, that's just you're you're just talking about
comparing apples and chicken chickens, it's just you've builded so
many different concepts and it's simply silly. But I also
want to call out the hypocrisy in Republicans making this
argument in particular, because it strikes me as especially rich
that the party who's always talking about how the private
(31:01):
sector can regulate itself, when you see the private sector
regulating itself by pulling advertising from a platform that is
like hate speech, then the Republicans complain that that violates
the Constitution, that it's somehow big government is requiring you
to fund that hate speech. And it might be I
(31:23):
want to see some crazy that is for the Republicans
to make to make that argument.
S2 (31:28):
Yeah, I mean, look, Republicans only believe in logic to
the extent that it supports the argument they want to make.
So I think you're completely right. They will use any
instance like this to claim censorship. And, you know, in
the same way that Apple or any company has the
(31:51):
power and the right to either advertise or not advertise somewhere,
that platform has the right an ability to decide whether
or not they're going to take that advertisement or not. Right. Right.
You want also has power in this company rejecting other advertisers.
(32:13):
We don't know. We don't know because there are private
company and they haven't said it. And so it's extremely hypocritical.
And I think your point is right on.
S1 (32:25):
Well, and again, I want to commend people to Mayor
Villaraigosa statement on this that that he posts on Facebook
and Twitter explaining why he likes Twitter yesterday and keep going.
He did a really good job of calling this out.
So and maybe we should have him on the show
some time to talk about this more as I think
about it. Okay. But but back to this point about
why the advertisers are running. So maybe some optimism that
(32:47):
it's just they want to keep a toehold in. They're
getting they're getting bullied. That's interesting. I hadn't thought about that,
that perspective. And maybe it's just some cycling coming off,
but clearly there's alternatives. As you say, Twitter's an afterthought
for most of us. Quite frankly, the reasons the platform
(33:08):
is not making money is like it's not a particularly
good advertising platform. It's where, as you say, 90% of
that revenue comes from, but it's still not very good
at it, which is why it's on the verge of bankruptcy.
So so to advertisers out there, like what would you
say in terms of like, you know, alternatives out there
(33:30):
or just asking them why they're continuing to advertise on
clearly a step up to the advertising platform when it happens?
S2 (33:37):
I think.
S1 (33:38):
That.
S2 (33:39):
The you know, the decision of why and how they
advertise is up to them. I think at this point
it's very clear that they are if they're ever to.
I think on Twitter, they're funding the spread of violent rhetoric.
They're funding the spread of anti-Semitism on a Q and
(34:00):
on theories of hate speech and racist content and anti
LGBTQ plots and trans content. And they're directly responsible for
that because their funds are enabling the platform to still run. And,
you know, if I was a brand that had my
(34:21):
dollars running on Twitter, you know, I also would be
pretty scared about what what type of content my ads
are showing up next to. You know, the more of
these bad actors he's got on, the more just really
inappropriate and awful content. GREENE We'll see. And I don't
(34:42):
want my friend to be seen next to anti-Semitism. That's
a that's a horrible look for my brand.
S1 (34:50):
Okay. So we're going to stop there. I was we
didn't have a chance to even get to some of
the other platforms. The Twitter stuff is just such a
cauldron of crazy that it is time well spent. So
I appreciate you indulging in that. Maybe we could have
you back some time to talk about some of your
other campaigns, which are also really important. But I first
of all, want to thank you for what you do.
And I think you being one of the few voices
(35:11):
who's articulating this. But if people who are listening want
to hear more about your work, read more about your work,
how can they get involved? Where should they go?
S2 (35:19):
Yeah, we're at Accountable Tech, dawg, and we're on a
couple of social platforms. We're still on Twitter. We're starting
on Instagram and starting to grow on other platforms, but
just look up accountable tech, dawg, for more information about
us and our work.
S1 (35:39):
Great. Nicole, thanks so much for being on the show.
It's a pleasure to have.
S2 (35:43):
Thank you.
S1 (35:49):
We invite you to share ideas for guests, ask questions
in the comments. You can find us at Neptune Ops dot com .
Follow us and subscribe whereever you get your podcasts as we continue to
explore the inside stories driving California politics. This is the
Nation State of Play podcast. I'm your host, Bryan Miller,
and thank you for listening. OLAS Media.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.