April 1, 2025 • 36 mins
The world is changing fast. Are democracy and human rights under threat? Our Inside Geneva podcast takes a deep dive.
“Donald Trump is unravelling the constitution, where I believe we could describe this as a coup d'état,” says human rights lawyer Reed Brody.
What happens when Big Tech gets involved in politics?
“It is fine for Instagram or TikTok to realise that I am into biking and then try to sell me bikes. That’s fine. That’s a product. Manipulate me to sell me that. But that’s not fine with political ideas,” continues Alberto Fernandez Gibaja, Head of Digitalisation and Democracy at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).
What about free speech?
“For the first time in my life, I am listening to Americans on the radio and TV, talking to the press and refusing to use their names because they are afraid of retaliation,” says Brody.
Is it still possible to have a democratic, fact-based debate?
“For those of us who believe that we share a reality based on facts and science, we are on the losing side,” says Fernandez Gibaja.
Are we losing the fundamental freedoms set out in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Join host Imogen Foulkes on Inside Geneva to find out.
Get in touch!
- Email us at insidegeneva@swissinfo.ch
- Twitter: @ImogenFoulkes and @swissinfo_en
Thank you for listening! If you like what we do, please leave a review or subscribe to our newsletter.
For more stories on the international Geneva please visit www.swissinfo.ch/
Host: Imogen Foulkes
Production assitant: Claire-Marie Germain
Distribution: Sara Pasino
Marketing: Xin Zhang
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's programme, a quietstreet in Boston, the scene of
the latest Trump governmentcrackdown, plainclothes,
immigration officers surround aTurkish graduate student.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Donald Trump is unraveling the Constitution,
where I believe we coulddescribe this as a coup d'etat.
I think we're living a very,very dangerous moment in the
United States and, as anAmerican, I think it's obviously
even more important to betalking about that.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
After months of backing Donald Trump online and
on the campaign trail, Elon Muskis set to play a key role in
the incoming administration.
It is fine for Instagram or forTikTok to realize that I am
into biking and then try to sellme bikes.
That's fine.
That's a product.
Manipulate me to sell me that.
That has happened throughouthistory.
(01:10):
But that's not fine withpolitical ideas.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes, and intoday's programme we've got two
in-depth interviews for youwhere we'll take a deep dive
into the many challenges todemocracy and human rights.
We'll hear first from ReidBrodie, long-time human rights
lawyer, who is now on the UNHuman Rights Council's group of
(01:39):
experts on Nicaragua.
He'll bring us key insightsinto how Daniel Ortega's
Santinista government slippedinto authoritarianism, but he'll
also tell us about his concernsfor his own country, the United
States.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
For the first time in my life, I am listening on the
radio, on TV, to Americanstalking to the press and
refusing to use their namesbecause they are afraid of
retaliation.
That's the kind of thing thathappens in Russia, that happens
in Nicaragua.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
And then later in the program we'll talk to Alberto
Fernandez-Kibaja, head ofdigitalization and democracy at
the International Institute forDemocracy and Electoral
Assistance.
Some of our listeners mayremember we talked to him just
last year about the manyelections taking place in 2024
(02:33):
and whether social media or evenartificial intelligence could
be a threat to the democraticprocess.
Today we catch up with Albertoagain and ask him to take stock.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Social media is probably more of like a long
dripping effect that keepseroding one of the fundamental
tenets of democracy, which ishaving a shared reality.
Once you don't have a sharedreality, it becomes relatively
easy to weaponise that part ofsociety that is losing touch
with reality.
Once you don't have a sharedreality, it becomes relatively
easy to weaponize that part ofsociety that is losing touch
(03:08):
with reality.
And then, for those of us whobelieve that we share a reality,
and a reality based on factsand science, we are in the
losing side.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Alberto Fernandez-Gibaja there coming up
in the second half of theprogram.
But first let's talk to ReidBrodie, long-time human rights
defender and currentlyscrutinising alleged violations
in Nicaragua on behalf of the UNHuman Rights Council.
But, as he told me, hisinterest in Nicaragua goes back
(03:39):
decades and began with a verydifferent perspective.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
In the 1980s people of my generation.
We were very interested in theSandinista revolution that had
overthrown decades of US-backeddictatorship in Nicaragua and
was trying to build a newsociety, the literacy campaigns,
(04:03):
health care for the poor.
And so I went to Nicaragua witha friend of mine whose brother
was a parish priest, in a littlevillage in northern Nicaragua,
and people started telling usthese stories about how the US
financed and backed formerremnants of Samosa's, the
(04:26):
dictator's National Guard, andwere coming in and in this
village had been attacked.
And people I met, people whosefamily members had been killed
before their eyes and they likedon't people in your country
know what's going on here?
You've got to go back and dosomething.
And I felt for the first time.
(04:47):
I was not a human rights lawyer,I was working at the New York
State Attorney General's office,but I just felt Nicaragua and I
spent five months going aroundthe war zones in Nicaragua
(05:09):
interviewing victims of Contraattacks and witnesses to people
whose houses had been burneddown, people whose villages had
been attacked, teachers,healthcare workers, women who
had been raped.
It was my first experiencedoing this kind of thing.
I didn't know, I'd neverstudied international law and
(05:29):
when I came back to Washingtonwith hundreds of testimonies,
affidavits.
I came back just as PresidentReagan was describing the
Contras as the moral equivalentof America's founding fathers
and was seeking additionalmilitary assistance to the
Contras.
I mean, my report was on thefront page of the New York Times
(05:51):
and it concentrated enoughminds in a divided Congress
actually to deny Reagan theassistance he wanted.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Let's fast forward a little bit, because the United
States the things that went onin the 70s and 80s, its role in
Latin America, are fairly welldocumented, not least by you,
and we know that grave, gravehuman rights abuses took place
in the US interest oftheoretically keeping left-wing
(06:22):
politicians out of theirbackyard.
That's how I think it wasdescribed at the time.
And you're right that some ofthese governments were fettered
by Europeans, by North Americans, thinking as you said, free
education, free healthcare.
They're doing a good job.
But fast forward 40 years.
(06:42):
The Sandinista government hasnot turned out so great and
ironically, now, after havinginvestigated violations which
were intended to destabilizethat government, now you're on a
UN panel looking at violationscommitted by that Sandinista
government.
How does that feel in terms ofyour irony factor?
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Well, first I should say that it's not all of the
Sandinistas.
Most of the people who werecomrades in arms of Daniel
Ortega, most of the people whofought in the revolution and are
around, most of the people whoare in the government are now in
the opposition.
So we're really looking at, inparticular, daniel Ortega, who
you know.
(07:27):
They lost elections in 1990.
The war-weary people ofNicaragua voted them out.
It looked like multi-partydemocracy was going to flourish,
but Ortega then purged theSandinista movement.
He made deals with right-wingpoliticians.
He came back into office in2007, 17 years later, and has
(07:48):
not given up power since.
I have to say I mean for methere's this poetic arc to my
career that you know.
It's why no satisfaction to seewhat has happened Over the last
17 years that Daniel Altair hasbeen back in power.
His wife has gotten more andmore power and now this new
(08:12):
constitution that was enactedjust a few weeks ago actually
creates a male co-president anda female co-president and a
female co-president.
So this man who had foughtagainst a family dictatorship,
now has actually put into theConstitution a family
(08:32):
dictatorship.
That also they have the powerto name their vice presidents,
and people are suspecting thatthey will name their children.
So I think it's certainly thereare many cautionary tales here
that I personally have learnedand that we all need to think
about.
But you know, I feel like Ihaven't changed.
(08:53):
My goals are the same.
My work is still based onprinciple.
I mean, at the time I didn't,40 years ago I'd never heard of
the Geneva Conventions.
When I was doing this, I'dnever heard of war crimes and
stuff I talked about atrocitiesand abuses.
And now, of course, I'm muchmore tooled to do all the things
that I'm doing and of course,we have a big team.
(09:14):
Then I was really on my owndoing this and now, with our UN
fact-finding mission, or groupof experts as it's called, we
have a whole staff based inPanama that is doing most of the
actually the legwork.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Your report does detail, you know, graft,
corruption, nepotism,suppression of opposition,
repression of civil society.
In response, nicaragua haveleft the Human Rights Council.
The US beat them to the exitbecause the United States has
left as well.
(09:49):
So I mean, I'm wondering, giventhe kind of atmosphere there
seems to be about might-makingright rather than right-making
right, if you like, can reportslike yours do any good anymore?
Speaker 1 (10:04):
I think that you know , obviously that's an important
question that we ask ourselvesand we try to look at how a
report can make a difference.
And our report is really I meanthe press release is titled An
Appeal to the InternationalCommunity To do something.
You know we don't expect theNicaraguan government I mean the
Nicaraguan government has neverresponded to our requests.
I mean, like most of the UNcommissions of inquiry, we don't
(10:27):
actually get to go to thecountry.
The Nicaraguan government hasnever even bothered to respond
to our letters.
But what we're saying is look,here are the people who are
involved Today.
You know that opens them up toindividual targeted sanctions,
of which many countries havealready sanctioned people in
Nicaragua.
The situation in Nicaragua hasnot gotten better since we've
(10:48):
been reporting.
But people rely on the reports.
It gives succor to theopposition.
They see their names, they seewhat they have endured being
reported as fact by the UnitedNations, and I think there are
many side benefits to what we do.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
You talked about what's been happening in
Nicaragua, that the president,the vice president, man and wife
have consolidated power tothemselves.
They're kind of dismantling thechecks and balances, the
separation of powers.
You're American.
Are you concerned for your owncountry that something similar
is happening?
(11:27):
I mean you used to work here inGeneva at the International
Commission of Jurists.
You've written extensivelyetat.
That's happening where powersthat do not belong to the
president are being arrogated byCongress.
Is not being spent Agenciesthat were established by
Congress are being dismantled.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
The civil service protections are being undermined
.
I think we're living a very,very dangerous moment in the
United States and, as anAmerican, I think it's obviously
even more important, because ofthe power of the United States,
to be talking about that.
Unfortunately, we're seeing thefree speech tradition be
trampled on in the United States.
(12:36):
This weekend, the man who wasleading the protests on the
Columbia University campus infavor of Palestinian rights was
arrested pending deportation.
A man with a green card,married to an American citizen.
A US attorney for the Districtof Columbia wrote to Georgetown
Law School requestinginformation about their policies
(12:59):
on diversity, equity andinclusion and saying the federal
government is not going to hirelaw students who come from
schools that preach or practicediversity equity.
I mean these are major attackson free speech.
So it's not only the traditionsthat are different.
I mean these are major attackson free speech, so it's not only
the traditions that aredifferent.
I mean today we are seeing thatpeople.
(13:19):
For the first time in my life, Iam listening on the radio, on
TV, to Americans talking to thepress and refusing to use their
names because they are afraid ofretaliation.
That's the kind of thing thathappens in Russia, that happens
in Nicaragua, People who areafraid that if they, you know
(13:40):
they've been fired from theirgovernment jobs or whatever, but
they're actually afraid to givetheir names because of
retaliation.
Students and I think this isparticularly dealing with Middle
East issues often, where acollege student, a law student,
would be really very brave tostand up for Palestinian rights
(14:01):
today because of the effect thatwill have on their lives and
their careers.
But, more generally, people whostand up to what is going on
are afraid today.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
They're afraid to give their names, they're afraid
to speak out guardrails thatcame in, most of them after the
Second World War for a very goodreason.
This never again momentPeople's faith in those things.
(14:35):
People tend to be a bitirritated by them.
How can we get back a kind offaith and respect that actually
to prevent real barbarism weneed these things?
How can we inspire people?
I mean, you spent your lifedefending human rights.
How can we re-inspire people?
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Well, I think, education in many ways, I think
also the human rights movement,has lost touch with people.
Many people in Europe and theUnited States do not see
themselves as beneficiaries ofthe human rights movement.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
But they are.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
But of course they are, I mean people are saying
you know social media and thehorrible results of algorithms
and atomization of people, thereducing of the public space
where people come together.
I mean, I look at what my sonand his friends are listening to
and watching and I realize thatthere's no common debate
(15:39):
anymore.
I mean, in the old days you had, for better or for worse, you
had only a few stations on TV.
You had dialogue.
Now people you know in theUnited States in particular is a
very divided country in whichthe people progressives live in
the United States in particularis a very divided country in
which the people progressiveslive in cities, they read
certain newspapers, they watchcertain TVs and conservatives
(16:01):
live in other places.
Physically we're separated,mentally we're separated.
We come together in differentplaces and the algorithms
weaponize that in a sense.
And I'm worried that there's areality that's being created by
the media and obviously at acertain point in the US, as the
(16:21):
state is totally dismantled,we're going to see some very
serious soon.
We're going to see really badstuff happen and it'd be
interesting to see whether thegovernment continues to blame it
on what happened before.
Whether we have martial law, Iwould not exclude.
I mean, the guardrails havecome off and I'm very scared of
(16:41):
where we're headed.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Read Brodie there with a worrying take on what's
happening in the United Statesright now.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Please raise your right hand and repeat after me I
.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear.
I, Donald John Trump, dosolemnly swear Elon Musk, Mark
Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and theCEOs of Apple and Google, who
have all been invited to sitright up on the platform where
Trump will be sworn in.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Now many of us will remember the tech giants lined
up behind Donald Trump at hisinauguration Mark Zuckerberg of
Meta, jeff Bezos of Amazon and,of course, elon Musk, who has
been handed enormous power bythe president.
Last year, we devoted a wholeepisode of Inside Geneva to how
(17:36):
much big tech, whether it'ssocial media or artificial
intelligence, might influencethe democratic process.
Alberto Fernandez-Gibaja of theInternational Institute for
Democracy and ElectoralAssistance joined us then and
today he's back.
So how did we do in that bigelection year of 2024?
Speaker 3 (17:57):
I will say, even if it doesn't look like it, I think
we did pretty well.
2024 had around 60 elections itdepends how you count and when
it comes to the role that socialmedia and digital technologies
play in the elections, I thinkwe did pretty well, especially
(18:20):
considering that we started theyear saying we started 2024
saying it's going to be adisasterificial.
Intelligence is going to be agame changer.
It will disrupt every singleelection that is coming and
largely that didn't happen.
We are still in the face ofunderstanding exactly why it
(18:43):
didn't happen, trying to alsograsp if there is something we
are missing, if there issomething that we didn't see and
did happen.
But in general, I think thataspect of the elections was fine
.
What maybe wasn't that goodwere some of the results of
these elections.
But I don't think we can draw avery causality line between the
(19:07):
results of those elections, thepolicies of the people that got
elected and the way socialmedia and digital technologies
and artificial intelligenceinfluenced those elections.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Let's look at.
All eyes are on, actually, theUnited States, which had an
election at the end of last year.
Pretty clear result ademocratic election, but
nevertheless we did also see acombination of the world's
richest man, Elon Musk,financially supporting a
(19:40):
particular party, theRepublicans, and also spreading
policies or attitudes that hesupports on the media platform
that he owns, ex-formerlyTwitter.
Now, obviously, we can't saythis changed the result of the
election in the United States,but people are worried that that
(20:03):
kind of thing is happening.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
You're right.
I don't think we can say thatchanged the results of the
elections, and I think this issomething that we need to have a
lot of clarity on this.
So far, we don't really have acase in which we can say digital
technologies changed theresults of the elections.
Without digital technologies,the result would have been
(20:26):
different.
Let's say, without social medialet's be concrete without the
weaponization of social mediacommunications, the results will
have been different.
It is obvious that it influenceda lot, but I think we tend to
focus on the very short term, onlike the campaign trail and the
(20:47):
last couple of months, and theeffect of social media is
probably more of like a longdripping effect that keeps
eroding, for me, one of thefundamental tenets of democracy,
which is having a sharedreality.
(21:07):
If people don't share a reality,we can disagree on the solution
, but we need to agree on whatis real and what is not, and
that effect is very long term.
So I think one of the lessons isthat probably the reason why
this type of politics and I readrecently somebody that speaks
(21:30):
about demanufacturing, consentthat approach to politics is
successful because we have comethrough many years of eroding
the grasp on reality of asignificant percentage of the
population, not only in theUnited States, globally, only in
(21:54):
the United States, globally.
And once you don't have ashared reality, then it becomes
relatively easy to weaponizethat part of society that is
losing touch with reality.
And then the battle is notabout I want to solve the
problem doing this thing or thisother thing.
The battle is about what thereality is.
It's a battle between tworealities.
For those of us who believethat we share a reality and a
(22:20):
reality based on facts andscience, we are in the losing
side, because it's verydifficult to speak about the
problems of society withsomebody that doesn't seem to be
living in the same planet,doesn't seem to be sharing your
own physical time and space.
We don't know what to do aboutthat.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Well, let's take one specific example.
We had, or we have now,tensions between Europe and the
United States, a wide gulf ofmisunderstanding and dislike
certainly, it seems, from theUnited States towards Europe.
Now we had the Vice President,jd Vance, come to Europe and say
that Europe did not have freespeech.
(23:00):
I was in the United States inOctober of last year and a few
American people said oh, I feelso sorry for you, you don't have
free speech.
I mean, how do you challengethis?
Is this really a thing thatpeople believe, or is it
something that's being pushed bybig tech so that they can have
(23:20):
unfettered access?
Because we know that Europe isthe one continent which is
trying to establish someguardrails in safety around
social media, around AI.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
I think it's also important to understand that
there is a difference betweenthe concept of freedom of speech
that the US has and theEuropean Union or Europe in
general has.
I would say the one in Europeis a little bit more restrictive
, without saying that itrestricts freedom of speech, but
it's a little bit more based onprotecting certain groups.
We have a history in Europe ofgoing too far and letting
(23:58):
certain political groups startpushing certain narratives that
ended up in basically one of themost horrific actions of the
human being in our history.
So there is a differentunderstanding of the concept in
our history.
So there is a differentunderstanding of the concept.
I do think people believe itbecause if your information diet
(24:18):
is online bubbles ofultra-conservative influencers,
fox News, elon Musk and all thatbubble you probably keep
hearing that there is censorship, that all the legislation in
Europe is about censoring voices, that all the laws that are
(24:44):
there are about trying tosilence and muscle those that
are different, or that they'retrying to raise their voice and
speak from the people.
This is a very classic populiststrategy, so they probably
believe that.
It is also true that theyprobably don't have a lot of
alternative views on how thingswork in Europe or in other parts
(25:04):
of the world.
I mean this will probably applyanywhere else.
And the companies, I mean Idon't know, but I will say maybe
strategically, seeing what theyhave been doing recently, maybe
strategically they're not goingto be the ones standing up for
Europe and European legislationand say, look, the legislation
(25:25):
follows human rights and itprotects freedom of speech.
What I think is a veryimportant aspect is that the
conservative, the RepublicanParty today and the current
administration in the UnitedStates started a few years ago
like a front attack on anyattempt to make our digital
(25:48):
ecosystems healthier, and theywon.
Basically, we have to admitthey actually won.
They managed to shift theopinion of all the population,
or a big part of the population,from we need to put some
protections in the way digitalcommunications or information
(26:11):
moves around social mediatowards any protection that you
place is censorship, and theyhave managed to do that, and
they have managed to convince alot of people about that.
They managed to close theStanford Internet Observatory,
which was probably the bestresearch center in the world
(26:32):
when it comes to the role ofcontent moderation policies, the
role of algorithms andbasically how information on the
internet influenced the worldand they say it's a censorship
complex.
The internet influenced theworld and they say it's a
censorship complex.
What they're actually saying,what they're actually trying to
do, is we don't want thosebecause we benefit from this.
This is the way we mobilize ourpopulation, our voters.
(26:54):
We bring them to an alternativereality.
Are you worried?
I'm extremely worried, I think.
I mean, I think it changedcountry by country.
It might be that the Americanpopulation was a little bit more
primed for this, but I thinkthis is bound to happen
(27:14):
everywhere else in the world.
And I don't know if allcountries are protected, not
even the European Union.
It's necessarily protected andwe have seen already.
It's necessarily protected andwe have seen already.
So it's more of a warningrather than an exception.
We have already seen thishappening in other countries.
We have already seen peoplelosing touch with reality
(27:36):
because their information dietbecomes a few political
influencers, becomes a fewpolitical influencers, certain
social media accounts, and theyjust fall into a rabbit hole
where everything makes sense,where their capacity to make
sense of the world is sharp, bythese people.
(27:57):
So it's not that everybodyneeds to read the New York Times
or the Guardian or watch theBBC that kind of like source of
information that is trustable.
But when your only informationcomes from political influencers
who are just making a buck,just making money, and to make
(28:17):
money they need to say something, every time a little bit worse
than the previous thing, so thealgorithm keeps them popping up
in your time feed and so on,they're just making money when
that's the only diet.
Those plus TV channels thathave one objective, which is
again mobilize these people, Imean it is very difficult to
(28:38):
find that.
It is very, very difficult.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
You sound quite pessimistic and concerned.
What can we actually do?
Speaker 3 (28:45):
There are things that we can do.
The first one is for politicalparties and candidates that are
that truly believe in democracy,that truly believe that
democracy should be just a bodyof ideas.
They should realize that thereis nothing wrong with moral
(29:05):
clarity.
If you get into those games,you're going to lose.
There will always be one moreradical person that will
weaponize people and twistreality.
So if you are a rational actorin the political game, you need
to draw a line and you need toally with those that are
(29:27):
actually on your side in termsof I want to convince people
with arguments and ideas andfacts.
Exactly that's the mostimportant.
We need to do that.
The second thing that we needto do and this is going to sound
very counterintuitive isaddress TV.
The TV remains the main vectorof disinformation.
(29:50):
People, a lot of people.
The moment they see an idea onTV, it's like see, that has to
be true.
It's on TV the moment TV triesto bring two opinions, and then
it's like TV tries to bring twoopinions, and then it's like
here is a scientist with 25years of experience researching
vaccines and here is a no onethat has a popular YouTube
(30:14):
channel.
You can't do that.
You can't do that.
You need to protect informationintegrity on TV, Because, even
though youth people have aproblem on how they get
information, the main group ofpeople that are moving on an
alternative reality is actuallythe 55 plus, so TV is extremely
(30:38):
important.
We do need to educate kids inschools, but that's going to
take a long time, and we needproper accountability regimes
for social media platforms, andthose accountability regimes
should focus on content rankingalgorithms and on monetization.
(30:58):
For me, those are the twoaspects we still haven't managed
to grasp how to address.
It is fine for Instagram or forTikTok to realize that I am
into biking and then try to sellme bikes.
That's fine.
And if I get into bikeinfluencers, then they will feed
(31:20):
me with more bikes and morepublicity about bikes and so on.
That's fine.
That's a product Manipulate meto sell me that.
That has happened throughouthistory.
But that's not fine withpolitical ideas, and we need to
push tech platforms tounderstand that it's actually
not even in their interest to dothat.
Most of their revenue comes fromproducts, from selling clothes,
(31:44):
trips, houses, but not fromselling political ideas.
So we need to understand and toresearch ways to make sure that
the algorithm fits you withhealthy, fact-based political
content.
That's not going to be easy,that's very difficult, but it's
actually.
(32:04):
We haven't even tried.
So even if we don't get it 100%right, if it's only 80% right,
that's going to be an 80%improvement of what we have
today.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
And that brings us to the end of this episode of
Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Reid Brody andAlberto Fernandez-Gibaja for
their time and theirperspectives.
We hope you enjoyed thisepisode.
Do drop us a line atinsidegeneva, at swissinfoch,
with your thoughts, questions oreven ideas for new programmes
(32:42):
Coming up over the next fewweeks.
We're planning to look at theUN Human Rights Commissioner's
concerns about toxic masculinity.
Is it a problem?
And if it is, what can orshould the UN and governments be
doing about it?
And we'll be hearing fromGeneration South.
Young people from the GlobalSouth give us their views on the
(33:04):
biggest challenges facing theplanet and what we should be
doing to solve them.
Do join us next time on InsideGeneva.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
(33:25):
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for justice.
I'm.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
Imogen folks.
Thanks again for listening.
This is Inside Geneva .
I'm your host, imogen Foulkes,and this is a production from
Swissinfo, the internationalpublic media company of
Switzerland.
In today's programme, a quietstreet in Boston, the scene of
the latest Trump governmentcrackdown, plainclothes,
immigration officers surround aTurkish graduate student.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
Donald Trump is unraveling the Constitution,
where I believe we coulddescribe this as a coup d'etat.
I think we're living a very,very dangerous moment in the
United States and, as anAmerican, I think it's obviously
even more important to betalking about that.
Speaker 3 (00:49):
After months of backing Donald Trump online and
on the campaign trail, Elon Muskis set to play a key role in
the incoming administration.
It is fine for Instagram or forTikTok to realize that I am
into biking and then try to sellme bikes.
That's fine.
That's a product.
Manipulate me to sell me that.
That has happened throughouthistory.
(01:10):
But that's not fine withpolitical ideas.
Speaker 2 (01:16):
Hello and welcome again to Inside Geneva.
I'm Imogen Fowkes, and intoday's programme we've got two
in-depth interviews for youwhere we'll take a deep dive
into the many challenges todemocracy and human rights.
We'll hear first from ReidBrodie, long-time human rights
lawyer, who is now on the UNHuman Rights Council's group of
(01:39):
experts on Nicaragua.
He'll bring us key insightsinto how Daniel Ortega's
Santinista government slippedinto authoritarianism, but he'll
also tell us about his concernsfor his own country, the United
States.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
For the first time in my life, I am listening on the
radio, on TV, to Americanstalking to the press and
refusing to use their namesbecause they are afraid of
retaliation.
That's the kind of thing thathappens in Russia, that happens
in Nicaragua.
Speaker 2 (02:13):
And then later in the program we'll talk to Alberto
Fernandez-Kibaja, head ofdigitalization and democracy at
the International Institute forDemocracy and Electoral
Assistance.
Some of our listeners mayremember we talked to him just
last year about the manyelections taking place in 2024
(02:33):
and whether social media or evenartificial intelligence could
be a threat to the democraticprocess.
Today we catch up with Albertoagain and ask him to take stock.
Speaker 3 (02:45):
Social media is probably more of like a long
dripping effect that keepseroding one of the fundamental
tenets of democracy, which ishaving a shared reality.
Once you don't have a sharedreality, it becomes relatively
easy to weaponise that part ofsociety that is losing touch
with reality.
Once you don't have a sharedreality, it becomes relatively
easy to weaponize that part ofsociety that is losing touch
(03:08):
with reality.
And then, for those of us whobelieve that we share a reality,
and a reality based on factsand science, we are in the
losing side.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Alberto Fernandez-Gibaja there coming up
in the second half of theprogram.
But first let's talk to ReidBrodie, long-time human rights
defender and currentlyscrutinising alleged violations
in Nicaragua on behalf of the UNHuman Rights Council.
But, as he told me, hisinterest in Nicaragua goes back
(03:39):
decades and began with a verydifferent perspective.
Speaker 1 (03:43):
In the 1980s people of my generation.
We were very interested in theSandinista revolution that had
overthrown decades of US-backeddictatorship in Nicaragua and
was trying to build a newsociety, the literacy campaigns,
(04:03):
health care for the poor.
And so I went to Nicaragua witha friend of mine whose brother
was a parish priest, in a littlevillage in northern Nicaragua,
and people started telling usthese stories about how the US
financed and backed formerremnants of Samosa's, the
(04:26):
dictator's National Guard, andwere coming in and in this
village had been attacked.
And people I met, people whosefamily members had been killed
before their eyes and they likedon't people in your country
know what's going on here?
You've got to go back and dosomething.
And I felt for the first time.
(04:47):
I was not a human rights lawyer,I was working at the New York
State Attorney General's office,but I just felt Nicaragua and I
spent five months going aroundthe war zones in Nicaragua
(05:09):
interviewing victims of Contraattacks and witnesses to people
whose houses had been burneddown, people whose villages had
been attacked, teachers,healthcare workers, women who
had been raped.
It was my first experiencedoing this kind of thing.
I didn't know, I'd neverstudied international law and
(05:29):
when I came back to Washingtonwith hundreds of testimonies,
affidavits.
I came back just as PresidentReagan was describing the
Contras as the moral equivalentof America's founding fathers
and was seeking additionalmilitary assistance to the
Contras.
I mean, my report was on thefront page of the New York Times
(05:51):
and it concentrated enoughminds in a divided Congress
actually to deny Reagan theassistance he wanted.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Let's fast forward a little bit, because the United
States the things that went onin the 70s and 80s, its role in
Latin America, are fairly welldocumented, not least by you,
and we know that grave, gravehuman rights abuses took place
in the US interest oftheoretically keeping left-wing
(06:22):
politicians out of theirbackyard.
That's how I think it wasdescribed at the time.
And you're right that some ofthese governments were fettered
by Europeans, by North Americans, thinking as you said, free
education, free healthcare.
They're doing a good job.
But fast forward 40 years.
(06:42):
The Sandinista government hasnot turned out so great and
ironically, now, after havinginvestigated violations which
were intended to destabilizethat government, now you're on a
UN panel looking at violationscommitted by that Sandinista
government.
How does that feel in terms ofyour irony factor?
Speaker 1 (07:06):
Well, first I should say that it's not all of the
Sandinistas.
Most of the people who werecomrades in arms of Daniel
Ortega, most of the people whofought in the revolution and are
around, most of the people whoare in the government are now in
the opposition.
So we're really looking at, inparticular, daniel Ortega, who
you know.
(07:27):
They lost elections in 1990.
The war-weary people ofNicaragua voted them out.
It looked like multi-partydemocracy was going to flourish,
but Ortega then purged theSandinista movement.
He made deals with right-wingpoliticians.
He came back into office in2007, 17 years later, and has
(07:48):
not given up power since.
I have to say I mean for methere's this poetic arc to my
career that you know.
It's why no satisfaction to seewhat has happened Over the last
17 years that Daniel Altair hasbeen back in power.
His wife has gotten more andmore power and now this new
(08:12):
constitution that was enactedjust a few weeks ago actually
creates a male co-president anda female co-president and a
female co-president.
So this man who had foughtagainst a family dictatorship,
now has actually put into theConstitution a family
(08:32):
dictatorship.
That also they have the powerto name their vice presidents,
and people are suspecting thatthey will name their children.
So I think it's certainly thereare many cautionary tales here
that I personally have learnedand that we all need to think
about.
But you know, I feel like Ihaven't changed.
(08:53):
My goals are the same.
My work is still based onprinciple.
I mean, at the time I didn't,40 years ago I'd never heard of
the Geneva Conventions.
When I was doing this, I'dnever heard of war crimes and
stuff I talked about atrocitiesand abuses.
And now, of course, I'm muchmore tooled to do all the things
that I'm doing and of course,we have a big team.
(09:14):
Then I was really on my owndoing this and now, with our UN
fact-finding mission, or groupof experts as it's called, we
have a whole staff based inPanama that is doing most of the
actually the legwork.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
Your report does detail, you know, graft,
corruption, nepotism,suppression of opposition,
repression of civil society.
In response, nicaragua haveleft the Human Rights Council.
The US beat them to the exitbecause the United States has
left as well.
(09:49):
So I mean, I'm wondering, giventhe kind of atmosphere there
seems to be about might-makingright rather than right-making
right, if you like, can reportslike yours do any good anymore?
Speaker 1 (10:04):
I think that you know , obviously that's an important
question that we ask ourselvesand we try to look at how a
report can make a difference.
And our report is really I meanthe press release is titled An
Appeal to the InternationalCommunity To do something.
You know we don't expect theNicaraguan government I mean the
Nicaraguan government has neverresponded to our requests.
I mean, like most of the UNcommissions of inquiry, we don't
(10:27):
actually get to go to thecountry.
The Nicaraguan government hasnever even bothered to respond
to our letters.
But what we're saying is look,here are the people who are
involved Today.
You know that opens them up toindividual targeted sanctions,
of which many countries havealready sanctioned people in
Nicaragua.
The situation in Nicaragua hasnot gotten better since we've
(10:48):
been reporting.
But people rely on the reports.
It gives succor to theopposition.
They see their names, they seewhat they have endured being
reported as fact by the UnitedNations, and I think there are
many side benefits to what we do.
Speaker 2 (11:07):
You talked about what's been happening in
Nicaragua, that the president,the vice president, man and wife
have consolidated power tothemselves.
They're kind of dismantling thechecks and balances, the
separation of powers.
You're American.
Are you concerned for your owncountry that something similar
is happening?
(11:27):
I mean you used to work here inGeneva at the International
Commission of Jurists.
You've written extensivelyetat.
That's happening where powersthat do not belong to the
president are being arrogated byCongress.
Is not being spent Agenciesthat were established by
Congress are being dismantled.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
The civil service protections are being undermined
.
I think we're living a very,very dangerous moment in the
United States and, as anAmerican, I think it's obviously
even more important, because ofthe power of the United States,
to be talking about that.
Unfortunately, we're seeing thefree speech tradition be
trampled on in the United States.
(12:36):
This weekend, the man who wasleading the protests on the
Columbia University campus infavor of Palestinian rights was
arrested pending deportation.
A man with a green card,married to an American citizen.
A US attorney for the Districtof Columbia wrote to Georgetown
Law School requestinginformation about their policies
(12:59):
on diversity, equity andinclusion and saying the federal
government is not going to hirelaw students who come from
schools that preach or practicediversity equity.
I mean these are major attackson free speech.
So it's not only the traditionsthat are different.
I mean these are major attackson free speech, so it's not only
the traditions that aredifferent.
I mean today we are seeing thatpeople.
(13:19):
For the first time in my life, Iam listening on the radio, on
TV, to Americans talking to thepress and refusing to use their
names because they are afraid ofretaliation.
That's the kind of thing thathappens in Russia, that happens
in Nicaragua, People who areafraid that if they, you know
(13:40):
they've been fired from theirgovernment jobs or whatever, but
they're actually afraid to givetheir names because of
retaliation.
Students and I think this isparticularly dealing with Middle
East issues often, where acollege student, a law student,
would be really very brave tostand up for Palestinian rights
(14:01):
today because of the effect thatwill have on their lives and
their careers.
But, more generally, people whostand up to what is going on
are afraid today.
Speaker 2 (14:12):
They're afraid to give their names, they're afraid
to speak out guardrails thatcame in, most of them after the
Second World War for a very goodreason.
This never again momentPeople's faith in those things.
(14:35):
People tend to be a bitirritated by them.
How can we get back a kind offaith and respect that actually
to prevent real barbarism weneed these things?
How can we inspire people?
I mean, you spent your lifedefending human rights.
How can we re-inspire people?
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Well, I think, education in many ways, I think
also the human rights movement,has lost touch with people.
Many people in Europe and theUnited States do not see
themselves as beneficiaries ofthe human rights movement.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
But they are.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
But of course they are, I mean people are saying
you know social media and thehorrible results of algorithms
and atomization of people, thereducing of the public space
where people come together.
I mean, I look at what my sonand his friends are listening to
and watching and I realize thatthere's no common debate
(15:39):
anymore.
I mean, in the old days you had, for better or for worse, you
had only a few stations on TV.
You had dialogue.
Now people you know in theUnited States in particular is a
very divided country in whichthe people progressives live in
the United States in particularis a very divided country in
which the people progressiveslive in cities, they read
certain newspapers, they watchcertain TVs and conservatives
(16:01):
live in other places.
Physically we're separated,mentally we're separated.
We come together in differentplaces and the algorithms
weaponize that in a sense.
And I'm worried that there's areality that's being created by
the media and obviously at acertain point in the US, as the
(16:21):
state is totally dismantled,we're going to see some very
serious soon.
We're going to see really badstuff happen and it'd be
interesting to see whether thegovernment continues to blame it
on what happened before.
Whether we have martial law, Iwould not exclude.
I mean, the guardrails havecome off and I'm very scared of
(16:41):
where we're headed.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
Read Brodie there with a worrying take on what's
happening in the United Statesright now.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Please raise your right hand and repeat after me I
.
Speaker 3 (16:59):
Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear.
I, Donald John Trump, dosolemnly swear Elon Musk, Mark
Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos and theCEOs of Apple and Google, who
have all been invited to sitright up on the platform where
Trump will be sworn in.
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Now many of us will remember the tech giants lined
up behind Donald Trump at hisinauguration Mark Zuckerberg of
Meta, jeff Bezos of Amazon and,of course, elon Musk, who has
been handed enormous power bythe president.
Last year, we devoted a wholeepisode of Inside Geneva to how
(17:36):
much big tech, whether it'ssocial media or artificial
intelligence, might influencethe democratic process.
Alberto Fernandez-Gibaja of theInternational Institute for
Democracy and ElectoralAssistance joined us then and
today he's back.
So how did we do in that bigelection year of 2024?
Speaker 3 (17:57):
I will say, even if it doesn't look like it, I think
we did pretty well.
2024 had around 60 elections itdepends how you count and when
it comes to the role that socialmedia and digital technologies
play in the elections, I thinkwe did pretty well, especially
(18:20):
considering that we started theyear saying we started 2024
saying it's going to be adisasterificial.
Intelligence is going to be agame changer.
It will disrupt every singleelection that is coming and
largely that didn't happen.
We are still in the face ofunderstanding exactly why it
(18:43):
didn't happen, trying to alsograsp if there is something we
are missing, if there issomething that we didn't see and
did happen.
But in general, I think thataspect of the elections was fine
.
What maybe wasn't that goodwere some of the results of
these elections.
But I don't think we can draw avery causality line between the
(19:07):
results of those elections, thepolicies of the people that got
elected and the way socialmedia and digital technologies
and artificial intelligenceinfluenced those elections.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
Let's look at.
All eyes are on, actually, theUnited States, which had an
election at the end of last year.
Pretty clear result ademocratic election, but
nevertheless we did also see acombination of the world's
richest man, Elon Musk,financially supporting a
(19:40):
particular party, theRepublicans, and also spreading
policies or attitudes that hesupports on the media platform
that he owns, ex-formerlyTwitter.
Now, obviously, we can't saythis changed the result of the
election in the United States,but people are worried that that
(20:03):
kind of thing is happening.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
You're right.
I don't think we can say thatchanged the results of the
elections, and I think this issomething that we need to have a
lot of clarity on this.
So far, we don't really have acase in which we can say digital
technologies changed theresults of the elections.
Without digital technologies,the result would have been
(20:26):
different.
Let's say, without social medialet's be concrete without the
weaponization of social mediacommunications, the results will
have been different.
It is obvious that it influenceda lot, but I think we tend to
focus on the very short term, onlike the campaign trail and the
(20:47):
last couple of months, and theeffect of social media is
probably more of like a longdripping effect that keeps
eroding, for me, one of thefundamental tenets of democracy,
which is having a sharedreality.
(21:07):
If people don't share a reality,we can disagree on the solution
, but we need to agree on whatis real and what is not, and
that effect is very long term.
So I think one of the lessons isthat probably the reason why
this type of politics and I readrecently somebody that speaks
(21:30):
about demanufacturing, consentthat approach to politics is
successful because we have comethrough many years of eroding
the grasp on reality of asignificant percentage of the
population, not only in theUnited States, globally, only in
(21:54):
the United States, globally.
And once you don't have ashared reality, then it becomes
relatively easy to weaponizethat part of society that is
losing touch with reality.
And then the battle is notabout I want to solve the
problem doing this thing or thisother thing.
The battle is about what thereality is.
It's a battle between tworealities.
For those of us who believethat we share a reality and a
(22:20):
reality based on facts andscience, we are in the losing
side, because it's verydifficult to speak about the
problems of society withsomebody that doesn't seem to be
living in the same planet,doesn't seem to be sharing your
own physical time and space.
We don't know what to do aboutthat.
Speaker 2 (22:39):
Well, let's take one specific example.
We had, or we have now,tensions between Europe and the
United States, a wide gulf ofmisunderstanding and dislike
certainly, it seems, from theUnited States towards Europe.
Now we had the Vice President,jd Vance, come to Europe and say
that Europe did not have freespeech.
(23:00):
I was in the United States inOctober of last year and a few
American people said oh, I feelso sorry for you, you don't have
free speech.
I mean, how do you challengethis?
Is this really a thing thatpeople believe, or is it
something that's being pushed bybig tech so that they can have
(23:20):
unfettered access?
Because we know that Europe isthe one continent which is
trying to establish someguardrails in safety around
social media, around AI.
Speaker 3 (23:35):
I think it's also important to understand that
there is a difference betweenthe concept of freedom of speech
that the US has and theEuropean Union or Europe in
general has.
I would say the one in Europeis a little bit more restrictive
, without saying that itrestricts freedom of speech, but
it's a little bit more based onprotecting certain groups.
We have a history in Europe ofgoing too far and letting
(23:58):
certain political groups startpushing certain narratives that
ended up in basically one of themost horrific actions of the
human being in our history.
So there is a differentunderstanding of the concept in
our history.
So there is a differentunderstanding of the concept.
I do think people believe itbecause if your information diet
(24:18):
is online bubbles ofultra-conservative influencers,
fox News, elon Musk and all thatbubble you probably keep
hearing that there is censorship, that all the legislation in
Europe is about censoring voices, that all the laws that are
(24:44):
there are about trying tosilence and muscle those that
are different, or that they'retrying to raise their voice and
speak from the people.
This is a very classic populiststrategy, so they probably
believe that.
It is also true that theyprobably don't have a lot of
alternative views on how thingswork in Europe or in other parts
(25:04):
of the world.
I mean this will probably applyanywhere else.
And the companies, I mean Idon't know, but I will say maybe
strategically, seeing what theyhave been doing recently, maybe
strategically they're not goingto be the ones standing up for
Europe and European legislationand say, look, the legislation
(25:25):
follows human rights and itprotects freedom of speech.
What I think is a veryimportant aspect is that the
conservative, the RepublicanParty today and the current
administration in the UnitedStates started a few years ago
like a front attack on anyattempt to make our digital
(25:48):
ecosystems healthier, and theywon.
Basically, we have to admitthey actually won.
They managed to shift theopinion of all the population,
or a big part of the population,from we need to put some
protections in the way digitalcommunications or information
(26:11):
moves around social mediatowards any protection that you
place is censorship, and theyhave managed to do that, and
they have managed to convince alot of people about that.
They managed to close theStanford Internet Observatory,
which was probably the bestresearch center in the world
(26:32):
when it comes to the role ofcontent moderation policies, the
role of algorithms andbasically how information on the
internet influenced the worldand they say it's a censorship
complex.
The internet influenced theworld and they say it's a
censorship complex.
What they're actually saying,what they're actually trying to
do, is we don't want thosebecause we benefit from this.
This is the way we mobilize ourpopulation, our voters.
(26:54):
We bring them to an alternativereality.
Are you worried?
I'm extremely worried, I think.
I mean, I think it changedcountry by country.
It might be that the Americanpopulation was a little bit more
primed for this, but I thinkthis is bound to happen
(27:14):
everywhere else in the world.
And I don't know if allcountries are protected, not
even the European Union.
It's necessarily protected andwe have seen already.
It's necessarily protected andwe have seen already.
So it's more of a warningrather than an exception.
We have already seen thishappening in other countries.
We have already seen peoplelosing touch with reality
(27:36):
because their information dietbecomes a few political
influencers, becomes a fewpolitical influencers, certain
social media accounts, and theyjust fall into a rabbit hole
where everything makes sense,where their capacity to make
sense of the world is sharp, bythese people.
(27:57):
So it's not that everybodyneeds to read the New York Times
or the Guardian or watch theBBC that kind of like source of
information that is trustable.
But when your only informationcomes from political influencers
who are just making a buck,just making money, and to make
(28:17):
money they need to say something, every time a little bit worse
than the previous thing, so thealgorithm keeps them popping up
in your time feed and so on,they're just making money when
that's the only diet.
Those plus TV channels thathave one objective, which is
again mobilize these people, Imean it is very difficult to
(28:38):
find that.
It is very, very difficult.
Speaker 2 (28:40):
You sound quite pessimistic and concerned.
What can we actually do?
Speaker 3 (28:45):
There are things that we can do.
The first one is for politicalparties and candidates that are
that truly believe in democracy,that truly believe that
democracy should be just a bodyof ideas.
They should realize that thereis nothing wrong with moral
(29:05):
clarity.
If you get into those games,you're going to lose.
There will always be one moreradical person that will
weaponize people and twistreality.
So if you are a rational actorin the political game, you need
to draw a line and you need toally with those that are
(29:27):
actually on your side in termsof I want to convince people
with arguments and ideas andfacts.
Exactly that's the mostimportant.
We need to do that.
The second thing that we needto do and this is going to sound
very counterintuitive isaddress TV.
The TV remains the main vectorof disinformation.
(29:50):
People, a lot of people.
The moment they see an idea onTV, it's like see, that has to
be true.
It's on TV the moment TV triesto bring two opinions, and then
it's like TV tries to bring twoopinions, and then it's like
here is a scientist with 25years of experience researching
vaccines and here is a no onethat has a popular YouTube
(30:14):
channel.
You can't do that.
You can't do that.
You need to protect informationintegrity on TV, Because, even
though youth people have aproblem on how they get
information, the main group ofpeople that are moving on an
alternative reality is actuallythe 55 plus, so TV is extremely
(30:38):
important.
We do need to educate kids inschools, but that's going to
take a long time, and we needproper accountability regimes
for social media platforms, andthose accountability regimes
should focus on content rankingalgorithms and on monetization.
(30:58):
For me, those are the twoaspects we still haven't managed
to grasp how to address.
It is fine for Instagram or forTikTok to realize that I am
into biking and then try to sellme bikes.
That's fine.
And if I get into bikeinfluencers, then they will feed
(31:20):
me with more bikes and morepublicity about bikes and so on.
That's fine.
That's a product Manipulate meto sell me that.
That has happened throughouthistory.
But that's not fine withpolitical ideas, and we need to
push tech platforms tounderstand that it's actually
not even in their interest to dothat.
Most of their revenue comes fromproducts, from selling clothes,
(31:44):
trips, houses, but not fromselling political ideas.
So we need to understand and toresearch ways to make sure that
the algorithm fits you withhealthy, fact-based political
content.
That's not going to be easy,that's very difficult, but it's
actually.
(32:04):
We haven't even tried.
So even if we don't get it 100%right, if it's only 80% right,
that's going to be an 80%improvement of what we have
today.
Speaker 2 (32:20):
And that brings us to the end of this episode of
Inside Geneva.
My thanks to Reid Brody andAlberto Fernandez-Gibaja for
their time and theirperspectives.
We hope you enjoyed thisepisode.
Do drop us a line atinsidegeneva, at swissinfoch,
with your thoughts, questions oreven ideas for new programmes
(32:42):
Coming up over the next fewweeks.
We're planning to look at theUN Human Rights Commissioner's
concerns about toxic masculinity.
Is it a problem?
And if it is, what can orshould the UN and governments be
doing about it?
And we'll be hearing fromGeneration South.
Young people from the GlobalSouth give us their views on the
(33:04):
biggest challenges facing theplanet and what we should be
doing to solve them.
Do join us next time on InsideGeneva.
A reminder you've beenlistening to Inside Geneva, a
Swiss Info production.
You can subscribe to us andreview us wherever you get your
(33:25):
podcasts.
Check out our previous episodeshow the International Red Cross
unites prisoners of war withtheir families, or why survivors
of human rights violations turnto the UN in Geneva for justice
.
I'm Imogen Folks.
Thanks again for justice.
I'm.
Speaker 3 (33:44):
Imogen folks.
Thanks again for listening.
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!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com