The Real Election Threat: Tech Oligarchs & Algorithms | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

RENÉE DIRESTA: So what happens in this lawsuit is. that the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana. sue with a judge. I'm currently being sued in front of that judge. JON STEWART: What? Why? RENÉE DIRESTA: Well, Stephen Miller sued. me in front of that judge. We can talk about that after. JON STEWART: No. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes. JON STEWART: Wait, ghoul Stephen Miller? That Stephen Miller? RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes. Yes. JON STEWART: Dead eye Stephen Miller? RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes. JON STEWART: Stephen Miller that walks by plants, and they die. That Stephen Miller? RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes. It's an honor, but yes. JON STEWART: Wow. Wow. All right, we'll get into that later. Don't let me forget that.

[MUSIC PLAYING]. Hello, everybody. Welcome to The Weekly Show podcast. My name is Jon Stewart, and I will be your audio guide. to this week's podcast. It is Tuesday. It is March 17. It is St. Patrick's Day. And I am-- oh, it's all blue. Blue and gray. I'm in blue and gray. Does that signify anything on a day like today? It probably doesn't. We are still, I guess, entering week three of our war.

with Iran. But I want to talk about a different threat. to the country. The Senate this week, I believe, is going to be trying to figure out bureaucratic loopholes. to try and get their Save America Act through, even though they don't really have the votes for it, because they could never pass the thresholds of filibuster. and certainly not passage. But they want to get it done because they want to introduce. the safeguards to the American electorate, because so many undocumented people,

so many non-Americans skew our elections so brutally, even though they don't-- even though. there's no evidence of it. Other than that, this is an incredibly crucial piece. of legislation that must be passed. So today, what I would like this episode to be focused on. is the real threat, ironically, to American democracy. and our election. And that is the algorithms and social media platforms. that push this bullshit and get it out into the electorate.

so that it becomes canon, even though it. lacks the evidence for that. And so, to get into that topic, we bring. in experts in this field. So let's get to them now. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Very excited as we talk about the real threats. to the American electoral system, to the American democratic system. And we are delighted with our two guests today. We've got Renée DiResta.

She's the Associate Research Professor at Georgetown McCourt. School of Public Policy. You always know how good something. is by how long its name is. And that's the longest name there is--. also the author of Invisible Rulers--. The People Who Turn Lies Into Reality. And Casey Newton, who's the Editor of Platformer. And, of course, you all know him. as the co-host of Hard Fork, which. is the New York Times podcast about technology and future. And hello.

RENÉE DIRESTA: Hello. CASEY NEWTON: Hey, Jon. JON STEWART: What is happening with the both of you? Listen, the reason why we're doing this now--. so I don't know if you're familiar with the SAVE Act. It's the Save America Act. And, as you know, that's where we live, America. And they're going to save it by voting on it. And what it's going to do is it's. going to protect our electoral system and our democracy.

from the scourge--. sc-orge? scurrge--. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yeah. JON STEWART: Of non-citizen voting, which, as you know, is in the, I think, billions. [LAUGHTER]. Let's just start by defining what this SAVE. Act is seeking to accomplish. Basically, it's an idea that most people can get behind--.

voting is for American citizens. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes. JON STEWART: Let me ask you both now. Generally, are our elections decided by American citizens? RENÉE DIRESTA: Absolutely. CASEY NEWTON: Yeah. JON STEWART: So we have an agreement. You and I, we are all in agreement. So why is it, and this gets, maybe, to the heart of the issue--. 70% of Americans support the SAVE Act. because it's going to make sure that citizens vote. But, generally, citizens vote. But 50%, I think, somewhere along that line, believe that undocumented voting is an enormous problem.

and is done by the thousands and millions. Why is that? And I'll start with Renée. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yeah. So there's been rumors about that for ages. And you can look back to--. I mean, we can go back to the 2016 election. You can go prior to that. You basically see these stories, we call them tropes in election rumor research--. and I use the word "rumor" on purpose. A rumor is something where it sounds like it could be true.

It resonates with people. They think, oh, this might be something that is happening. They heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who. saw it on the internet, right? There's this trace back to a claim. that some guy said somewhere. And with this rumor of non-citizens voting, what you. hear is this theory that your vote is. going to be stolen from you. Your candidate might lose because somebody. who is not supposed to be doing a thing is doing that thing. So there's a sense that you might be wronged. And that's why it lands so hard emotionally.

And if you look back, you see the same types. of stories, the same types of tropes landing over and over. and over again. You have the bust in voter. You have the person voting with their maiden name. You have the person who is here illegally voting. These are stories that recur over and over and over again. And the reason they recur is because they seem plausible, they seem believable, and most people are. not persuaded by statistics. They don't go and say, oh, Cato says. that this is a small problem. Heritage says this is a small problem. JON STEWART: Two conservative--.

Cato is libertarian. Heritage is--. RENÉE DIRESTA: Exactly. I mentioned those on purpose. Exactly. Yes. So when you go and you look at even the libertarian. and the right wing studies of voter fraud, you find, repeatedly, that when you are looking. at honest statistics, when you're looking. at the actual studies of the problem, it is infinitesimally small. But when you go and you look at social media. and you hear people who are sharing these stories that they. relate to, that feel true, that's why these rumors. continue to propagate. JON STEWART: But, Casey, so when.

we're talking about social media and those kinds of things. and they propagate along that way, is that happenstance? Is that because the rumor mill? Or how does it propagate? Why does it propagate? How does a video of an election worker in Georgia reaching. under the table to pull out a bucket of votes-- that. is not in any way nefarious--. become the centerpiece of these larger conspiracies, et cetera? CASEY NEWTON: Sure.

Well, Renée just pointed out, there's. something really emotional about seeing something. like that on social media-- somebody just pulled. out a bucket of votes, seems like something. nefarious is happening here. And, depending on what caption the aggrieved user might put. underneath it, all of a sudden, it's. going to start getting that engagement, right? The algorithm is going to say, hey, this seems like it's pretty interesting. We're going to show this to a lot more people. And, over time, the elites of the Republican Party, whoever can use this to their advantage, is going to say, aha, this is something that I can use to make my case.

And so that's that the algorithms and the elites. are kind of working hand in hand. to spread whatever kind of emotional rumor. might serve their cause. JON STEWART: Ultimately, the aim, genuine or disingenuous, of protecting the electoral system, you would consider it to be an honorable one. And there are times that it does it. I think there was a study done since 1982 that there.

were almost 1,500 people. RENÉE DIRESTA: Total. JON STEWART: Now, you could say, like, well, in small elections, even one vote, two votes, three votes can make a difference, which is true. But it's very clear that the irony of this. is that the larger threat to our electoral system. and our American democracy is the manner in which. social media can spread these tropes and these inaccuracies.

to a really much wider group of people and light these fires. And is that the type of thing--. we're utterly ignoring the actual threat. to our democracy-- would that be accurate, Renée? RENÉE DIRESTA: Well, yes. The challenge is that there's not. a lot you can do about that, because the way that, as Casey--. JON STEWART: Wait, what? RENÉE DIRESTA: This is the problem, right? JON STEWART: I thought we were fixing this today.

Son of a. RENÉE DIRESTA: So, I worked on a project called the Election. Integrity Partnership, where we just traced. rumor after rumor after rumor. And we wrote, in real time, what was happening-- how it. started, where it started, to the best of our knowledge, what the truth was. JON STEWART: And you're doing this-- this. was at Stanford University. RENÉE DIRESTA: This was when I was at Stanford. This was in 2020. We did this in 2020, which was, of course, the year. of stop the steal, right? Remember? And so as we would trace these stories--. and what Casey is describing is true. You have the influencers and the algorithms. But the third piece of that is the crowd, right?

The online community that surrounds the influencer, that. believes it, that amplifies it, and that moves. it from platform to platform. People are the glue between the online platforms. Just because one platform maybe has a policy that. says we're going to moderate this content. doesn't mean that all platforms have that, first of all. And second of all, again, like I said, you can't fact check your way out of this stuff. When you try to do that, people just feel that their voices. are being suppressed. If you try to silence the rumor, right,

if you nuke it and stop it from trending, as happened occasionally in 2020, then they believe that there is "they" are trying to prevent. you from knowing the truth. And then that becomes kind of a second order. We call it the Streisand effect-- this idea. that you are actually amplifying the theory. by trying to suppress it. So one of the things that you have to try to do, then, is counter-speak against it. But the problem is, oftentimes, election officials, they are not influencers. They do not have very--.

[LAUGHTER]. I mean, let's be honest. JON STEWART: They are sometimes just mail people, and nurses, and things. They have other jobs. RENÉE DIRESTA: They have jobs. They have elections to run. JON STEWART: They haven't been weaponized by dark money. that goes into the system. RENÉE DIRESTA: But they've got small followings. In all seriousness, they have small followings. They're out there-- again, they're. trying to put out facts. Facts do not land against an emotional story. And the way that that rumor mill works, one influencer says it, another one boosts it--.

big if true, have you heard. You know, it's viral by the time the guy with 200 followers. is like, actually, let me tell you about how. those ballots actually work. Let me tell you why this rumor isn't true. That guy is not going to get amplification. So unless the platform is actively trying to up-rank. and surface good information, which. is something they were trying to do. in 2020 and no longer are--. we can talk about why that is--. unless they are trying to actively up-rank. good information, the good information. is not making it out there.

And then the other piece of that. is that the deeply distrustful crowds that have been taught. that the election is going to be stolen, right-- they have heard this over and over and over again--. are not inclined to believe the fact check or the information. that the election worker is going to put out. JON STEWART: Right. Well, we see that, Casey-- and, look, 2020 was stop the steal. And there was all this fraud. And the Democrats had rigged the election. And we're going to have to get the cyber ninjas in there. to figure out exactly what went wrong. And it routed through Venezuela,

and China, sent in elections. And then suddenly, in 2024, that one. actually was pretty good. RENÉE DIRESTA: Everybody forgot to do that. JON STEWART: That one worked pretty well. CASEY NEWTON: Yeah. JON STEWART: And so it really does seem to be. an argument of convenience. CASEY NEWTON: Absolutely. It's an argument of convenience. I also think that another thing that's. important to highlight here is just the demand. for these narratives, right? In a moment in 2020, when Donald Trump had clearly lost,

there was a huge demand on the right for that not to be true. Once he won in 2024, that demand sort of went away. And so that energy was able to go elsewhere. But I think it's really important. to talk about the demand side, because the algorithms, the elites, they're super important. But, as Renée said, the people are. what's gluing that together. And they just want certain things to be true. And in the media environment that we have now, they can just go out and pick their own reality. based on what they want. JON STEWART: Talk about that for a moment. So if we want to think about this in economic theory,

you're saying that there is supply side, I'll say misinformation-- but we won't. even say people get it wrong. That just happens sometimes out of good faith. But the more nefarious one that's been weaponized. is disinformation. So what are the elements of supply side disinformation? And then we'll talk about demand side--. but supply side disinformation. What would be considered the elements of that? RENÉE DIRESTA: That's where you start to see people who, again,

are incentivized to seed content. to try to put out plausible theories to keep hope. alive-- but, really, more importantly, to cast doubt on the integrity of the election. And that's what you saw a lot in 2020, the idea. that you could just offer yet one more. justification, one more reason, one more variant on a theory. The reason we use "rumor," actually, is because you don't even have to know what the intent is. It's just a story that is passed from person to person. and resonates emotionally.

With disinformation, we talk a lot about foreign actors. who are in the mix too, right? You have these agitators, these people who are in there. because they see an opportunity to advance their own cause. Donald Trump is talking about Iran. That blew me away, because, of course, disinformation was a word that we. couldn't say for a period of about three or four. years there. But now we're talking about it again because it was a thing. that did, in fact, happen. It was not particularly major or significant. in 2020 or in 2024, far less than what we saw in 2016.

But you do have foreign actors in the mix. JON STEWART: And these are bots. And they're seeding the narrative with paid bots? Or is this the kind of thing where they talked about. there's a 16-year-old in Uzbekistan, and he's being given money to invent. stories that sound plausible and then ceding the turf? Maria Ressa talks about this often, the idea that a lie spreads seven. times faster than the truth. So these are people absolutely with intention and purpose.

sowing the seeds of confusion and misinformation. That would be the supply side actor. in league with the paid influencers. whose profiles are boosted by algorithms. Would that be accurate? RENÉE DIRESTA: That's pretty accurate. So, again, the accounts that are. content creators and the accounts that are amplifiers. are not the same. The amplifiers, this is where you see bots usually, right?

An amplifier would be the sorts of accounts that just click. the like button or click the retweet button on Twitter, click the share button. And the reason is you need to have engagement. in order to trigger the algorithm to share. it out to more real people. So the reason that you have automated accounts, the reason. that you can use fakes or rent networks of accounts that are. used in commercial spam-- the reason you see. those accounts come on the supply side. is that you need to have engagement. Something has to get those like counts up.

And that's where you see those automated accounts. And then, as you're describing, accounts that are actually. writing the content or saying the thing, you do want to have some sort of legitimacy or trust there. And that's where, again, you'll see sometimes they'll be paid. And sometimes they'll be an account. JON STEWART: That's where the Cat Turds of the world. will step in. RENÉE DIRESTA: Well--. [LAUGHTER]. --I mean, I think that people sometimes underestimate what. some of those folks-- just how ideologically. motivated they actually are.

JON STEWART: Oh, I don't underestimate that at all. I think they are absolutely, purely ideological warriors, but are sometimes shaped by the financial incentives. that go in there. They've become that. It becomes their identity. They start to earn money on it. Which brings us to the point. And, Casey, this will, I think, be kind of in your wheelhouse. Let's talk about the artist formerly known as Twitter. And this gets us to the crux of the irony.

Elon Musk, for a long time, and really incredibly consistently. and vehemently, has pushed this idea. that undocumented non-citizen voting is rampant. It is sowing the seeds of our destruction, and we cannot do it. He's tweeted about it, I think, 1,300 times or interacted. with stories about it. The irony of it all is that this guy's. platform, this guy's algorithm, which he is in charge of--.

I see his shit on my feed all the time. I don't ever interact with it. There's no reason for it to be there-- that he is a far more. relevant actor in the warping of our democracy. through his money and his algorithm. than any measure of undocumented non-citizen voting. will ever be.

CASEY NEWTON: Absolutely. I mean, there was a paper published. in Nature in February, and they did a study. where they had two groups. And they showed one the ranked algorithmic feed, and then they showed one group just. sort of a chronological feed. And they found that people that saw the algorithmic feed on X. moved further to the right than the control group by, like, a very significant measure. So if you're actively using X, you. are probably subconsciously moving a little bit. to the right over time. And, as you point out, Jon, that is just. a far greater effect than what are, essentially,

these mythical cases of an undocumented immigrant voting. in one election somewhere. JON STEWART: Let's break that down, because it's. very easy to cast aspersions. What his argument, and I think his people's argument, would be is, well, now that we're. getting uncensored material--. now that the First Amendment has primacy, people move to the right because they learn the truth. But the truth is that algorithm incentivizes the misinformation. from the right.

And he designs it. CASEY NEWTON: Absolutely. And, like, at Platformer, my newsletter, we broke the story a couple of years. ago that after one of his tweets. did not get as much engagement as Joe Biden's during the Super. Bowl, he went back to his engineers and he said, you need to re-engineer this so that my tweets. are getting more prominence. And so they did. And so that is the reason why, even if you don't follow. the guy and you're using X all the time, you're going to see his views, which. contain so many just various right wing. ideas and conspiracies. Like, he built the algorithm this way. And, like, if you're like me and Renée.

and you've been covering this stuff for a decade, in 2020, conservatives were holding hearings saying, platforms must be ideologically neutral. You must never suppress any sort of speech. The right and the left should be equal on these platforms. Fast forward to today, X is a right wing political project. Full stop. [MUSIC PLAYING]. JON STEWART: Look, the algorithm--. the algorithm is killing us. The algorithm, the way that it incentivizes the hostility, and weaponizes ideology, and all this--.

it's not right. But the antidote-- the antidote is information. And that's where Ground News comes in. Ground News, it's this website and app. It's designed to give readers a better way, an easier. way to navigate the news. It pulls together every article about the same news story. from all outlets all over the world, and puts them in one place-- and not incentivized for, like, the worst, most hostile, most partisan take.

It tells you where it's coming from. You can see starkly, in black and white, how these different organizations. and algorithms are manipulating the information that we get. They show you how reliable the source is. and who's funding it-- who's funding it Follow the money. Know who's behind the headline. Oh, who is this Rupert Murdoch fella? He seems delightful.

He seems to have a somewhat pointed view of the world. I'm telling you, man, the Nobel Peace center's even. mentioned the Ground News is an excellent way to stay informed. Nobel Peace Center-- that's, I think, the one that Trump started. I think it 3D prints Nobel Peace Prizes. and just hands them out. The platform is independently operated, supported by its subscribers. So they stay independent. And they stay mission-driven. They don't get sucked into this slop.

If you want to see the full picture, go to Ground News. They can help you, through the noise, get to the heart of the news. Go to GroundNews.com/Stewart. Subscribe for 40% off the unlimited access. vantage subscription. Discount available only for a limited time. This brings the price down to, like, $5 a month. That's GroundNews.com/Stewart, or scan. the QR code on the screen. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Now, Renée, they actually came after your group pretty hard.

Tell the story of that. So your group is studying how these things work. And, by the way, later on, we'll. get into the balance between-- because I do think there are. First Amendment concerns with a lot of these different things. And that's maybe why it makes it more difficult to do that. But, Renée, what happened with the Stanford research group. that you were a part of? RENÉE DIRESTA: Yeah. So we ran that project in 2020. And what we did in 2020 was we were tracking.

these election rumors. And we set up a tip line, right? And we sent an email to the RNC. We sent an email to the DNC. We sent it to NAACP, AARP, a bunch of these civil society. groups saying, hey, we want to help, because one of the things we can do. is we can trace where rumors come from, where they're going, and we can try to get fact checks out. And, per the point about the election officials, they have an election to run. Their job is not to be sitting on social media. trying to triage and figure out if rumors are disinformation. This was the first major election since Russia in 2016.

We thought we were going to see a lot of state actor stuff. That was one of the reasons why we did the project. It turned out that most of the rumors about election theft, most of the rumors about delegitimization, most of the stuff trying to suppress the vote. came from the sitting President of the United. States, which we wrote about. [LAUGHTER]. That's reality. I'm not going to sugarcoat it. So we write about that. And, as we go through this project, there's four different research centers that. are participating in this--. 120 undergraduate and graduate students that.

are the main analysts on this project. And we have a Jira ticketing system. If you've ever called in with a customer service hotline, somebody, like, makes a ticket for you, and that ticket kind of goes around the organization, the building. And different people work on your ticket. That's how we trace these things, basically. JON STEWART: So what is the attempt. that you're trying to map? What are you mapping? RENÉE DIRESTA: Yeah, so we're tracking. rumors as they go viral. And then we're trying to get them to people. who can respond to them. So that might be the platform. Sometimes we would tag a platform in and say,

hey, Facebook, hey, Twitter, you have this thing that's. going viral on your platform. It violates your policy. Go have a look at it, right? JON STEWART: Right. RENÉE DIRESTA: And then the platform, you'd see this in the little ticketing tags, they would say, thank you very much. We're looking. And about 60% of the time, actually, they would do nothing. 30% of the time, they would slap a label on it saying, this content is disputed. Donald Trump would say something about mail-in ballots. being fraudulent. They would say, this content is disputed. Get the facts about mail-in ballots. And they would link you out to an information site.

About 10% of the time, they would take something down. They would decide that it rose to the threshold of actually. actioning it with a takedown. So, in the course of the full period of the election, we sent. about 3,000 URLs in total. That's actually very important, that number. So we also communicated with state. and local election officials. They had access to our tip line. So a local election official in Kentucky, for example, sent in a tip saying there is an account pretending. to be an election worker.

I don't know who this person is. They're claiming that they're destroying ballots. That was the kind of thing that we could. then go and look at, see, hey, does. this look like it's foreign? Does this look domestic? Is this something that a platform should be tagging? JON STEWART: You're basically an election--. RENÉE DIRESTA: Just a triage center. JON STEWART: You're like an election observer, but rather than existing in the practical world, you're doing this in the online world and virtually. and trying to point out inconsistencies. and things that may be troublesome to be investigated.

RENÉE DIRESTA: Correct. And so fast forward--. so we did this project, by the way. There was a 200-page report that sat on the internet. after it was all done. We wrote about it, and we made a table. where, after the election was over, we did a data poll on Twitter. And we pulled in the total number. of tweets of the most viral election rumors, things. that everybody has heard of--. that Dominion machines were flipping votes, these Italian space laser theories,

that Sharpie markers in Arizona had changed ballots. So the top 10 most viral rumors that everybody saw, we added up the number of tweets--. it was 22 million tweets. JON STEWART: 22 million? RENÉE DIRESTA: 22 million viral tweets. And this was the number that we put out there just showing. the scope and the scale of how much stuff. had been making the rounds on these very, very viral stories. Jim Jordan--. JON STEWART: Jim Jordan is a Congressman. from Ohio, very respected.

RENÉE DIRESTA: Extremely honest man. JON STEWART: Extremely honest, legendary. There's not a piece of legislation. that has passed in America in the last 20 years. that does not bear that man's name as a co-sponsor. Couldn't have a grander reputation in American--. RENÉE DIRESTA: Sports coach. Sports coach. Really cares about the youth. JON STEWART: Some issues about his time. as a wrestling coach that maybe slightly--. but completely turned it around and is. now a paragon of American sensibility and legislation.

Continue. RENÉE DIRESTA: Also, happened to be an election denier. JON STEWART: Wait, what? Son of a. All right. RENÉE DIRESTA: So then he goes--. so the election deniers-- the House flips, and Jim Jordan gets his gavel and starts. this committee called the--. I forget the proper name, but shorthand is. the weaponization committee. But it's the subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. to Investigate the Weaponization. of the Federal Government. He decides there has been a Biden censorship regime. And even though the agencies that we.

engaged with during the 2020 election. were run by Trump appointees--. again run by Trump appointees--. despite the fact that we were talking to state and local. election officials, and occasionally when we did speak. to federal government agencies--. like when the Iranians ran an influence operation pretending. to be the Proud Boys, we did talk to the FBI. about that, because our team saw that early on. We did speak to the FBI--. Trump appointees. JON STEWART: But these are real. RENÉE DIRESTA: These are real. These are real things that are happening. JON STEWART: The Iranians really tried to pretend--.

RENÉE DIRESTA: They actually did that. Yes. And Trump was very upset about this, like, a week ago. That was one of the justifications, apparently, for why we just bombed Iran. But, as we're doing all of this work--. as we're doing all of this work, we're talking to DHS, CISA occasionally, also--. as this is all happening, Jim Jordan. gets his gavel two years later and accuses us of censoring. 22 million tweets--. that we were part of a vast plot by the Biden regime. to steal the election by censoring 22 million tweets.

So, again, they claim that that number that we added up. after the fact of the things that everybody saw, they claim. was really the stuff that we censored. JON STEWART: They're saying that is--. and forgive me if this is, but I'm just going to try and think. of their theory of the case. Is their theory of the case-- and, Casey, weigh in on this as well--. that by pointing that out, that you are in league, that you are. intimidating these social media platforms to go.

through and cull things you consider misinformation. or disinformation? And by doing so, you are un-leveling the playing field. Would that be their theory? And where does the 3,000 come in? RENÉE DIRESTA: So, well, the 3,000. would have been the thing to actually. have that conversation about. The 22 million number was published in March of 2021, so long after January 6, even, right? So long after that would have had an impact.

The way that platforms engage with researchers, which I think. is worth the public understanding, is that platforms will reach out, and they will periodically say, hey, we're considering. doing a policy about this. What do you think? And then you can weigh in on that policy. as an academic researcher who works in a particular field. This is not a secret, right? Twitter had a council of 60 different civil. society organizations. We were not on that council, by the way. But Twitter had its Civil Society Organizations Council.

And so whenever they were writing a policy about hate. speech, or about harassment, or whatever that issue. that those councils dealt with, they would. reach out to those entities. And they would say, hey, we're going to launch. a new policy about this. You guys have an opportunity to provide some feedback. And the reason for this is because back in 2016, 2015. time frame, nobody on the outside. was engaging with them at all. All of their policies were developed entirely internally. And that didn't make people happy either,

because then it was just one guy, basically. the CEO of the company--. Zuckerberg, Dorsey, whoever it was at the time--. making that determination. And so the idea behind coming up with councils. or reaching out to academics is that you have an opportunity. to say your piece. JON STEWART: Right. RENÉE DIRESTA: And, again, as I mentioned, just because you say something doesn't. mean that they listen to you. Which is why when we published that report and we said we. sent in 3,000 tweets-- we were absolutely. transparent about this. Again, it's sitting up there on the internet for two years.

And we also said they ignored, they did not act. on 60% of those 3,000 tweets. So what you see from that, again, is they did not feel pressured to do anything in response. to what we were saying or what we were suggesting. They took things under advisement, and they occasionally acted. But, more often than not--. JON STEWART: Only when it rose to a certain standard. RENÉE DIRESTA: Right. And, most of the time, they put a label on things. And that, I think, is also important to understand. So we were, essentially, scapegoated because Jim Jordan.

and the election deniers needed to come up. with some justification after the fact for how. the 2020 election was stolen. JON STEWART: The irony of investigating you. for weaponization was weaponization. So that goes. But, Casey. CASEY NEWTON: Yeah, well, I mean, it absolutely was. They wound up shutting down the center at Stanford. where Renée worked, or at least prevented. them from doing the kind of research that they were doing. They're filing lawsuits against undergraduates who, like, dared to study what was happening.

during the 2020 election. So the weaponization was truly coming from inside the house. But also, like, I really do not want to give these guys too. much credit and say, like, there was some, like, principal. that they had to defend. Like, if you've watched these hearings, it truly is just about creating a spectacle. and manufacturing this sense of grievance that will then enable. Republicans to take further steps to disenfranchise. American voters. Like, it really is that simple. JON STEWART: Well, let's see, though, if we can play devil's advocate and try and figure out,

in the interest of fairness, what is the glimmer of truth. within whatever it is that they're. using to do the weaponization. So let's go back to--. I don't think you would say that the culture. of these social media platforms had a liberal slant to it. I think we all probably agree it did, if you think about Facebook, and Twitter, and those companies. They are steeped in probably at least an aesthetic.

amongst the workers that leans maybe liberal. Would that be fair? CASEY NEWTON: I think so. I mean, I think, like, the most liberal that they got. was, like, if you looked at the content policies they had, they were, like, steeped in a tradition of human rights. Like, they believed that hate speech was bad. and that you should try to stop people. from seeing that if they were part of a protected group. JON STEWART: But also, in part of the culture when that was. much more people were on the ramparts.

about the usage of certain words or various things. And so they were--. I'm just trying to get at, like, the psychology. of where this is. So, Elon, they recognize that these are powerful tools. So we're going to walk back a little bit just. to get to the genesis of this. Mark Zuckerberg does his Zuckerbucks, spends $400 million, ostensibly to beef up resources.

This is during COVID, so maybe they're putting up. Plexiglas on things. They're getting people more access. But he has the misfortune of spending $400 million. on an election Donald Trump lost. CASEY NEWTON: Right. RENÉE DIRESTA: Right. JON STEWART: So that also becomes part of the narrative. So I'm just trying to walk through, so that the culture is-- maybe you consider it liberal. Zuckerberg spends all this money.

He doesn't do it ideologically. Combine that with, then, Musk, who is having, during COVID, an ideological rebirth, getting in touch with his South. African roots, if you will. And we get into this idea of the Twitter Files. He buys it because he's so disgusted by their censorship. And, to be fair, during COVID, there was information.

that the government put pressure on these social media. groups to remove. And that information they asked to be removed. did not necessarily turn out to be wrong. Would that be fair? CASEY NEWTON: Yeah. There was definitely pressure and just, like, things the government said related to, like, masking. and how's the virus transmitted. There were things that the government said that turned out. not to be true. RENÉE DIRESTA: I think it's also-- one. thing I'll note on that front. There's the reality and then, again, there's the exaggeration.

JON STEWART: Yes. I'm trying to get to the reality as well. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yeah. So there's a court case that you're probably familiar with, right-- the Murthy v Missouri case, Missouri v Biden, where you see this litigated. And it goes all the way up to the Supreme Court. JON STEWART: Explain very briefly. just the genesis of the case and the background. RENÉE DIRESTA: So two election deniers, the attorneys general. of Missouri and Louisiana, filed a-- no, I think it's really important, again, to note. the underlying motivation. JON STEWART: It's just so wild to-- like, two election deniers, the attorney generals. of Missouri and Louisiana.

RENÉE DIRESTA: One of whom is now. the sitting Senator of Missouri, Eric Schmitt, right? So, yeah, no, look, I think, again, I. think getting at the motivation is something. that I feel like mainstream media. dropped the ball on, candidly. And I'm going to be angry about that for a long time. JON STEWART: Understood. As you should be. RENÉE DIRESTA: So they filed this lawsuit. alleging that, again, there is a Biden. censorship regime, which somehow started. in the Trump administration. But holding that aside, they eventually.

stopped focusing on the election. because they have to deal with the inconvenient reality. that, at the time, these appointees. were Trump appointees. So what they do to get around that inconvenient reality is. they allege the deep state-- the unfalsifiable claim. of the deep state. If you worked there at the time and something. went inconveniently for Trump, it was the deep state. But then, holding that aside, we're. just going to jump ahead into the future, and now it's Biden during COVID. And so you do see, again, you do. see the government reaching out and communicating. with the platforms. Now, the government has First Amendment rights.

And the government communicates with the platform as well. JON STEWART: Now, very clearly, did the government, under Trump, also reach out to the-- in other words--. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes, and it still is. JON STEWART: Is that something that happens? RENÉE DIRESTA: 100% across the board. JON STEWART: And that's an important thing to remember. Yeah. RENÉE DIRESTA: Right. And they're still doing it, right? They're still reaching out today. complaining about platform moderation. of ICE-related content. So, again, platforms and governments. have had back and forth--. JON STEWART: This tension. RENÉE DIRESTA: --since platforms have existed. JON STEWART: And, not to put too fine a point on it.

is, but in all the complaints about Zuckerberg being. intimidated by Biden, Donald Trump. threatened to jail Mark Zuckerberg. if he ever did anything like that again. So if we're ever going to be talking about government. intervention and intimidation to a social platform, let's be fair that it's one thing for the government. to reach out. It's another thing for the President of the United States. to say, and I will put you in jail. CASEY NEWTON: Imagine if Joe Biden had said,

I'm going to jail Elon Musk if I lose the election, right? Like, conservatives would have lost their minds. RENÉE DIRESTA: And in 2018, you also. saw threats by Trump, an executive order, even, to try to revoke platform liability protection. So platforms have liability protections. JON STEWART: That's that Rule--. RENÉE DIRESTA: CDA 230. Yeah. JON STEWART: 230. Yes. Yes. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes. So what happens in this lawsuit is. that the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana. sue with a judge. I'm currently being sued in front of that judge. JON STEWART: What? Why?

RENÉE DIRESTA: Well, Stephen Miller sued. me in front of that judge. We can talk about that after. JON STEWART: No. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes. JON STEWART: Wait, ghoul Stephen Miller? That Stephen Miller? RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes, yes. JON STEWART: Dead eye Stephen Miller? RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes. JON STEWART: Stephen Miller, that. walks by plants and they die? That Stephen Miller? RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes. It's an honor, but yes. JON STEWART: Wow. Wow. All right. We'll get into that later. Don't let me forget that. RENÉE DIRESTA: They picked this judge. They pick this judge, and they file this lawsuit, and they allege that the Biden administration. did what's called jawboning.

So, again, because the government. has First Amendment rights, the government can communicate. with the platforms. The question is, does it rise to the level of coercion? Does it rise to the level of the government saying, for example, nice platform you've. got there, shame if anything happened. to it if you don't do this. JON STEWART: Or if I'd have to jail if you do this. RENÉE DIRESTA: Hypothetically. Hypothetically. JON STEWART: Hypothetically. RENÉE DIRESTA: And so they do all these depositions, and they're deposing Fauci, they're deposing FBI agents. They're deposing Department of Homeland Security agents.

Because what they're trying to find. is evidence that the government was. secretly demanding that platforms take down content. And what they see, what they do encounter are they have. these emails from Rob Flaherty, the White House. digital director, where he is sending emails saying like, what the hell happened here? You need to explain yourself. If you actually dig in, a lot of those emails that become. very notorious are Rob Flaherty asking about the White. House's own Instagram account.

So, again, you have the grain of truth where the White House. is occasionally communicating with the platforms. using strong language, but the stuff that they really blow up, the stuff that they really make these huge media moments--. JON STEWART: This is the Twitter. files and the whole thing. RENÉE DIRESTA: Right. If you actually delve down into it, what you find is that it's like the Twitter files, literally, they were taking emails and cutting them in half. and pretending the top half of the email. said something it didn't. So it's just the most incredibly dishonest. misrepresentation of the actual evidence.

as they walk through these cases. And this is reflected, then, in the Supreme Court finding, which is that the judge that they cherry pick in Louisiana. says this is the biggest censorship effort the world has. ever seen, issues an injunction-- actually, issues. this very broad spectrum injunction. saying the government can't possibly talk to platforms. This becomes a problem. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is very conservative, actually. walks back that injunction, which. is a remarkable thing to see.

It eventually makes it up to SCOTUS. Amy Coney Barrett writes the opinion, and she says there are clearly erroneous findings. by the lower court. The evidence just doesn't stand up here. And she tosses it for standing, because what she says is that. none of the plaintiffs in the case--. for example, Jay Bhattacharya, who is now, what is he--. CDC head at the moment? JON STEWART: Yes. CDC head. RENÉE DIRESTA: It's like musical chairs. with these guys and the health officials these days. So NIH head, CDC head, whatever his current role is--.

both-- he accuses the administration. of censoring him. But there's not a single email in which the White. House so much as mentions him. And so Amy Coney Barrett tosses this back, tosses it for standing, and says the lower courts. have these erroneous findings. And so it's basically kind of kicked back down. JON STEWART: But that's the kind. of thing you get from these soy latte drinking justices. This Amy Coney Barrett, if I see her here anymore with.

the little kitten ear hat and the "resist". signs, I'll lose my mind. Casey, this points to a really interesting dichotomy--. the difference between the court. of social media and the court. CASEY NEWTON: Yeah. JON STEWART: And you find, often, that a lot of these weaponized complaints and all these things. don't bear--. let's go back to the 2020 election. None of their complaints withstood the scrutiny.

of courts, withstood the scrutiny of bodies that. have evidentiary standards. But, in many respects, that's not really what matters here, is it? CASEY NEWTON: No. I mean, when you are just browsing your social media. feed, your evidentiary standard is, does this feel true to me? Does this justify whatever I thought. before I opened the feed? If so, I'm going to share it.

And I think what's really scary about that. is that the particular kinds of things that we're talking about. today are being used as pretext to disenfranchise. American voters. Like, that's the ballgame. Do we get to pick our leaders or not? JON STEWART: Well, talk about that for a moment. because the idea is, so this is not benign. The idea of just saying, like, oh, people need to present ID, on its surface. sounds wildly reasonable. But underneath it are a lot of issues like women who did not.

change their maiden name to their married name. would have to, then, somehow find their birth certificate. and go get a passport. Like, there's a lot of hoops to this. CASEY NEWTON: Yeah. I mean, absolutely. Like, I saw one study that said that there may be as many as 69. million women who took their spouse's name. and don't have a birth certificate matching. their current legal name. Women may be likelier, on balance,

to vote for Democrats than Republicans. And so if you're a Republican and you're pushing this, like, you probably don't care that married women. may be less likely to vote in the next election, right? We also know this is probably going to affect. a lot of trans voters. If you're a Republican, you'd be happy. probably if no trans voters voted in the next. election, right? So when you look at the groups that are affected here, it is just generally people that Republicans. could stand to live without ever voting again. JON STEWART: Let's just-- to put a fine point on it, the reason why we're talking about this today. is the Republicans are considering blowing up. the filibuster, which I really don't give that much.

of a shit about to begin with, and doing all kinds of things. to pass this act that's going to raise identification. standards so that only American citizens vote, which does not. appear to be a problem of any substance, while protecting the actual mechanism that seems to be. distorting American democracy. And I want to get into--.

and, Renée, I'll ask you this, because, one, you say like, well, what's the game for them? The game is let's look at Elon Musk's net worth. By creating this algorithm on this platform, by donating $350 million to Donald Trump and Republicans, his net worth has skyrocketed. And the AI tech guys, they've all. benefited in a wildly disproportionate manner.

through their coziness to this administration. Would that be a fair statement? RENÉE DIRESTA: That is a fair statement. It's about maintaining power, right? One of the things with social media. is that they are tools of reach. They're tools of persuasion. They're tools for organizing, and gathering, and activating. And when you have the capacity, particularly. with something like Twitter, which is very, very. good at activation, you are controlling an incredibly. potent infrastructure. One of the things that happened after Elon bought Twitter.

is that you saw influential accounts on the left. leave, right? And so there's been this fragmentation to a bunch. of different platforms. You've got Bluesky, you've got Threads. But there hasn't really been any kind of cohesion. JON STEWART: There's no real competitor. RENÉE DIRESTA: There is no competitor in that regard, particularly for things like breaking news or shaping. information in the moment. Instagram is great. You can grow very large accounts, very large reach. There's a lot of political influencers on Threads. who are reaching left leaning audiences.

But it is not the same type of algorithm. It is just not the same structural function. in the political discourse. And that is the thing that is significantly different. JON STEWART: And in terms of--. I mean, and we're talking about every one of these guys. And that's the other thing. It's not just the algorithm that skews our democracy, it's the money. And since Citizens United, I've just got a little list here, that Elon Musk donated $250-plus million. and has gained $234 billion.

Bezos paid $40 million for a Melania documentary. and another $40 million, probably, in advertising and everything else--. cut down on the Washington Post, he's up you $15 billion. Zuckerberg, whose Zuckerbucks was. so crucial to stealing the election, did an investment pledge--. and even said, you saw the meeting. when he said to Donald Trump, how much.

should I say I'm giving? All these guys, are they mercenaries? Are they just cozying up to an administration? Or are they ideological brethren now with them? CASEY NEWTON: So this is really important. to talk about, because I think the true ideology is. capitalism, right? Like, you go back into the 2010s, most of the people that you mentioned, with the exception of Musk, they were, essentially, good liberals. Although, of course, Musk sort of had his flirtations. with liberal causes as well. JON STEWART: And shouldn't we have complained.

about them then, though? Shouldn't we have-- just because we thought. their aesthetic and their mentality. was that, shouldn't we have been complaining. about their algorithms, and their influence, and their money then? CASEY NEWTON: I think, like, going back, there were a lot of complaints about algorithms, that these places were increasingly becoming. these centralized, like, centers. of speech that did not have a lot of democratic oversight. or control. Like, Mark Zuckerberg has total control over Meta. Even his own board doesn't get a say.

And so all these guys give a lot of money. to Democratic presidents and Democratic causes. And, in the end, they just don't get that much for. it, right? Joe Biden tries to break up Meta. He tries to break up Amazon. He creates various regulatory problems for Elon Musk. JON STEWART: They hire Lina Khan. CASEY NEWTON: Yes. The audacity of that, right? But then Trump comes along, and you can just. agree to build part of his ballroom, and he gives you whatever you want. That's a very recognizable character to a business person. It's like we can just strike a deal.

So that is what you're seeing across American politics now is. just a bunch of oligarchs who have grown. impossibly rich and powerful, who are just. able to buy what they want. JON STEWART: And protecting the turf. Where do you put Sam Altman in all this? He's another one that he just seems. to be this weird character that shapeshifts for whatever. the moment calls. He'll stand up and say, Anthropic is doing. the right thing, and then vacuum up their contracts. when DOD cuts them loose. CASEY NEWTON: He is a shapeshifter.

Like, when you talk to the people who have worked. with him, they will tell you that one of their biggest. issues with him is that he is always telling. you what you want to hear. It's why he's actually quite charming in person. Politically, he has probably been a little bit more. like liberally aligned--. like me, he's a gay guy. And I think that's where his natural sympathies are. But if you ask him about Trump today, he's incredibly careful. I asked him on stage about Trump last year, and he said, well, I think he's really, really thoughtful about AI, which was news to me. JON STEWART: He's leaving us to do whatever we want.

CASEY NEWTON: Yeah, yeah, yeah. JON STEWART: Whatever we want. CASEY NEWTON: It was news to me, Jon, but that's what he told me. [MUSIC PLAYING]. JON STEWART: I'm a cereal guy. But I got to tell you, when you're a little older, not. so easy to find-- it's not as cute when you're going. through the whatever they call them-- they're. the stars, clovers, and mushrooms, and being like, oh, right, but my cholesterol is 187. Just saying, cereal not necessarily the best. thing for you anymore. Except now, Magic Spoon.

Magic Spoon. It gives you that feeling, Saturday morning cereal--. you get their 13 grams of protein, 0 sugar, 5 grams. of net carbs per serving, which is how I always chose. my cereals when I was younger. I used to say to my mother growing. up, what's my net carbs here? 5 grams, 7 grams? What are we dealing with? But this stuff Magic Spoon keeps. you fueled whether it's breakfast, late night snack,

post-workout, whatever it is. They got flavors, too. It's not just one thing. You got fruity, frosted, cocoa, cinnamon crunch, marshmallow, s'mores, all the stuff that you love. Magic Spoon. Look for Magic Spoon on Amazon or at your nearest. grocery store. There are plant-based versions of the cereal as well. Even vegans get to feel like they had a [INAUDIBLE]. You'll find vegan options at Whole Foods, or get $5 off your next order at MagicSpoon.com/TWS. That's MagicSpoon.com/TWS for $5 off.

[MUSIC PLAYING]. As you speak to these folks, their sense of Donald Trump--. do they fear--. look, Elon Musk said, and I asked. him about this once-- he said, I'm a free speech absolutist. So I said to him, so how do you support Donald Trump, who. clearly has said he wants to censor content he. disagrees with, he threatens to throw Mark Zuckerberg in jail. And he said to me flat out, oh, that's just bluster.

But now, you see they're weaponizing. that censorship for FCC approval. and all kinds of other things. Is he just utterly full of shit? I mean, he himself has said-- he. himself has said, oh, those people are treasonous. and should be thrown in jail for saying things. he disagrees with. So he's just utterly full of shit. CASEY NEWTON: Yeah. This is a man who, when he took over Twitter, he started banning journalists because they. put their Instagram bio in their Twitter bio.

He rewrote an algorithm to privilege his own speech. over that of others. He banned people from Twitter for publishing the whereabouts. of his private jet. Like, the list goes on and on. The guy has never cared about free speech, except insofar as that benefits him. JON STEWART: His own speech. CASEY NEWTON: Yeah. RENÉE DIRESTA: I think it's really important to understand. the word "censorship" not as something that free speech. activists on the web have cared about this for a very, very long time, right? I mean, we saw the freedom of speech,

not freedom of reach thing that sits on top of his content. moderation policy was something Aza Raskin. and I came up with in 2018. That argument that you should be able to maximize content, you should want as much to stay up as possible--. and then, at that point, you think about, like, how do you decide what to curate? How do you decide what to preferentially amplify? When you have a crisis like COVID, it is not bad for a platform to decide, hey, maybe we should, in response to search queries, have a little knowledge panel. up at the top that returns something from the CDC,

because people are looking for accurate information. They made perfectly reasonable decisions to up-rank stuff. Did they take too much down? Yes, you can make the argument that they absolutely did. JON STEWART: No, I think that's fair. I think they did. I mean, and I think they would even maybe cop to that now. RENÉE DIRESTA: I think that they would say that to. Again, when you get to certain types of content moderation. policies, like the lab leak hypothesis. that became such a thing--. I thought that was a stupid policy. JON STEWART: Oh, I know. Oh, I know. RENÉE DIRESTA: I thought that was a very dumb policy. But I also want to say--.

I also want to say, because I think people don't realize it, that was a Meta-only policy. Twitter didn't do that. YouTube didn't do that. Only Meta had that policy. And they had it for three months. So it sounds like a thing that was in place for two years, and it actually wasn't. So when you actually look at-- and I encourage anybody. to do this, because the one thing is the policy documents. are there. You can go look at them. That aspect of the transparency thing is there. What you see from Elon, though, is that he borrows the moral. weight of the word "censorship" while.

emptying it of moral content. JON STEWART: Bars. [LAUGHTER]. Bars. Come on. Renée. RENÉE DIRESTA: It's just--. JON STEWART: Lay it down. That's exactly right. RENÉE DIRESTA: No, what killed me--. Casey and I were on Kara's pod together. when Elon started arguing that his AI had the right. to nudify children, right? And that if you said that his. I didn't have the right to nudify children--. I just want to say that again--.

that you were censoring him. That was an act of censorship. JON STEWART: And at the same time, he, in Turkey, just took down the opposition. completely under the guise of, like, hey, that's the law that they have. So I just have to follow that. CASEY NEWTON: What are you going to do? JON STEWART: Yeah, it's all nonsense. RENÉE DIRESTA: So it becomes a shield, right? It becomes a mental stop word where. the minute you say that word, people hear it. and they stop thinking about what is it. he's actually justifying with that word. He used it to justify the nudification.

of children-- the nudification, the non-consensual nudification. of women. JON STEWART: That's based on his AI or something, right? He's got an AI model that did that. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yes. And so if we say that moderation. of that kind of content is censorship, then that concept has just lost all meaning, right? And you can't cry "free speech absolutism" and make. that claim, in my opinion. JON STEWART: I also want to get into-- there's. a distinction here, and I think it's a really important one. There's a difference between free speech. and algorithmic speech.

Algorithmic speech is ultra-processed. And I generally do the distinction of Twitter speech. is free speech in the way that Doritos are food. Like, it's not really. It's processed. Free speech isn't, we let everybody know when you tweet, and we incentivize them to hostility and outrage. And we monetize their ability to argue. And the algorithm is not free speech.

It's just not. It puts it through an opaque process that elevates. certain speech, speech that you deem more important. or speech that your business model deems. more monetarily beneficial. And so, how do we draw the distinction between this idea. of free speech and the algorithmic speech, which is a perversion of speech?

RENÉE DIRESTA: Well, I think it's also important for people. to understand that, on a social media platform, the First Amendment right is the platform's. It is not the user's. It is the platform's First Amendment right to decide. what it editorially curates. That's what algorithmic curation is. This has been reinforced legally. over and over and over again. This is why, ironically, the conservatives lose. their must carry law cases. That is why platforms are allowed to take things down. And on the flip side, it is why, again, it.

allows platforms to leave everything. up or take everything down. It allows them to pendulum swing in accordance. with new leadership coming in. Because the First Amendment right, on a private platform, belongs to the platform-- that is, to the company. that is making the editorial curation decision. It doesn't belong to the user. And this is the thing that frustrates a lot of people. This is where you hear the complaints that the platform is. censoring me. In reality, the platform is deciding what to up-rank, what to down-rank, and how to set the policies. JON STEWART: And, by the way, if Elon Musk-- if somebody came.

after him for whatever it is-- downvoting something, or constricting their thing, or making those decisions, the Republicans would be the first one to say, hey, that's his platform. RENÉE DIRESTA: First Amendment right. Yeah. This was why they started to avoid regulation, to have these self-regulatory mechanisms-- that's. what all those councils and the periodic. outreach to academics, the periodic outreach. to government, that's what all of those things were. It was the, hey, you can weigh in, you can give us some feedback so. that it doesn't look like we're making.

these decisions unilaterally. And then, in a way, you could argue that, for a time, I think that they were trying to be good citizens, maybe. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. But you see them shift that back. JON STEWART: No, they've been unleashed. with what they consider animal spirits now, I would assume. Casey, what were you going to say? CASEY NEWTON: The thing that I just want people to remember. whenever they're looking at a feed, whether it is X, Instagram, anything that is ranked. in this way-- you are staring at something that has been.

engineered to hypnotize you. JON STEWART: Yes. CASEY NEWTON: You know what I mean? And what hypnotizes you? Conflict, outrage, weird stuff, sexy stuff, stuff that's going to produce a really. strong emotional response. So what I try to train myself to do, and I struggle with this too, is, like, when I see something online that. makes me feel a very strong emotion, that is the moment that I'm trying. to be the most skeptical. That is when I'm saying, wait? Who is posting this? Why are they posting it? What are they trying to get me to feel? And that is the kind of core tension. that you're just always going to experience when you're.

looking at an app like this. JON STEWART: So as we break it down there, the Republican focus is on this so-called Save. America Act, which is going to safeguard our elections. But our premise is that the real threat comes. from this algorithmic manipulation of our speech, combined with the unceasing amount of money that. can be thrown into the pot by these new Gilded.

Age whatever they are--. robber barons. How do we find our way? If we take the analogy of algorithms to processed food, is there an ingredients list of speech? How do we label that--. community notes, I think, does a very nice job. I actually agree with that. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yeah. JON STEWART: But I also think community notes is.

still weaponized politically. I would like to see a community note. for good faith and bad faith. I'd like to see some kind of good faith, bad faith, like the way they do in restaurants in New York City. If you see a C in the window, you are not eating their soup. What are some of-- are there tools that can be. in this arena for us, Casey? CASEY NEWTON: I mean, to me, I think the fast food. analogy is a really good one. But, like, the solution to McDonald's is not, like,

be really careful inside the McDonald's and always. try to order the salad. It's don't go to McDonald's too much. And I think we need a slow food movement for the media. The good news is I think we already have one. I think podcasts are actually a pillar. of this slow food movement. When you hear three people talking about something. for an hour, you're probably going to get a richer. and more nuanced picture. JON STEWART: You haven't listened to this podcast. much, have you? Because that is not my milieu.

[LAUGHTER]. CASEY NEWTON: Well, I think you're doing a lot of good. here, Jon. But, you know, newsletters are also part of this. Not every newsletter, but I think there's a lot of, like, really smart people that are just kind. of like sharing their thoughts in this, like, very long form way. So I just think we need to find other strategies like that. The strategy is not, what will make Instagram better? Because I just think that's like probably a losing game. JON STEWART: Oh, that's interesting. Renée, do you agree that the idea of urging. them to become better citizens is not going to bear any fruit?

RENÉE DIRESTA: I think people have been trying. to do it for a decade now. JON STEWART: Sure. RENÉE DIRESTA: I feel a little bit discouraged on that. front too. I have kids. My oldest is 12. JON STEWART: Oh, you're right there, man. You're on the cusp. RENÉE DIRESTA: No, no, we really are. I feel like the cusp is like fourth grade now. It's like nine. JON STEWART: Oh, yeah. You're probably right. Yeah. RENÉE DIRESTA: He's not on social media, but you see these kids, they realize that, like, they can turn Google Docs into a chat app. because everybody's on a Chromebook. And then they can take a YouTube link, throw it into Google Docs, and it'll.

play embedded in Google Docs. And you're, like, fighting with your kid to not watch--. JON STEWART: They're so far ahead of us. RENÉE DIRESTA: You're, like, trying to make your kid, like, maybe you should pay attention. in math instead of watching some degenerate. streamer, right? JON STEWART: With kids, you always. feel like you're the Iranian regime and they're a VPN. And they're just getting--. RENÉE DIRESTA: Just get around everything. JON STEWART: Oh, they really do. RENÉE DIRESTA: But, I mean, the reason. I was thinking about this as Casey was talking, though, is you try to emphasize, like, make good decisions, right? Look, I can't keep him off it.

I can say, like, I'm not going to let you. have a social media account. I understand you're going to watch YouTube. Let me explain to you where some of this stuff comes from. Because a lot of what's really interesting with middle. schoolers is, like, meme culture for us in 2016. is so normalized. For them, a lot of the stuff, even, like, manosphere content, it's just so in the water at this point. It's just there. JON STEWART: Does that help it lose its effect, in some respects? Like, when it first comes out, it's novel.

Like, look, this is a relatively. new form of communication. And television and radio created disruption. Hell, the printing press created disruption. Everybody thinks, oh, the printing press happened, and that ushered in the Enlightenment. It really didn't. It ushered in 200 years of--. RENÉE DIRESTA: The 30 Years War. Yeah. JON STEWART: Killing people and burning witches. Are we in a period of adjustment. where your kids won't be affected in the same way. because it's native to them? RENÉE DIRESTA: I think they know that it's not good. I think that, for a lot of them,

they don't want social media. They're not looking for it. I used to hear this-- we would have high school students. over to Stanford, actually, a fair bit, and there would actually be a lot of high school students. who were like, I just don't want to be on it. I just don't see the point. I don't feel good about myself when I. spend hours scrolling a feed. And so I don't do it anymore. JON STEWART: Right. RENÉE DIRESTA: And so you do hear a little bit of that. And nothing is more humbling than having. your five-year-old say, is that a no mom? Or is that a "you're distracted on your phone no?". Right?

So, yeah--. JON STEWART: How is it that they. always see right through us? How is it? I hate that about them? RENÉE DIRESTA: Yeah. My kids are 12, 9, and 5. And the five-year-old recognizes that sometimes she's. getting a distraction response as opposed. to an actual response. And they will absolutely say it to you because they. recognize what's happening. And it's a very humbling moment, and you realize that you are just as addicted, probably. more so, than they are. So I think that, is it normalized?

I struggle with, knowing what I know--. my job is to look at the worst stuff on the internet--. but how do you keep your kids away from it? JON STEWART: Or at least keep it from penetrating? But I think-- and I want to ask you--. Casey, you talked about that relating. it to the slow food movement. And I've seen things like that, or farm to table--. and they always become New York Times Style section columns, but they never actually become ubiquitous within the culture.

And I wonder, are we thinking about it the wrong way? Because, in some respects, this is a battle. And what I see a lot on the left. is that guy's giving misinformation, so we've got to stop that. Or we've got to take that guy out. And I always view it very differently, which is, no, you fight information with information. And you have to fight it as tenaciously. I've been locked in battles with--.

I remember when we were trying to do PACT Act for--. it was a burn pit bill for veterans. You would think, who's going to be against that? But there was a very strong group. of weaponized right wing influencers. who spread misinformation about that bill. And we could have gone the route of this--. you've got to take this down. You've got to put a community note. But what we did is we went right at them.

as tenaciously as we could. And is there a model in that? It's been shocking to me that it's malpractice, in terms of social media companies, that nobody has created a viable competitor yet. for Twitter. Like, that blows my mind. CASEY NEWTON: And people are trying. Like, Bluesky is trying. Threads is trying. I think these networks get really entrenched. and they're difficult to disrupt. You know, what you just said, it made me think of, like,

what Gavin Newsom is doing-- like, sort of, like, playing this--. JON STEWART: I thought that's been very effective. CASEY NEWTON: Yeah. I mean, I think people have, like, a lot of different feelings about it. But you cannot deny that the guy is, like, down in the trenches. And he's fighting the fight on the terms. that Trump has created. And I do think it is worth someone doing. that to see what happens. RENÉE DIRESTA: I wrote this article, I think it was--. I wrote it-- actually, I mean, candidly, it. was after Stanford shut down the internet observatory. and I was pissed. But it was an article basically saying,

like, you have to fight. I mean, per the point, right? There was such a capitulation on that front. What happened when Stephen Miller sued us. and all the subpoenas came down? JON STEWART: Oh, yeah. I forgot about that. That's good. In all the hubbub, I forgot that the undead has. filed a lawsuit against Renée. Talk to us a little bit about what, why? RENÉE DIRESTA: It's pending litigation. So I can't go into the details. But, I mean, the basics I can cover, which, basically, it's the same lawsuit. It alleges that we-- so they found.

a plaintiff, somebody we'd never heard of, never talked about. But she lives in that district, so that's how. they get their judge, right? But they allege that in our communication. with the platforms, when we said, for example, Gateway Pundit wrote a false story, or if we tagged it--. Gateway Pundit wrote a lot of false stories. in the 2020 election. I'm just going to say that again. JON STEWART: Kind of Gateway Pundit's thing. RENÉE DIRESTA: Yeah. But, as they said that was us acting as, like, basically, de facto agents of the government.

They alleged that DHS was secretly. puppet mastering us to do it. And so we were violating the civil rights of the people. that we talked about, or that we wrote about, or that we flagged, or that we talked to platforms about. I mean, this is going to get dismissed eventually. This is such a stupid theory that it makes no sense at all. But the point is to tie you up in legal bills for three years. and to shut you up. Because, again, like I said, I can't. really go into the details of. JON STEWART: It-- Just out of curiosity, though, I guarantee you Stephen Miller. and DHS are in touch with those platforms directly.

RENÉE DIRESTA: 100%. Yes, absolutely they are. They don't even hide it. JON STEWART: So wouldn't that be somewhat of a defense? RENÉE DIRESTA: Well, Jon, you're assuming that, like, hypocrisy matters. [LAUGHTER]. You have to have--. I mean, again, like you said before, eventually, the courts come down in the realm of reality. But in the meantime, the way that the institutions-- this. is the point I'm trying to make--. the way that the institutions decide whether to persist. is in the court of public opinion. Do they feel pressure?

Do they feel like you're going to constantly-- are they. going to be constantly sued? Are they going to be constantly harassed? Are people going to be constantly complaining. about the university? Is there going to be reputational harm? Is there going to be reputational damage? And that is what ultimately makes. a lot of these institutions decide. that the best thing for them to do. is to shut up and say nothing. It is the wrong approach, it has been the wrong approach. for several years now, but making them understand that you. have to fight in the arena is a foundationally different shift, because they're hearing from their PR people,

who were trained in the 1990s era of crisis comms, or comms, that you shut up and you. let the media cycle move past. And they don't understand that there's no such thing as, like, the media cycle in the age of social media. when they can just kick it back up. again once they've made you a character. in a cinematic universe. JON STEWART: And there's no such thing. as a frictionless existence-- this idea that they think. if they just make themselves small enough, they can live in a frictionless existence is ridiculous. Because what you end up making yourself is a tasteless pablum, so inoffensive that it serves no one and does nothing.

Will the government-- I still don't understand--. and, Casey, maybe you have a sense of this--. how is it that-- and I don't think. there's any question that this is a bioengineered product that. is designed to escape whatever it is that is. self-protective within the human brain, to continue--. it is monetizing your attention and your life.

They care about nothing. It is a parasite. While it can be viable and good, it is nefarious in its intent and monetizing its intent. How the hell does a product that powerful, that dangerous. go utterly unregulated for any of its effects? And how do these companies escape any liability? CASEY NEWTON: It's a great question. And I think there has been a lot of progress lately,

actually, in trying to shift that discussion. I would say that, prior to 2020, we didn't really think of these products in the same way. that you would think about other regulated goods. like alcohol or tobacco. And people tried to pressure them. to make different sort of content moderation decisions. And, well, maybe if the algorithm. worked a little bit differently, we would all be happy again. But you fast forward to today, and what people are saying. is, like, actually your product is just broken.

Actually, it's not safe for anyone. to use if they're under 16. It's probably not safe for us either, but let's at least start with the children. And so you look around the world, and country after country is now saying, we're actually just going to ban. this stuff until you turn 16. Because, again, while it's probably, like, very bad. for adults, we are increasingly confident that it's. bad for children. And so I just think that's, like, the start. And maybe, like, this is just cope, but part of me. wants to think that in the same way. that like banning children from smoking eventually led. a lot of adults to stop smoking, too,

I wonder if we're not going to see something. similar for social media. JON STEWART: Right. No, I think that's quite possible. Is there a warning label, Renée, that we. could possibly come up with? This is your brain on Facebook. CASEY NEWTON: The surgeon general advocated for that. RENÉE DIRESTA: This was actually. an idea that was making the rounds for a while, because, again, like, what are the--. I feel like Center for Humane Tech. had some ideas around, like, switching. your phone to grayscale so it was less appealing. A lot of these--. [LAUGHTER]. I think there's actually studies that. show that people-- there's actually.

some scientific basis to that. Yeah, like, it's just less appealing. JON STEWART: Renée, I switched my face to grayscale, and it's clearly less appealing. [LAUGHTER]. RENÉE DIRESTA: Well, I mean--. JON STEWART: Well, guys, I very much appreciate. you taking the time. This has been absolutely fascinating and really. helpful in understanding it. Renée DiResta, Associate Research Professor. at Georgetown McCourt School of Public Policy, and also the author of Invisible Rulers--. The People Who Turn Laws Into Reality.

And Casey Newton, he's got Platformer and of, course, co-host of Hard Fork. So, guys, thank you so much for being here. CASEY NEWTON: Thank you, Jon. It's great to be here. RENÉE DIRESTA: Thank you for having us. JON STEWART: Cool. Bye bye. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Man, I enjoy a nice expert panel. Those guys know their shit. I must apologize to all of you. Our wonderful panel, Lauren Walker, Brittany Mehmedovic, Gillian Spear, will not be joining me today. We had what can only be described. as a technical malfunction, which, as many of you know,

is also my nickname. So we weren't quite able to work it all through, I'm going to say the cloud, even though I know I'm. pulling that out of my ass. But really appreciate it. And they will obviously be back next week. And I want to shout them out again because of their work, giving me the information to allow me to have. a cogent, coherent conversation with people. who are expert in their field.

So lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mehmedovic, producer Gillian Spear, video editor and engineer. Rob Vitolo, who did yeoman's work. even getting this thing done, audio editor. and engineer Nicole Boyce. I think they're pulling all nighters just to get. this thing out by Wednesday. And our executive producers Chris. McShane and Caity Gray-- we will see you guys next week. Bye bye. [MUSIC PLAYING]. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast.

It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy productions.