Former Pence aide: Trump has 'descended deeper into the heart of darkness'

>>. YOU KNOW WHAT PROBABLY ISN'T A GREAT WAY TO GET VOTERS ON YOUR SIDE: DINE AT YOUR PRIVATE CLUB WITH WHITE SUPREMACIST AND HOLOCAUST DENIERS. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK. FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD WHITE NATIONALIST AND HOLOCAUST DENIER NICK FUENTES, RAPPER KANYE WEST, NOW KNOWN AS YE. THE FORMER PRESIDENT CLAIMED FUENTES WAS AN UNEXPECTED GUEST AND HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT IT. HERE IS WHAT CHRIS CHRISTIE- POTENTIAL RIVAL FOR 2024, TOLD "THE NEW YORK TIMES". THIS IS JUST ANOTHER SKPAM OF AWFUL LACK OF JUDGMENT FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP, WHICH MAKE HIM AN UNTENABLE GENERAL ELECTION CANDIDATE FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IN 2024.. MARC SHORT, DO YOU AGREE? >> I DO AGREE. I THINK IT'S TERRIBLE JUDGMENT. THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR IT. I THINK BACKSTAGE HILARY REMINDED ME THAT MAR-A-LAGO WAS ONE OF THE FIRST CLUBS DOWN THERE TO ACTUALLY ALLOW JEWS IN THE REALITY IS. I THINK WE ALL KNOW HIS AFFECTION FOR HIS DAUGHTER, IVANKA, WHO CONVERTED TO JUDAISM. IT'S INCREDIBLE, POOR JUDGMENT. SINCE THE ELECTION IN 2020, THE PRESIDENT HAS DESCENDED DEEPER INTO THE HEART OF DARKNESS. IT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY I THINK REPUBLICANS ARE LOOKING IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION IN 2024.. >>. I MEAN I'M NOT SURPRISE WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT CHARLOTTESVILLE AND YOU HAD PEOPLE MARCHING DOWN THE STREET SAYING THAT JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US, AND THEN YOU HAD THE PRESIDENT SAY: THERE ARE GOOD PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. WELL, WHY WOULD WE BE SURPRISED THAT HE HAD AN ANTI-SEMITE GO DOWN AND HAVE DINNER WITH HIM EVEN IF HE DIDN'T KNOW OR ENTERTAIN SOME OF THESE CHARACTERS? DONALD TRUMP IS HOMOPHOBIC. HE IS AN ANTI-SEMITE. HE DOES RACIST THINGS. IF HE IS THE CANDIDATE FOR 2024, I THINK IT WILL JUST NOT BE BAD FOR REPUBLICANS. IT WILL BE BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY, BECAUSE IT WILL CONTINUE TO POLARIZE US AND CAUSE THIS HEIGHTENED Z TENSION OF HATE AND VIOLENCE IN OUR COUNTRY THAT PEOPLE ARE SICK OF. I THINK IT WAS ECONOMY BUT I THINK IT WAS THAT TOO, THAT VOTERS ARE TIRED OF THIS ANGER AND THIS VITRIOL THAT IS COMING FROM OUR ELECTED LEADERS >>. AND YET, KRISTEN, YOU KNOW THE REPUBLICAN ELECTORATE FROM POLLING IT. IS IT TOO SOON TO SAY, EVEN WITH THIS DINNER, EVEN WITH JANUARY 6th, EVEN WITH EVEN WITH EVEN WITH THAT DRAM IS NOT VIABLE FOR THE WONDERING. IS THIS GOING TO BE THE THING? IS THIS THE THING? WHERE HE CROSSES THE LINE AND FINALLY, EVERYBODY DECIDES: NO, LET'S TURN THE PAGE? I THINK, WHAT MAY BE DIFFERENT? THIS TIME IS. REPUBLICANS ARE WOUNDED, COMING OUT OF THIS MIDTERM EVEN THOUGH. THEY HAVE TAKEN CONTROL OF THE HOUSE BY A SLIM MARGIN AND ARE LOOKING AROUND SAYING SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT. WE HAVE TO TURN THE PAGE, CHANGE SOMETHING WHETHER. THAT IS JUST A FEELING OF REPUBLICANS IN WASHINGTON, OR HAS IT BLED OUT YET INTO SORT OF REPUBLICANS- YOUR VOTERS, PRIMARY VOTERS, I THINK. REMAINS TO BE SEEN, BUT I KNOW THIS IS A MOMENT WHERE DONALD TRUMP SEEMS WEAKENED, SEEM MORE VULNERABLE, AND SOMETHING LIKE THIS MAYBE THIS TIME AROUND. IT FINALLY DOES Stik >> 15 SECONDS >>. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT HASN'T CHANGED. WE'RE STILL tokING ABOUT HIM. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS. WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS DYNAMIC IS IF WE ALL STOPPED tokING ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. THERE IS THIS ACTUAL CONVERSATION. IF I WERE A REPUBLICAN, I WOULD WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT DOES ABORTION MEAN FOR US GOING FORWARD? WHAT IS THE HOUSE GOING TO DO? WHAT ARE THE POLICY ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE? BUT NOBODY IS DOING THAT. WE IN THE MEDIA KEEP DOING THIS TOO. WE KEEP GIVING DONALD TRUMP OXYGEN >>. WHEN SOMEBODY IS IN THE WHITE HOUSE, HAS DINNER WITH AN ANTISEMT AND A HOLOCAUST DENIER AND HAS NOT CONDEMNED IT. IT'S WORTH tokING ABOUT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.

This Is The Worst Company In The World

imagine when i paid back your friend for a dinner you had together last night. but your friend sends you a dm asking you to use a specific service. you look it up on duckduckgo, because google sucks, and find it has 1.2 stars and over 18 000 reviews. 85 of those reviews rated bad one star and plenty of them would give zero if they could. angry customers claim to be losing hundreds or even thousands of dollars on this service, locking up their funds and providing horrible support. you'd never want to use such a service. in fact, you'd probably think your friend got hacked and a scammer is trying to use their account to steal your money. but apparently this is a company with over a 300 billion dollar market cap. wait, rank 28- what the [ __ ]? so this is an atm. what we're going to do is transform the traditional banking industry. yeah, it's paypal, founded by elon musk, the beldell theme of tik bros. the fact that millions of people use paypal on daily basis is a crime of the century. the company probably has the worst reputation on the planet and the reasons for it are obvious to anyone that distrusts centralized financial services. paypal isn't the only financial company susceptible to the failures of centralization, but it's a perfect case study for why you shouldn't trust any single authority when it comes to your money. here's the problem. money is inherently neutral. it doesn't care whose hands traded, and that's good, even if the money funds nefarious purposes. the reason for this is that people need to have trust in the value of the legal tender. if they have to think twice about each transaction, whether it's gonna get locked up or get your funds frozen, the public would lose trust in the currency. if crimes are being committed, the law should go after the people and not tame the funds. but this is where financial services enter the market and ruin your day. companies that handle your money have responsibilities- their shareholders. they need to pay out dividends and increase share prices, otherwise investors might bail. serving customers neutrally is risky because at least some of them might use their surveys in ways that produce a really bad pr. whether it's legal or not, bad pr can come from anything that might be picked up by the public or the media. financial services wouldn't make money in such a volatile environment without a mechanism to rule out those bad seeds, and that mechanism is the terms of service. paypal's terms of service redefines what money means. its narrow acceptable use policy makes money function as a permissioned tender. you cannot use your funds however you want, since paypal has a broad definition for which payments require pre-approval and which ones are not allowed at all. at the first glance, this policy might sound reasonable. obviously, no company would want to serve criminals, but there are a few clever legal phrases that do a lot of heavy lifting for paypal. transactions involving their codex or steroids are not permitted, even if they are legal, and the same goes for any product that presents a risk to consumer safety, which can arguably be any product at any point in space and time. what's certain is that your transactions must not involve cigarettes, firearms, ammunition, firearm accessories or certain knives and weapons. that's a broad category of items that may be perfectly legal in your jurisdiction, but paypal doesn't allow them. in your country, money can be protected by freedom of expression, but at paypal that's not the case, because you cannot pay for items that are considered obscene, whatever paypal decides, that is, you cannot support workers in the business of providing sexual content or services. and, of course, you shall not pay for anything that can be considered hateful, intolerant or discriminatory. and let's not forget that what is legal or legal doesn't necessarily reflect what's moral or ethical. paypal only enables the safest route, the status quo. it would never allow fringes to challenge the mainstream and change the society for the better. in other words, if paypal existed in 1960s, they would absolutely cite it with segregation, because that's what they are doing to sex workers, drug users and copyright reformists. now we are not toking money anymore. this is social media platforms territory, but with paypal, their policy is far more destructive, because getting the platform from social media can be detrimental, but it's not an immediate existential threat, but pulling the rug on your funds that can completely ruin your business or life. the practikal application of paypal's acceptable use policy is far worse than you could imagine from just reading it. in 2010, paypal throws the account of wikileaks after the organization exposed war crimes conducted by the us military. paypal wasn't the only one. pretty much everybody pulled the plug on wikileaks at the time- amazon, visa, mastercards, dns resolvers- but the majority of contributions to wikileaks had been drawn via paypal, so this move was significant. wikileaks only option was to ask for bitcoin donations. and wikileaks isn't the only publisher paypal unplugged. in 2019, paypal halted payments to over 100 000 performers and content creators on the most family-friendly hub on the internet, essentially threatening livelihoods of one of the most traditional workers in our economy. paypal's reasoning was that the hub made certain payments without asking for paypal's permission. the hub eventually began providing cryptokurrency payment options, offering to select bitcoin, litecoin or other virtual currencies. i hope you are starting to see a pattern here. paypal is notorious for using automated filters to flag certain transactions based on keywords. this resulted in palestinian charities that were not on the us government's sanction list to have their donations rejected or funds frozen on paypal and venmo, paypal's offspring. such a dragnet flagging mechanism also caused headaches to use those transactions with keywords persian or iran. you would think that it makes sense, because iran is currently sanctioned by the us government. the problem is that this isn't the us government blocking these transactions. it's paypal, liberally in interpreting the us foreign policy, applying it to people that would never be targeted by the sanctions simply because of keywords that triggered the algorithm. you might argue: hey, they are trying to be compliant. it's not them, it's the us government, and i wouldn't argue with you. in 2015, paypal was fined 5.1 million pounds for violating sanctions imposed by the us treasury's office of foreign assets control. ofac is an office that imposes and enforces economic sanctions based on us foreign policy and economic goals. its broad scope of engagement naturally invites politikally motivated incentives that paypal is willing to go above and beyond to satisfy paypal and venmo automatikally screen payments against the opac blacklist and flag anything that comes remotely close to potential violation. it functions as a government's extension of financial censorship. but this is the point. a financial service with the central authority to give people permission to use it should not exist. money works best in a peer-to-peer mechanism, no intermediaries, no third parties, just you and your recipients. that's how cash and coin payments have worked for thousands of years and there is no reason digital payments should work any differently. introducing central authority or third parties to money transfers only imposes liability on the authorizing body. because of that liability, financial censorship is inevitability. innocent people and perfectly legal transactions are a massive collateral damage of such a system. it also excludes a large portion of the population that is not deemed creditworthy because they are living at or below a poverty line. the internet is flooded with ridiculous examples of paypal's financial censorship. a merchant based in seattle selling tardigrade ornaments was censored just because a company named tardigrade limited that opera.

More:TOP PRODUIT GAGNANT #17 - Dropshipping Aliexpress

New details emerge from transcripts of Jan. 6 committee's witness interviews

the January 6 committee has released more than 30 new witness transcripts from its investigation into the attack on the US Capitol. as Nicole Killian reports, one witness in partikular appears to have been the target of a pressure campaign by attorneys tied tied to the former president. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. she was considered one of the star Witnesses in the January 6 select committee investigation. it was Un-American. we were watching the Capitol Building get defaced over a lie. according to new transcripts released by the panel, former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson described being pressured before her testimony. in a September deposition she set an aide to her then boss. Chief of Staff Mark Meadows called and said: well, Mark wants me to let you know that he knows you're loyal and he knows you'll do the right thing tomorrow and that you're going to protect him and the boss. Select Committee Member, Elaine Lauria, we need to know for Mark Meadows did you give that direction and that's why we made sure to highlight it for the Department of Justike. Hutchinson also told the panel she struggled to find a lawyer and was directed to a trump-related attorney named Stefan pasentino, who outlined his strategy. the less you remember the better, and later he told her: we just want to focus on protecting the president. and before worksheet publicly testified about this altercation between the former president and his security detail in his limousine, the president said something to the effect of: I'm the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now. she said possentino discouraged her and suggested she say she didn't recall. but for a lawyer to tell a client to say something that the client knows is false, it's not just unusual, it's criminal. pastantino said he represented Hutchinson honorably and ethically, but he also announced that he's taking a leave of absent from his firm because the situation with the committee had become- quote- a distraction. John Nicole Killian, thank you. CBS News Chief election and campaign correspondent Robert Costa joins me now. Bob Cassidy Hutchinson also in that, um, uh, as Nicole mentioned the key witness of these hearings. also in those transcripts she mentioned past, something called. she called the pass, the mirror test. what was that, John? great to be with you. I think about that Faulkner line. the past has never passed. it's not even passed because this episode has Echoes of Watergate. in fact, Cassidy Hutchinson detailed how she Googled the Watergate scandal when she was contemplating how to handle the engagement with the January 6 committee and she found a name during the course of This research, Alexander Butterfield, famous for going before the Watergate committee toking about the taping system inside the Nixon White House. she ordered a book by Bob Woodward about Alexander Butterfield's experience in the Nixon White House, called the last of the President's Men, a continuation of Woodward and Bernstein's All the President's Men theme in terms of covering the Nixon years. but you see, in Cassidy Hutchison someone who had to make, in her view, as described in her testimony, a moral decision. could she pass the mirror every day and look at herself if she didn't testify? she ultimately decided to sit down with the committee when this report comes out. or maybe you've already had a chance to look at the transcripts, Bob. you've spent so much time, uh, in in working with Woodward on Peril and and in your own reporting. you've spent so much time thinking about January 6th. are there things you're looking for in those 800 pages and in those transcripts? um, that you'll go right to once you get them. the thing if if people out there are actually going to take the time to read the transcripts. here's what I would advise: look at the questions, not the answers. so often the answers are one word: Fifth, Fifth. what does that mean? it means they're invoking the Fifth Amendment. they're right against self-incrimination, choosing not to partikipate. but what's so intriguing? when you read through and Page through these transcripts, the questions being asked tell you a lot about what other Witnesses sitting before this committee might have provided to the committee how the committee is thinking chronologically through the, the events of January 6, before and after the documentation they've acquired. so you, the transcripts are a glimpse into the evidence the committee has compiled, which is a lot, even if it's not always a glimpse into the mindset of the witnesses sitting before the lawmakers. it's such a great Point, Bob. and also, uh, the justike department, following up essentially on those leads, might be able to do more to develop what the committee could only ask questions about and then make that a part of their investigation is the final question, Bob. you reported months ago that Jenny Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justike Clarence Thomas, sent numerous texts to White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows advocating uh, or that the election have been stolen and to do what could be done to overthrow the, the outcome or the result she finally toked to the committee in some form. we didn't hear much about that in the open hearings. what's your sense of what we're going to hear, uh, from this report. will there be a transcript? what do you know about that? I've been doing some reporting on this, John, in recent days, trying to figure out how the committee is going to handle this issue, and it's a sensitive issue. inside the committee there are real debates, discussions among the members about how to handle Jenny Thomas's appearance before the committee. it was not a formal deposition per se. she was engaging with the committee sitting for an interview, a conversation, but for for her to sit down, her attorney had a discussion with the committee about the terms, and some of the terms that the committee did agree to, based on our reporting, is that it would not be filmed and there would not be audio, in the sense that there would not be anything collected by the committee that could be used in a hearing. Jenny Thomas and Her counsel, based on our reporting, did not want to have her blasted to millions of people on television, though I am told there was a transcript taken in the sense of a court reporter type, transcribing the discussion among the lawmakers on the committee and Jenny Thomas, and this is going to be a decision for the committee. will they release the that to the public. as a reporter, I'm a big believer in releasing everything possible. that's not a politikal position. I would say that about any committee on Capitol Hill: the more we can see and digest, the better. and what's also a real question mark here is: will they feel pressure to do so? Congress is not like other parts of the federal government where you can have a foia request, a Freedom of Information Act request. so if the committee decides to keep this Ginny transcript on the Shelf, we might not see it for months, if not years. so it will really be a test of whether they can come to a consensus. just to put it out there: great reporting, Bob, thanks so much for being with us. we appreciate. thank you.

More:shopify photo size

Your Missing The SCARIEST Thing About Trumps Banning From Twitter, Facebook, Shopify & More

all remaining systems will bow to the first order and we'll remember this as the last day of the republic. [Music]. [Music]. what's going on? everyone, jeremy, here from the quartering and i will implore you to leave your partisan politiks at the door. this topic is far, far more important than owning trump. okay, there are far too many people on both sides of the aisle right now watching the systematik deplatforming of the president of the united states and reacting emotionally to it, whether they think, haha, take that orange man, cheeto man, drumpf, or they're genuinely mad. most people are not mad for the right reasons. most people don't see this for what this really is, and that is that this is the single greatest power grab by silicon valley in history, and it went unchallenged. nobody stopped them, nobody questioned them. they unpersoned the sitting president of the united states, and most people's reaction are: ha, own drum. you are being so short-sighted if that's how you're looking at this, if you're obsessed with the fact, if you are like enjoying the ducks, oh, shopify, shut them down. ha, take that trump. if you don't wake up, you're just gonna be another cog in the machine of censorship. that's what they want you to do. trump, trump's banning is like a red herring practikally to what's really happening. we saw facebook, youtube, twitter, par or uh uh uh shopify every major silicon valley company act in unison to not only unperson again the sitting president. so what hope do the rest of us have but to squash competition at the most important time? donald trump had 80 million followers on twitter. half of them probably hated him, don't care, right. 80 million. if he would have been, if he had been able to quickly transfer to parlor, what do you think would have happened? 20 million users come over. 10 million users come over, at least right immediately, overnight. parlor is a legitimate, legitimate competitor for twitter. couldn't let that happen. it was so convenient, so convenient that apple happened to issue a 24-hour ultimatum the very same day they battled donald trump. it was just convenient that the google play store removed parlor on the very day they banned donald trump from twitter. what a kawinki dink. but take that, drumpf. ha ha ha. take that right wingers, you're willingly walking to the gallows of censorship to own the right. that's how these people sound. they're literally cutting off the nose, their own noses, despite their face. that's how stupid of a take. that is right now, and i'm sorry if that offends you as one of my viewers. look, i've dropped a couple thousand subscribers this week, a lot of people that subscribed to me when i was covering cyberpunk and all this stuff didn't like that. i also covered, you know, tik, censorship issues and other type of issues. that's okay. that's okay. but you know what? if you're watching this and you aren't currently subscribed, please take a second to hit that red subscribe button right below the video. support this channel, support all tik. i'm doing a whole separate video today about how to get involved with alt tik. parlor bit shoot minds because the mainstream media is literally in cahoots with silicon valley to squash competition. last night we saw shopify takes trump organization and campaign stores offline. reddit bans are donald trump discord bans pro trump server. the donald google pulls parlor from the play store. i'm sorry, this after twitter permanently banning trump. okay, we've seen this playbook before. all we need now is mastercard to cancel his credit cards and we'll have basically what they did to alex jones. but but lost in all of this, lost in everybody on the far left celebrating saying you didn't go far enough. who else should we ban? who? how else can we secure the echo chamber that is twitter? the same people that whine about parlor being echo chamber, also demanding anybody with opposing views be removed from twitter. these people are so dumb. don't be that. don't be that dumb. don't let them suck you in to the partisan conversation. what we saw in the last 24 hours was the single largest power grab silicon valley has ever had, might be one of the- you know, if you adjust for the eras- one of the biggest power grabs in history in the united states, given the amount of control that silicon valley has over communications. this would be like in the 50s when, when there's two major newspapers across the nation and they were suddenly owned by one person overnight, while everyone was- haha, drunk. look, i leave your partisan crap at the door. okay, fine. if you don't like trump, awesome. if you did like them, awesome. i don't care about that. i care about everybody willingly being censored and then demanding more of it. this is dangerous. and then the monopolistik move. oh my god, so perfect, right, such a co-winky dink that the day twitter bans donald trump, google play removes parlor from their app store. what a kawinki dink. oh, what a coincidence on that timing. huh, so convenient that the day twitter bans donald trump, apple issues a 24-hour ultimatum to parlor. and, by the way, everything they say about parlor can be said about twitter. there are extreme posts that happen on twitter all the time and there are extreme posts that happen on parlor. it happens on facebook, happens on reddit, happens everywhere, but when they want you to, uh, care. now it's the first time ever that somebody's posted something heinous. there are bad posts on parlor. i have 165 000 followers there and i've never once seen one in my replies. but obviously there are screenshots of now banned accounts- no, mostly. and now you have amazon employees- amazon employees- oh, this other thing i want to tok about. so a lot of people said: well, trump wasn't the pl, the president wasn't d platformed, he still had the potus account actually, no, he didn't, because he went to the potus account and twitter immediately removed the posts and locked him out of that account. so, yes, silicon valley, specifically on person, the sitting president of this nation and amazon workers now demand parlor be removed from amazon's web hosting service. enough is enough. amazon hosts parlor on the amazon web services cloud. as amazon workers, we demand amazon deny parlor services until it removes posts doing: say, amazon our parlor already had. this is a such another hilarious lie spread by the mainstream media. amazon already has a policy. our parlor already has a policy against this stuff. parlor needs to find a way to stay on the play store and stay on on the apple uh app store. now, that's an uncomfortable, that's an look i. i said this on my parlor account and i basically got ratioed by my own viewers saying: no, we can't, you can't bend the knee, you can't bend the knee. well, that's fine if you want to be gab. i'm not saying to bend the knee, but what i'm saying is figure out a way to stay on the platform. don't miss this opportunity. what a kawinkidink that google removed it when 80 million people are potentially looking for a new home. 80 million people follow donald trump, half of which probably hated him. right, they're like the trump. reply guys or journalists and all this crap. another 20 million bots. let's say that's still 20 million new potential users coming over overnight. overnight, we saw this happen already. once i went from like 20 000 followers on gab to 160 000 overnight the last time there was a mass exodus. i probably would have had 500 000 after this one, but in a coincidence, in a colossal coincidence- people couldn't download the app. parlor was basically down all day yesterday too, from the huge influx. this is what mainstream media does. i don't care if you don't like trump, look, he's gonna be out office in two weeks, okay, all right, that makes you uncomfortable, it's just the overwhelming likelihood, all right. so now you've got biden, who isn't going to push back against this stuff, and you're going to have 10 years of this. biden's going to be here for two years and he's going to step down and campbell is going to run and and be president for 10 years. you can have 10 years- 8 to 10 years- of this o.

Facebook Extends Ban on Trump Posts ‘Indefinitely’

for the first time ever, twitter, facebook and instagram suspended president trump's twitter accounts yesterday, and now mark zuckerberg is saying in a post that quote: we believe the risks of allowing the president to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great. therefore, we are extending the block we have placed on his facebook and instagram accounts indefinitely and for at least the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete. here to discuss is social media researcher, the director of the mit initiative on the digital economy and also the author of the hype machine: how social media disrupts our elections, our economy and our health, and how we must adapt. sanana raw live in brooklyn, new york. uh, professor raul, thank you so much for for being here. uh, president trump has been spreading misinformation and fear on his social media accounts for some time now. from your perspective, is this block long overdue? well, i think it is, um, and you know i wrote an artikle in october that predicted that this would happen. and i'm not the only one. scientists and experts have been warning about this for months, if not years, and the reason is because the research shows that the information ecosystem is essential to things like this happening, because that kind of information spreading on social media motivates writers and protesters, it helps coordinate writers and protesters and it provides social proof that other people are also going to engage in this, which legitimizes this type of behavior. we saw the coordination with the, the foiled kidnapping attempt of the governor of michigan. this has been a long time coming. so what is the role that tik companies should, should, actually play here? because there is this, this balance of making sure that the leader of the free world, as he is, uh does have access to their platforms, right? well, as far as i can tell, this is unique because, uh, you know, president trump behaves unlike any other president that we've ever seen, unlike most uh leaders. uh, behave, uh, but his remarks recently were partikularly incendiary. they were not an attempt by a leader to create peace. uh, they were, uh, they were stoking the fans, the, you know the, the fires, if you will, and i think that the, the block by facebook, twitter and instagram uh is legitimate in this case. i do think that typically, you want to err on the side of allowing speech to continue, but this is a case of violence, this is a case of a threat to the democracy, in my opinion, uh, and i do believe that these blocks are essential, but i'm wondering if the damage has already been done here. i mean, obviously the damage has been done. we saw the damage play out yesterday. how does this actually happen in in real time? the message was out and it was out there for hours. i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we're not finished. yeah, so, as i predicted in october that something like this would happen, uh, i believe what happens next is still critikally important. what happens today, what happens tomorrow, what happens over the next two weeks leading up to the inauguration and even potentially beyond, um, i don't think it's a. it's a case of everything is in the rear view mirror. i think we're at a critikal moment and i think that what we do next is essential. um, and i think that we're- we're not quite out of the woods yet. what role do you think social media played in in the organization around yesterday? i think it's clear that it played a very large role. i think it's. it plays multiple roles. it plays a role in spreading misinformation that distorts the reality of people who are engaged in this kind of violence. it creates motivation. it enables coordination, where people can message each other over this type of media in order to coordinate activities like this. it creates social proof that other people will join. research shows. people who study the riot process have indicated in research that rumors are essential to riots because it motivates it, you know, commits writers to a certain line of action. it stokes fear, which then stokes reactions. uh, it's, it stokes camaraderie through social proof. all of these things contribute to any one person's decisions, uh, to join into something like this, and in my book i detail exactly all of the large-scale research evidence that we have that indicate social media's role in protest movements, uh, whether they're violent or peaceful. so so this is a big problem and- and you lay it out in a really succinct way- but at the same time, it's it's a very difficult and i think perhaps to some it would sound an insurmountable task for the platforms to get this under control. what recommendations would you offer? jack dorsey and mark zuckerberg and sheryl sandberg? i believe that they need to have much more detailed and transparent moderation policies that they follow specifically. what they've been doing recently has been adaptive. in other words, we see a partikular new line of of information or a new tweet, and we're going to make, case by case decisions based on this partikular tweet, that partikular tweet, uh, or facebook post, or instagram post. what they need is: so there's sort of a delay there? well, it's, it's adaptive, it's reactive. i should say, okay. what they need is they need a a, a set of detailed policy. uh, you know, uh, uh you know indications of how they're going to moderate content. they need to be transparent about that and every time there's a debate about free speech versus moderation, they need to point back to that policy and say: we thought about this. it is well reasoned and thought out. this is why it falls under the rubric. i mean, if you remember what the new york post- uh biden, uh, hunter biden emails, right, uh, you know. twitter, yeah, changed its fault. it first, uh, you know, blocked and it allowed. then it changed its policy to adapt to the choices that they've made, and so on. that kind of policy is not sustainable. they need to think it they out in advance. they need to consult experts. they need to make the policies transparent. they need to get, uh you know, comments on those policies that need to enact and adhere to those policies going forward. but what about when it comes to actually making sure that people don't use the platforms to to organize things that are are dangerous, because that that's a a stiky situation. absolutely. i don't think that there's any room for allowing the organization of violence on any one of these platforms. that should be rooted out and banned, blocked people who do that should be uh, banned or blocked, uh, and i think that that is an essential part of maintaining public safety, which is a justifiable reason for content moderation on these platforms. sonata rawl, an mit professor of it management, marketing and data science, also the author of the hype machine, how social media disrupts our elections, our economy and our health, and how we must adapt, joining us on quick take live from brooklyn, professor raul. thank you for your time. the biggest stories the moment they happen, from around the globe: subscribe to bloomberg. quick take now for insight in an instant.

Facebook, Instagram ban Donald Trump indefinitely after supporters storm U.S. Capitol

mark zuckerberg posting um the dramatik move that they believe that the risks of allowing the president to continue to use the service are too great and they will be blocking the president on facebook and instagram indefinitely and at least for the next two weeks until the peaceful transition of power is complete. now, carl, as you mentioned, this is a dramatik move for facebook because mark zuckerberg has stated repeatedly that he believes that facebook is a very necessary platform for free speech. he is always really sided with with this side of free speech. rather than more regulation, he has called for regulation um to help create guidelines to understand how to limit speech on the platform. but this is really a dramatik move, saying they believe it is simply too dangerous to allow the president to use the platform. and just to be clear, carl, this is an extension of a 24-hour block that facebook had put on the president. that began last night and they're now saying that this will be extended indefinitely. to that point, julia, i just wonder how much of this, given the fact that that we have been having these conversations- i mean to think about the tik sell-off we saw yesterday- in part because of expectations that we're going to see tighter regulations, maybe a revisit a sharper, stronger revision of section 230? uh, with this new administration, i mean, is this: is this zuckerberg and facebook looking to get ahead of what might be inevitably that you know? i don't know if it's as much that, morgan, and more the fact that there's been a lot of critikism of these platforms for enabling the organization of some of the writing that we saw yesterday, and the question of whether or not facebook is just simply not quick enough to take things down and whether or not, even if something is up for even 30 seconds, it can be shared and liked many times in that period. so i think there's this question- you know, not just what they face from capitol hill, this question whether facebook is biased in how it regulates content on the platform, but whether it can be used as a tool for bad and whether they need to be much more stringent in preventing that from happening. and simply, right now, they think the risk is too great for the next next two weeks. it's a very, very bold move by mark zuckerberg and cheryl sandberg. to that point, julian, referencing something tom friedman said earlier on squawk box. i mean, there was a period before the election where facebook was elevating more credible news content into people's news feed and then they apparently stopped doing that. you know, do we have any sense that they're going to revisit that policy and perhaps make it permanent as well? well, look, they have been trying to elevate reputable news, partikularly about coronavirus. they've been elevating, you know, correct news from reputable sources around the election. if you go to instagram right now, they say: here is the election news you need to know. here's what's happening right now on capitol hill. but i think what has shifted is, for many years, zuckerberg said that they believed that people needed to know what the president was saying. they needed to know if he was saying things that were incendiary. and now they're saying: these things are incendiary. we don't want people to be incited to violence because of that. i want to just read you one quote here from mark zuckerberg's comments. um, he said, over the last several years, we have allowed president trump to use our platform consistent with our rules, at times removing content or labeling his posts when they violated our policies. we did this because we believe that the public has a right to the broadest possible access to politikal speech, even controversial speech. but the current context is now fundamentally different, involving use of our platform to incite violent insurrection against a democratikally elected government. that paragraph sums up the shift that facebook has made between allowing this as free speech and now saying it certainly incites violence. shepherd smith here. thanks for watching cnbc on youtube.