Invest In Your Health - Try CBD Today! Click Herehttps://www.naturalhempoil.comUse the Promo code Timpool for 10% off your purchaseMy Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnewsJack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter, recently tweeted out an article that he called a "good read." The article says that a second civil war is inevitable and that we must takes sides because "one side must win."The article explained that bipartisan efforts must stop and that California is going to lead the path forward for the rest of the USA.But California recently proposed a bill that would require social media companies in CA to control for "fake news." But fake news is ill defined and there is no way these companies can actually combat "shitposts." This law will just create restrictions on free speech and do nothing to prevent fake news.If the article posted by Jack is accurate then we could actually face similar bills at the federal level in the future.Make sure to subscribe for more travel, news, opinion, and documentary with Tim Pool everyday.Amazon Prime 30 day free trial - http://amzn.to/2sgiDqRMY GEARGoPro Karma - http://amzn.to/2qw10m4GoPro 6 - http://amzn.to/2CEK0z1DJI Mavic Drone - http://amzn.to/2lX9qgTZagg 12 AMP portable battery - http://amzn.to/2lXB6SxTASCAM Lavalier mic - http://amzn.to/2AwoIhI Canon HD XF 105 Camera - http://amzn.to/2m6v1o3Canon 5D MK III Camera - http://amzn.to/2CvFnnm360 Camera (VR) - http://amzn.to/2AxKu4RFOLLOW MEInstagram - http://instagram.com/TimcastTwitter - http://twitter.com/TimcastMinds - http://Minds.com/TimcastFacebook - http://facebook.com/TimcastnewsBitcoin Wallet: 13ha54MW2hYUS3q1jJhFyWdpNfdfMWtmhZSEND STUFF HERETim Pool330 Washington Street - PMB 517Hoboken, NJ 07030Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
If I were to ask you, do you think major tech companies are run by individuals who are heavily biased in favor of the left, what would you say?
I'm sure many, many people are going to say, of course they are.
From Twitter to Patreon and Google, many people on the right feel that there is a heavy bias against them coming from these tech companies.
An article was published a few months ago that talks about how there should not be bipartisan support for measures and that one side must win the second American Civil War.
Why this story is relevant is for two reasons.
One, it claims that California leads the rest of the country by about 15 years.
That if California takes an action or proposes a bill or something happens, 15 years later that will impact the rest of the country.
And also, Jack Dorsey, the CEO, called it a good read and tweeted it out.
This article says the left is going to win, and you shouldn't support conservatives, and conservatives are dying.
And Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, tweeted it out saying it was a good read.
Most people are going to take that to assume Jack Dorsey is heavily biased.
There's a lot of other reasons people assume that he's biased, but this is just another one.
But there's another story here.
A state senator in California recently proposed a bill that would require any company with a presence in California to hire fact-checkers if they're publishing information.
So a social media site would have to hire fact-checkers to make sure the stories weren't fake news.
And there's a problem with that.
Fake news isn't just things that are entirely made up, but heavily biased and slanted stories that can be taken out of context, or stories that are deliberately taken out of context to manipulate people.
If California really does lead the rest of the country by 15 years,
then suffice it to say, we might actually see federal legislation in the future
that wants to restrict speech.
Before we get started, let me give a shout out to today's sponsor who is helping make all of this possible.
Natural Hemp Oil produces their products from sustainable hemp that is non-GMO and cultivated without pesticides, herbicides, or chemical fertilizers.
They currently have a vast array of products such as flavor drops, beauty products, health and wellness products, anti-aging edibles, vaping products, and pet products.
CBD will not get you high or make you incoherent.
These are for health-related purposes only.
If you want to learn more, make sure you check out naturalhempoil.com.
You can visit naturalhempoil.com and use the promo code TIMPOOL to get 10% off your purchase.
First, we'll start with a simple tweet from Jack Dorsey.
He just said, Great read.
This tweet says, Interesting take.
Why there's no bipartisan way forward at this juncture in our history.
One side must win.
This story on Medium starts by saying, the next time you call for bipartisan cooperation in America and long for Republicans and Democrats to work side by side, stop it.
Remember the great lesson of California, the harbinger of America's political future, and realize that today, such bipartisan cooperation simply can't get done.
In this current period of American politics, at this juncture in our history, there's no way that a bipartisan path provides the way forward.
The way forward is on the path California blazed about 15 years ago.
This is no ordinary political moment.
Trump is not the reason.
This is no ordinary time.
He's simply the most obvious symptom that reminds us all of this each day.
The best way to describe politics in America today is to reframe it as closer to civil war.
Just the phrase civil war is harsh, and many people may cringe.
It brings up images of guns and death, the bodies of Union and Confederate soldiers.
America today is nowhere near the level of conflict, or at risk of such violence.
However, America today does exhibit some of the core elements that move a society from what normally is the process of working out political differences, toward the slippery slope of civil war.
We've seen it in many societies in many previous historical eras, including what happened in the United States in 1860.
I want to stop here and point out the irony of an article that states you shouldn't seek out bipartisan support and work together with the other side, but then claims there are other factors pushing us towards a civil war.
At the very least, this article is one of those factors.
When you tell people, don't seek out bipartisan efforts, you are exacerbating the political divide.
They go on, America's original civil war was not just fought to emancipate slaves for humanitarian reasons.
The conflict was really about the clash between two very different economic systems that were fundamentally at odds and ultimately could not coexist.
The Confederacy was based on an agrarian economy dependent on slaves.
The Union was based on a new kind of capitalist manufacturing economy dependent on free labor.
They tried to somehow coexist from the time of the founding era.
But by the middle of the 19th century, something had to give.
One side or the other had to win.
Two different political cultures, already at odds through different political ideologies, philosophies, and worldviews, can get trapped in a polarizing process that increasingly undermines compromise.
They see the world through different lenses, consume different media, and literally live in different places.
They start to misunderstand the other side, then start to misrepresent them, and eventually make them the enemy.
The opportunity for compromise is then lost.
This is where America is today.
The article goes on to talk about the history of California over the past 15 or so years and the collapse of the Republican Party in California.
It argues that you shouldn't support bipartisan effort because one side has to win and presumably he wants his side to win, or at least what he's arguing is that the Republicans lost in California.
And if they're leading the way, then the Republicans will likely lose in the U.S.
federally as well.
The final battle begins in 2018.
America today has many parallels to America in the 1850s or America in the 1930s.
Both of those decades ended with one side definitively winning, forming a political supermajority that restructured systems going forward to solve our problems once and for all.
In the 1850s, we fought the Civil War, and the Republican Party won and then dominated American politics for 50 years.
In the 1930s, the Democratic Party won and dominated American politics for roughly the same amount of time.
California, as usual, resolved it early.
The Democrats won, the Republicans lost, the conservative way forward lost, the progressive way forward began.
As we've laid out in this series, California is the future, always about 15 years ahead of the rest of the country.
That means that America, starting in 2018, is going to resolve it too.
Personally, I find it alarming when anyone thinks homogenizing ideas is a good thing.
We want a diverse set of ideas.
We want people to speak freely and to communicate, and we want the bad ideas to go away while the best ideas slowly begin to move forward.
But the idea that one political faction has the best ideas over the other is just not true.
It's more like we need both sides to choose the best of their worlds and bring them together.
A bill in the California State Senate was recently proposed by Senator Richard Pan.
And it reads, the bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, internet website with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its website.
The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.
It defines social media as an electronic service or account
or electronic content including but not limited to videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts,
instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts
or internet website profiles or locations.
But this all sort of wraps back to Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, one of the most influential sites on
the planet.
A website that we use in the U.S.
for political discourse.
And Jack is seen as being heavily in favor of the left.
Tweeting on an article he called a good read that said the left is going to win and that you shouldn't support bipartisan efforts.
Next, we have a bill being proposed that says these websites should have to have fact-checkers.
One of the problems with an idea of fact-checking a story is that it always falls down to someone's personal bias.
It's almost impossible to be fair.
I don't think I'm fair all the time.
I just try to do my best to be fair.
But most people aren't going to do that.
They're going to tell the story the way they see it.
And if most people are living in bubbles where they think you shouldn't have bipartisan support, Well, then they're going to heavily favor the left.
And if Twitter, the CEO of Twitter, were to hire fact-checkers, who do you think he would support?
He would likely support more people who believed in the article I just showed you.
That the left is going to win, that the left should win, and that in the next 15 years, the U.S.
will become a supermajority of Democrats.
So, will this bill pass in California?
Personally, I don't think so, but I'm no expert, so maybe it will.
And what does that mean?
Does this mean that semi-private platforms will also have to fact-check every single post published?
What if your Twitter account is protected and no one can see your tweets?
Would Twitter still be required to hire a fact-checker to make sure your tweet is factual?
And how would they deal with the billions of posts that go through Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube every day?
If YouTube can't actually deal with Fake news stories and things that actually violate their terms of service as opposed to just certain political speech.
How are they going to hire fact-checkers to make that happen?
This bill seems very ill-conceived and it's what I often refer to as a Chinese finger trap problem.
That the simple solution is not the correct one.
Certainly it feels like if you just pull your fingers out, you're gonna break free.
But you actually need to do something counterintuitive and push in.
And that's one of the problems with these bills.
Certainly when we say that there's a fake news problem, the simple solution is, I know, let's make everyone have to hire fact-checkers.
But that literally makes no sense.
How many fact-checkers would you have to hire?
Would every Twitter account have to be fact-checked for every single tweet?
Some of the biggest breaking news stories have been just tweets.
With no link, no other article to accompany that, and people share the tweet.
They embed the tweet in news stories.
The news actually breaks through Twitter, through YouTube, through Facebook.
So how would something like this work?
And the bigger danger is, if these companies are heavily biased, they will likely have fact-checkers who are also biased, as we saw with Facebook.
In August of 2016, Facebook announced they would no longer employ humans to write descriptions for items in its trending section, which attracted controversy over allegations of political bias.
From Gizmodo, former Facebook workers, we routinely suppressed conservative news.
Facebook workers routinely suppressed stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network's influential trending news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project.
The individual says that workers prevented stories about right-wing CPAC gathering Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site's users.
Facebook fired them all.
This is what happens.
I want to make another point about the idea of fake news, because stories that can be true can also be fake news.
Sounds confusing, right?
But the example I always give is something that I like to talk about called hydroxychloroquine.
Hydroxic acid will kill you if you inhale it.
It accelerates the corrosion of metals.
It contributes to the greenhouse effect.
It has been found in tumors.
It is a very dangerous chemical that's responsible for many deaths every year.
And what if I were to tell you that this chemical was in your plumbing?
That you were ingesting it every day?
That sounds pretty scary.
It sounds scary when you're told there's a dangerous chemical that you are ingesting.
It makes you want to take action.
Maybe the city should do something.
Maybe we should allocate tax funding to fix this problem.
And here's the truth.
Hydroxic acid just means water.
It's just a different way to say water.
Hydroxic acid.
This is an old hoax.
It's also known as the dihydrogen monoxide hoax, where you use an unfamiliar term to scare people.
But everything I said was true.
Would a fact checker read that story and say it's true?
Would they have to put a misleading tag on it?
How would that work?
What happens when news organizations use a subject that you are not entirely familiar with?
And they do it in such a way that you think it sounds much scarier than it really is?
And there's no one there who knows what they're talking about.
Certainly, when I say hydroxic acid is water, you all know water is safe.
Water is not just safe, it's essential.
You die without water!
But what if we were talking about something extremely serious like the war in Syria?
You could frame certain incidents in certain ways to scare people into supporting one side or the other, and to me, that is also fake news.
How would a fact checker deal with that if everything in the story was true?
Our problem with fake news isn't simple, and there's not going to be a simple solution.
This California state senator trying to propose fact-checkers for social media has no idea what he's doing and no idea what he's talking about because, as I already mentioned, there's no way you can fact-check every single tweet and every single YouTube video.
It is just not possible.
Perhaps he's just saying they should try.
That there should be an effort on their part.
And I certainly think they should try.
But we've seen what happened with Facebook when they do try.
So maybe that's not the solution either.
Honestly, I don't know what the solution is.
But maybe you all have ideas.
So comment below and let me know what you think.
There's a few different things to address here.
We have the story shared by the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, talking about the current or coming Second American Civil War.
And this article advocates for one side to win.
What does that say about Jack Dorsey?
Do you feel like he's biased?
Hey, maybe it is a good read.
It doesn't mean he agrees with it.
Simply because he tweeted it out doesn't mean he thinks it's correct.
But it's always important to read things that counter your own personal perspective.
So it's entirely possible he's not being biased and he's just saying, hey look, Whether you agree or disagree, you should check this out.
Personally, I did find the article fascinating.
I also find it a bit paradoxical, arguing that there are factors pushing us towards a civil war, and the article itself is telling us not to pursue bipartisan efforts, but what do you think about this?
And how do you feel about the bill proposal in California that would seek to force companies to hire fact-checkers?
To determine whether or not news stories are real or fake.
Let me know what you think in the comments below and we will keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
Stay tuned.
New videos every day at 4pm.
As the weather slowly gets warmer, we are looking to more travel stories.
So getting on the ground and actually bringing some real reporting from around the world.
